Cogressman "fed up" with war

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1353 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:15 am:        U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, dean of the state's congressional delegation and an avowedly strong supporter of President Bush, says it's time for the United States to consider withdrawing from war-ravaged Iraq. Coble, a Republican from Greensboro, is one of the first members of Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- to say publicly that the United States should consider a pullout. The 10-term congressman, head of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said he is "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or 10 of our young men and women in Iraq." [...] Coble said he arrived at his position only after many months of searching in vain for evidence that the Bush administration had a post-invasion strategy to deal with the transition to Iraqi self-government.   themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1354 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:18 am:        Here's the link: http://www.news-record.com/news/local/cobleiraq_010905.htm   Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1096 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 1:10 pm:        The most telling part of his statement: But Coble voted to grant Bush the sweeping war-making powers believing that the administration had a "post-invasion strategy." Apparently, there was none, he said. "If there was, I wish someone would tell me what it is or show it to me," he said. "I'd like to see it." Coble said that if he had known there was no post-invasion strategy at the time of the vote on the war-powers resolution he would have "insisted that we keep our powder dry while we do some probing and planning." Coble said he simply assumed that the administration had a post-invasion plan. "There was never any question that we could whip their butt," he said. "The question was what were we going to do after that. "Obviously, somebody was asleep at the planning table." Yup, and we just reelected that somebody.   jjkatz Citizen Username: Jjkatz Post Number: 515 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 1:54 pm:        Withdrawing now would be a bigger mistake than going in in the first place was. We made this mess; we can't just shrug, say "sorry" and leave. We have to make it right; unfortunately we just reelected the person least capable of doing that, and that imbecile is standing by his Secretary of Defense, whose advice he values so highly {sigh}. Actually I don't mean "we" reelected him. I sure didn't vote for him, either time.   Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 1654 Registered: 6-2003 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 1:54 pm:        Mark-Whaddaya mean WE??????.   Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 1098 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 1:59 pm:        Uke: Couldn't resist knowing your blood pressure would rise when you saw that one!   Spare_o Citizen Username: Spare_o Post Number: 173 Registered: 9-2003 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 2:35 pm:        I agree that a pull-out would be a big mistake. I say this with a brother in Iraq and his family in disarray as a result. IMO, we can't get there (peace, or at least a country with a government that most its citizens respect) from here (near, if not outright, anarchy) given the current (American) administration and their paradigm of war and peace.   Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7181 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 2:50 pm:        I think a lot of us thought that Bush/Cheney had a plan. In actual fact they had the pipedream that Ashear outlines via Wolfowitz in another thread. Still, we can't just go home at this point, although there is an article in the NY Times today talking about possible exit scenarios including the new Shia dominated government that will be formed after the elections asking us to leave.   Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 211 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 1:03 am:        I disagree that the Bush administration has no plan for post-invasion Iraq. It's always had a plan. The problem is that the plan involves the economic subjugation of Iraq by any means necessary, including the mass killing of civilians. Johns Hopkins Medical School estimates that Iraqi civilian deaths due to US war policy are already more than 100,000. The newly-updated version of the Bush plan for Iraq comes in two parts, as follows: (1) Unleash "death squads" following the El Salvador model to target suspected Iraqi insurgents and their suspected supporters in the civilian population. (from the current issue of Newsweek) - - - - - (Iraqi intelligence chief) Shahwani also said that the U.S. occupation has failed to crack the problem of broad support for the insurgency. The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." He said most Iraqi people do not actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help, but at the same time they won’t turn them in. One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/ - - - - - - - (2) Privatize the Iraqi oil industry with priority access to US oil companies. Inter Press Service US to Take Bigger Bite of Iraq's Economic Pie 'Helping' Govt Cut Social Subsidies, Give US Corporations Full Access to Iraqi Oil by Emad Mekay Published on Friday, December 24, 2004 (Excerpts) WASHINGTON - The United States is helping the interim Iraqi government continue to make major economic changes, including cuts to social subsidies, full access for U.S. companies to the nation's oil reserves and reconsideration of oil deals that the previous regime signed with France and Russia. During a visit here this week, officials of the U.S.-backed administration detailed some of the economic moves planned for Iraq, many of them appearing to give U.S. corporations greater reach into the occupied nation's economy. For example, the current leadership is looking at privatizing the Iraqi National Oil Company, said Finance Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi. The government, which is supposed to be replaced after elections scheduled for January, will also pass a new law that will further open Iraq's huge oil reserves to foreign companies. U.S. firms are expected to gain the lion's share of access in a process estimated to be worth billions of dollars. "So I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprises, certainly to oil companies," Abdel Mahdi said at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on Tuesday. Abdel Hadi, formerly a member of the exile Iraqi opposition, said the interim government will also reconsider deals signed between French and Russians oil firms and the regime of former President Saddam Hussein. It is still not clear whether those contracts will be cancelled altogether