SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (377456)4/10/2008 2:28:35 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577829
 
None of which refutes what I said.

And explain why we are supporting a government that will be best friends with our worst enemy? You like Iran? We are giving them exactly what they want.



To: i-node who wrote (377456)4/10/2008 2:52:56 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577829
 
I dare you to contradict General Odom's assessment....after all, he is one of your own.

General William Odom on Iraq: Immediate Withdrawal the Only Option that Makes Sense

By General William Odom, AlterNet. Posted April 7, 2008.
alternet.org

"Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards."

Below is the testimony of General William Odom, a retired U.S. Army 3-star general and former Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq.

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.

I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.

Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant inseveral other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.

More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.

No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.

Also disturbing is Turkey's military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.

Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.

Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran.

Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government's troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation.

Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses.

This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki's military actions in Basra and Baghdad, indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization. He describes the process as building the state from the bottom up.

I challenge you to press the administration's witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of feudal Europe's transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo.

How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense.

To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration's witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy.

The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran's policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.

No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president's policy has reinforced Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.

Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.

A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don't make sense.

First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills.

Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the "domino theory" in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume.

Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran's regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies' interest.

I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq.

Thanks for this opportunity to testify today.



To: i-node who wrote (377456)4/10/2008 2:56:46 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577829
 
David Brock, Dems plan $40M hit on McCain Ben Smith
Thu Apr 10, 5:49 AM ET


Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock, the former investigative reporter who first gained fame in the 1990s as a right-wing, anti-Clinton journalist.

The planned campaign is the product of a shakeup in the top ranks of the struggling independent Democratic groups. Brock, now best known as the ex-conservative founder of the liberal group Media Matters, last month quietly assumed the chairmanship of what's expected to be the main vehicle for independent Democratic attacks on McCain, now called Progressive Media USA.

The move comes after the groups that had been expected to spearhead attacks on McCain — the Fund for America and Progressive Media USA's previous incarnation, the Campaign to Defend America — failed to raise the money needed to dent McCain's armor.

"We're a little behind where we need to be," he said.

But after a dinner Tuesday night at the Manhattan apartment of liberal megadonor George Soros, at which Brock and consultant Paul Begala laid out the group's plans, Brock said his group now has commitments worth $7.5 million — almost twice what the Fund for America is expected to report raising in the first quarter of this year. He said the group would begin running ads before it meets its $40 million goal.

Brock suggested that the group could do the work of a press corps that, he says, has "fallen down on the job" when it comes to McCain.

"A void that might be filled, while the Democrats fight it, out by the press is not going to be filled, because the press is in love with John McCain," Brock said in an interview at the Regency Hotel in Manhattan. "It's what McCain is allowed to say without being challenged by facts that will show him to have said something different in the past."

Brock's most recent book is called "Free Ride: John McCain and the Media."

Brock wouldn't detail Progressive Media USA's strategy, and stressed that — as required by his group's nonprofit status — the spending would be on a mix of direct electoral politics and issue ads with no direct connection to the race.

But he said he's scrambling to raise "a few million" dollars more this month to get ads on the air — ads which have already been drafted for the group by a number of Democratic consulting firms.

"There's a sense of urgency, and people want to go, and we want to go, and the question is bringing the money in to say we're ready to go," he said.

Brock's remarkable emergence as a leader of the Democratic Party's shadow campaign efforts marks a milestone in a long personal journey that began in the early 1990s with the notoriety he gained from magazine stories written for The American Spectator, a conservative monthly. Among his controversial articles was one alleging that Bill Clinton had used Arkansas state troopers to facilitate his philandering, a piece that set the wheels in motion for Paula Jones to file suit against Clinton for sexual harassment. In 1993, Brock authored "The Real Anita Hill," a critical book about the woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment.

Brock later apologized to Clinton in a public letter and broke publicly with the conservative movement. He wrote about his disillusionment in his 2002 memoir "Blinded by the Right," and Hillary Rodham Clinton later helped him establish Media Matters, which criticizes reporters for alleged right-wing "misinformation."

Brock is now seen in political circles as closer to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign than to Sen. Barack Obama's, but Brock said he has already met with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a close Obama ally.

"This is a unity play," Brock said.

Donors had begun to complain that while the Campaign to Defend America had built a large organization — it has, Brock said, 29 staffers, most devoted to "research" — it had failed to show it could mount a large-scale media campaign.

The Campaign to Defend America aired a single ad called "McSame" in small markets in Ohio and Pennsylvania and ran polls after it aired to test its impact.



The ad features President Bush's head cut and pasted onto McCain's shoulders, as a narrator intones that their policies on a range of issues are "McSame."

"We need a new direction, not the McSame old thing," the narrator concludes.

"It tested off-the-charts well," said Brock, referring to his group's research into viewers' reactions to the ad.

Brock's words, and his unpaid chairmanship, reflect alarm that Democrats are missing an opportunity to define McCain, even as the presumptive nominee tours the country telling his own story. The plan, conceived last fall, had been for the Fund for America to raise $100 million from wealthy Democrats, and to transfer it to groups including the Campaign to Defend America and America Votes, a Soros-backed independent group aimed at strengthening Democrats' field organizing.

But Fund for America has been unable to raise the money, and Campaign to Defend America had agreed not to raise its own money. Last Thursday, Brock said, he informed an official of the fund that his group would begin directly raising its own funds, a move that puts the usefulness of the Fund for America in question.

"We are as committed at Progressive Media USA to having the money we need to fully execute our mission as we are to seeing to it that America Votes has the money to execute its mission," he said, a formulation that appeared pointedly to exclude the Fund for America, which had been established as a kind of parent organization.

Brock added that he was open to continue to raise money jointly with the Fund for America — if the distribution is "equitable."

The organizational shakeup also reflects a move away from MoveOn.org, the influential activist group that relies on money from small donors, and back toward the Democratic establishment. Brock's arrival means that Tom Matzzie, a former MoveOn staffer who remains the secretary of Progressive Media USA, is no longer the group's most visible official. A founder of MoveOn, Wes Boyd, also left the group's board, and a former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Susan McCue, joined as the group's treasurer.

Brock said that with the help of a new legal team, the group had solved a key question connected to its financing. Incorporated as a 501(c)4 nonprofit, the group has the advantage of not being required to disclose its donors. But it is barred by law from taking money from unions, a major source of funds for progressive causes. Brock said he was creating a linked 527 group, Progressive Media Action, which would accept — and disclose — union and other funds.

Though donors and operatives say they expect the group's highest profile work to be attacks against McCain, the new Democratic groups were conceived to build an infrastructure lasting beyond this election, and Brock — whose Media Matters is on the vanguard of the well-funded new liberal establishment — said Progressive Media USA would live beyond this year's election.

Brock said Los Angeles real estate magnate Steve Bing was among a group of donors backing his group's long-term mission — despite many Democrats' expectations that Bing and other Clinton supporters would only contribute if Clinton is the nominee. Soros, the group's key backer, supports Obama, and hosted a key, early gathering of the senator's wealthy New York supporters.

Brock said the group would be a ready-made vehicle to conduct media campaigns backing liberal causes on short notice, an analog to the partisan conservative message machine, giving liberals "the ability to create a real echo chamber."

He recalled that in 2004, his fledgling group had debunked "90 percent" of the content of an advertisement Swift Boat Veterans' for Truth that challenged Sen. John Kerry's war record — but had no way to distribute the information.

"Progressive Media USA will be a permanent part of progressive media infrastructure," he said.

But while the group's long-term goals may be broader, Brock says his commitment to the group is on a different timetable.

"I've committed to doing this through November," he said.