or just reduced ..... Since it invaded Iraq, the United States has worked to reshape the Arab nation in its image. All the economic programs., including the most liberal tax scheme in the Middle East and nearly non-existent trade tariffs, instituted by the CPA are being continued by the interim government. Washington has installed hundreds of U.S. economic advisors in all Iraqi government ministries, who have a decisive say on most economic decisions. It has also sponsored the bulk of the nation's economic changes, based on a neo-liberal model that emphasizes privatization of government entities and cuts to social spending. One major move the country is inching towards under U.S. guardianship, which was discussed this week, is a rollback of Iraq's huge subsidies system, which may have kept millions of Iraqis from starvation under U.S. and UK-backed sanctions imposed by the United Nations after the 1991 Gulf War. The sanctions lasted for 12 years. A study by the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) and Iraq's Ministry of Health found that 500,000 more Iraqi children died under sanctions, from 1991 to 1998, than would have otherwise perished, but they stressed that not all the deaths could be directly blamed on the provisions. It is believed that many more Iraqis would have died if not for a strong subsidies system that gave food rations to Iraqi families. Under its October agreement with the IMF, Baghdad's interim leaders agreed to cut the support, among many other conditions. Officials defended the move during their Washington visit. "I think this is a necessity for the Iraqi economy," Abdel Mahdi said. "We really need to work on our subsidy side. Subsidies are taking almost 60 percent of our budget. So this is something we have to work on … Other measures really were a real necessity for the Iraqi economy before (becoming) conditions asked by the IMF." Iraqi officials say the country's unemployment rate is now 27 percent, but some groups have estimated it to be as high as 50 percent. The IMF has been notorious for imposing conditions that its economists say are necessary to slash nation's budget deficits. Development groups and anti-poverty campaigners argue those measures favor corporations in the most industrialized nations while harming the poor and middle class in borrowing countries. The program with Iraq appears to be no different. Called the "enhanced post-conflict facility," the IMF program bestows 420 million dollars in loans to the Iraqi government as a first step, promising more in 2005 if the nation meets more demanding conditions. The IMF, which is dominated by the United States and other rich nations, has said it is willing to loan Iraq 2.5-4.3 billion dollars over three years now that an internationally recognized government is in place in the nation. Washington also brokered talks that began two weeks ago to make Iraq a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). During this week's meeting of the JEC, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) said it will focus on lending for Iraq's agricultural sector, which will include over 100 demonstration projects throughout the country to reinvigorate crops and to boost the industry, with the help of U.S. companies. The United States Treasury and USAID also said they will back a housing fund in Iraq, which will start lending in January 2005 and is designed to add 30,000 new residential units in and around Baghdad during the year. Many U.S. companies will be involved. Washington is also pushing lending programs. to Iraq through the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, all of which would produce more opportunities for U.S. firms in the occupied nation. Copyright 2004 IPS - Inter Press Service http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1224-05.htm   claire Citizen Username: Claire Post Number: 96 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 1:33 pm:        Paul, I shudder to think that you are correct. How can we who value human life, prevent this scenario from being realized? - And why is this information not published in the New York Times?   Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 40 Registered: 2-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 5:38 pm:        Is the New York Times the only paper around? It seems as if every discussion on this board evolves around something written in this paper. I guess that's the reason the rest of the country is so backwards because we don't get to read this fine paper everyday.   overtaxdalready Citizen Username: Overtaxdalready Post Number: 323 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 5:57 pm:        Claire...no need to shudder. He's not correct.   themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 1358 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 6:11 pm:        "Is the New York Times the only paper around? It seems as if every discussion on this board evolves around something written in this paper. I guess that's the reason the rest of the country is so backwards because we don't get to read this fine paper everyday." So read it online. www.nytimes.com.   ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3219 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 6:40 pm:        Don't feel in the dark, southerner, it's sold nationally in regional editions just for folks like you!   Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 41 Registered: 2-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:48 pm:        That's okay. I'll just continue to checkout MOL since all the articles are put on this site and the reading is a lot funnier. I'm hoping you guys can filter out the Blair type stories.   Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 212 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 2:28 am:        Claire, In my opinion, the most effective action that citizens of Maplewood and South Orange can take is to urge our Democratic Senators and Congressmen to: speak out against the war in Iraq and work for an international solution -- led by the United Nations -- that would enable a rapid return of US soldiers. South Mountain Peace Action has begun circulating a petition along these lines, urging Sens. Lautenberg and Corzine and Reps. Payne and Pascrell to speak out and work for an international, UN-based end to the war. This approach is supported by retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former National Security Advisor under Pres. Reagan. http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=7006 If you would like to sign South Mountain Peace Action's petition, call or email me at 973-763-9493 or paul4sure@aol.com. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle to ending the war in Iraq is the silence and passive acquiescence of the Democrats. This has been the case since the War Powers Resolution of 2002, when the Democrats, in the words of Senator Robert Byrd, responded to Bush administration pressures like "whipped dogs in fear of their master." Regarding the NY Times's omission (thus far) of the Newsweek expose of the Bush administration's consideration of the El Salvador death squad option in Iraq -- this would not be the first time the Times has protected the Administration at a critical juncture. The failure of the NY Times to report on this latest Newsweek expose is reminiscent of the failure of the Times, prior to the invasion of Iraq, to report on the Newsweek article on the testimony of the late Iraqi Gen. Hussein Kamal, who defected from Iraq in the mid 1990s and told the CIA that all Iraqi WMDs had been destroyed -- under his supervision. Why did the Times hide this information from its readers? In my view, the answer is that the New York Times regards itself as the "loyal opposition" -- with much more emphasis on "loyal" than on "opposition." There is also a fair amount of the "whipped dog" mentality among editors and reporters -- and the publisher -- at the Times. Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs has written an excellent article on how the NY Times and other major media have buried the story of the Johns Hopkins Medical School survey that concluded that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by the Bush administration war policy. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/iraqs_silent_dead.php   Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 213 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 2:09 am:        Rep. Coble's suggestion that the US consider withdrawing from Iraq has been formalized in a letter to Pres. Bush from Rep. Lynn Woolsey, co-signed by 15 other Representatives (see below). The letter calls for "immediate steps." This is not inconsistent with the South Mountain Peace Action petition to our Senators and Reps, which asks them to work for an international solution, led by the United Nations, to allow a rapid return of US soldiers. SMPA Petition LETTER MAPLEWOOD-SO.doc (22.0 k) The "immediate steps" could be, as suggested by retired Lt. Gen Odom (see below), that the US announces in the UN Security Council that we want to transfer responsibility for Iraq to the United Nations and that the Security Council should begin to organize peacekeeping forces to replace US troops as quickly as possible. Here is Woolsey's letter and Odom's statement: http://woolsey.house.gov/newsarticle.asp?RecordID=390 Woolsey Leads 15 Members in Asking President to Bring Troops Home January 12, 2005 PETALUMA, CA -- U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today led 15 Members of Congress in sending a letter to President Bush requesting that U.S. soldiers come home. Last week, she released a press statement calling for the return of U.S. troops from Iraq. The following is Rep. Woolsey’s letter to President Bush calling for him to take immediate steps towards a withdrawal from Iraq: January 12, 2005 The Honorable George W. Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President, We write to urge you to take immediate steps to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Although the initial invasion of Iraq may have occurred with minimal troop deaths, the subsequent occupation of the country has been anything but successful. Already more than 1,300 American troops have lost their lives since the war began on March 19, 2003. At least 10,000 American troops have been injured as well, and it is impossible to know exactly how many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. Despite the enormity of the war’s casualties, the Iraqi insurgency continues to grow stronger with every passing day. Iraq is no closer to becoming a stable democracy today than it was two years ago, as evidenced in recent weeks by the daily torrent of insurgent attacks on American forces and Iraqi civilian leaders. On January 4th, insurgents assassinated Ali Haidari, the governor of the Iraqi province that includes Baghdad. Just as devastating to the prospect of democracy, on December 30th, al-Jazeera satellite channel reported that all 700 electoral workers in Mosul quit their posts out of fear of being killed. Two weeks later, on January 10th, the entire 13-member electoral commission in the Anbar province, just west of Baghdad, resigned after being threatened by insurgents. If even Iraqi election officials fear for their lives, how can we possibly expect Iraqi citizens to feel safe going to the polls? How can we continue to put our own troops in harm’s way, the continued targets for Iraq’s thousands of malcontent insurgents? It has become clear that the existence of more than 130,000 American troops stationed on Iraqi soil is infuriating to the Iraqi people - especially because Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction and did not have a connection to the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 or to the al Qaeda terrorist organization. Indeed, the very presence of Americans in Iraq is a rallying point for dissatisfied people in the Arab world. The events of the last two years have not only intensified the rage of the extremist Muslim terrorists, they have also ignited civil hostilities in Iraq that have made Americans and Iraqis substantially less safe. Therefore, by removing our troops from the country, we will remove the main focus of the insurgents’ rage. Again, while it may be logistically difficult to immediately remove every American soldier, we urge you to take immediate action to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This is the only way to truly support our troops. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Rep. Lynn Woolsey Rep. Woolsey led the following Members of Congress is signing a letter to President Bush: Danny Davis (IL-07), Lane Evans (IL-17), Sam Farr (CA-17), Raul Grijalva (AZ-07), Alcee Hastings (FL-23), Maurice Hinchey (NY-22), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02), Dennis Kucinich (OH-10), Barbara Lee (CA-09), John Lewis (GA-05), Jim McDermott (WA-07), Grace Napolitano (CA-38), Major Owens (NY-11), Jose Serrano (NY-16) and Pete Stark (CA-13). ____________________________________ Council for Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=7006 [May 6, 2004 Interview] RETIRED LT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM: BUSH SHOULD ADMIT IRAQ IS A 'MESS' AND MAKE PLANS FOR A U.S. TROOP PULLOUT BY NEXT YEAR (Excerpt) First, I would go to the United Nations Security Council, eat a little humble pie, and point out to the Europeans that what happens in Iraq is as important to them as it is to us, maybe more so, and that we made a mess of it and we would like to have the United Nations endorse some sort of United Nations force there, a stability force. And while we will contribute to it for a time, we're beginning to bring our forces down, and clearly our 134,000 troops are not enough. So we hope the United Nations and the Security Council will be able to generate forces to back up ours and actually supplement them now.