West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Over and over again we've seen a pattern from Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-Big Oil). When Democrats in Congress tried to take steps to do what the American people want and bring the troops home from Iraq, Capito called it "playing politics." But when George W. Bush and his administration plays politics with the lives of troops, we hear only silence from her. So much for her "independence." The only conclusion that can be reached: Capito likes it when Bush plays politics with the lives of soldiers.
Capito on March 23, 2007 regarding a Congressional bill in support of timelines:
"By giving our enemy a date-certain timeline for withdrawal, we are simply asking them to duck into the shadows and wait for us to leave. Such timelines hog-tie the hands of our commanders in the field and essentially hand our enemy a roadmap to victory.
Yet the Bush administration reached a timeline agreement with the Iraqi government as reported on Aug. 22, 2008 that sets specific dates.
A deal between American and Iraqi officials was given fresh impetus by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's surprise visit to Baghdad on Thursday. Ms. Rice met with Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi leaders and confirmed that both sides saw the value in "aspirational timetables" to govern the continuing role, mission and size of American forces in Iraq.
She declined to discuss the timing, saying that to go into details of the talks "would be inappropriate at this time." Instead, she reiterated the consistent American position that decisions must be based on events, not timetables.
...
Iraqi officials were more forthcoming with their interpretation of the draft agreement. In an interview by telephone in Baghdad, Mohammad Hamoud, the chief Iraqi negotiator, said that the draft contained two dates: June 30, 2009, for the withdrawal of American forces from "cities and villages" and Dec. 31, 2011, for combat troops to leave the country altogether.
But we heard nothing from Capito after Bush and the Iraqis agreed, in Capito's own words, to giving the enemy "a roadmap to victory."
Capito also on March 23, 2007 expressed her "belief" that decisions should be left to the commanders on the ground:
"Congress has the power of the purse, but it should not micromanage this war or any war by making decisions best left for those on the battlefield. I want our troops to come home, but I want that decision to be made by our commanders who are basing their decisions on the conditions on the ground and in what is best for the security of our nation."
Yet we find out today from Bob Woodward's interviews with Bush and those very same commanders on the ground and in the Pentagon that Bush made decisions for political reasons. He took the decisions out of the hands of the commanders and made the country less safe.
At the Joint Chiefs of Staff in late November 2006, Gen. Peter Pace was facing every chairman's nightmare: a potential revolt of the other chiefs. Two months earlier, the JCS had convened a special team of colonels to recommend options for reversing the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Now, it appeared that the chiefs' and colonels' advice was being marginalized, if not ignored, by the White House.
During a JCS meeting with the colonels Nov. 20, Chairman Pace dropped a bomb: The White House was considering a "surge" of additional troops to quell the violence in Iraq. "Would it be a good idea?" Pace asked the group. "If so, what would you do with five more brigades?" That amounted to 20,000 to 30,000 more troops, depending on the number of support personnel.
Pace's question caught the chiefs and colonels off guard. The JCS hadn't recommended a surge, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander, was opposed to one of that magnitude. Where had this come from? Was it a serious option? Was it already a done deal?
Pace said he had another White House meeting in two days. "I want to be able to give the president a recommendation on what's doable," he said.
A rift had been growing between the country's military and civilian leadership, and in several JCS meetings that November, the chiefs' frustrations burst into the open. They had all but dismissed the surge option, worried that the armed forces were already stretched to the breaking point.
Where is Capito's criticism that she made before of politicians making decisions instead of the "commanders on the ground"?
It was so important to her that Capito made that point the basis of another statement on Nov. 14, 2007:
"This is yet another politically motivated resolution by the Majority that would undercut the decision-making power of commanders on the ground in Iraq," said Capito.
And yet that is what top Pentagon officials told Bob Woodward Bush did. Bush was motivated by politics at home to take away their decision to withdraw troops in order to have his escalation, his "surge" that they thought stretched the military to the breaking point and left the country with out a strategic reserve in the event of another crisis elsewhere:
The president was not listening to Casey's boss, Gen. John P. Abizaid at Central Command, anymore, either.
"Yeah, I know," the president said to Abizaid at a National Security Council session in December, "you're going to tell me you're against the surge."
Yes, Abizaid replied, and then presented his argument that U.S. forces needed to get out of Iraq in order to win.
"The U.S. presence helps to keep a lid on," Bush responded. There were other benefits. A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said. "And it'll help [Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki to get control of the situation. A heavier presence will buy time for his government."
The rest of Iraq wasn't as tenuous as Baghdad, Abizaid said. "But it's the capital city that looks chaotic," Bush said. "And when your capital city looks chaotic, it's hard to sustain your position, whether at home or abroad."
Clearly Bush was motivated by political reasons. Think that's just my interpretation:
Pace, Schoomaker and Casey found themselves badly out of sync with the White House in the fall of 2006, finally losing control of the war strategy altogether after the midterm elections. Schoomaker was outraged when he saw news coverage that retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former Army vice chief of staff, had briefed the president Dec. 11 about a new Iraq strategy being proposed by the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank.
"When does AEI start trumping the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this stuff?" Schoomaker asked at the next chiefs' meeting.
Yet where is Capito's criticism of Bush making "politically motivated" decisions that tied the hands of the commanders on the ground?
She made that criticism to justify her roadblocking of legislation to do EXACTLY what the generals were wanting to do - to pull the troops out to let the Iraqis take over. Yet we hear only silence from her now.
She's not independent. She's a coward who only does what Bush and the Republican leaders tell her to do. Capito knew the surge would not work. She said as much:
However, I have grave concerns regarding the call for increased American troop numbers in Iraq and am skeptical of this new plan's success. I believe the escalating sectarian violence in Iraq requires a political solution, not a military solution rooted in increased numbers of American troops.
Never forget this. Despite expressing those "concerns," Capito backed it anyway. She made the politically motivated decision to back Bush's politically motivated surge and then she accused Democrats and Republicans who opposed the surge and sought to bring the troops home of tying the hands of the commanders in the field, when that is exactly what she supported George W. Bush in doing.
How many died since she made the decision to back the president playing politics with the lives of soldiers instead of standing up and representing the American people?
Capito shouldn't be running for reelection. She should be hanging her head in shame.
We have a chance to elect a Congressional representative who wants to end the war in Iraq quickly and responsibly.
Here's Anne Barth's position:
We must focus on training the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security soon, set benchmarks for the Iraqi military, and give more emphasis to diplomatic strategies.
The war in Iraq has had a serious impact on our military, and our brave men and women are stretched thin by extended deployments. In Congress, I will work to strengthen America's national security and refocus on the terrorist threats around the globe that are currently ignored.
Look how closely it mirrors the exact view held by the commanders on the ground - the same ones whose views Capito said were so important and for years she ignored as Bush played politics and others paid the ultimate price.
We're coming up on 10 months - Sept. 14, 2007 - since Bush Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Country Club Capito issued a statement about the Iraq war. Since that time we've had the Iraqi government and the Bush administration endorse timelines, a move Capito called in the past as "aiding the enemy."
God bless her, who can remember the last time she mentioned Afghanistan? Like their collosal failure in Iraq, she and other Republicans would like you to forget about what is going on there.
While she has nothing to say on her rubberstamp support for an endless occupation in Iraq, I bet you if someone asked her about her golf game she'd talk endlessly about that. She's got her priorities. They're just not the same as the people in the district or for America.
Very ineffective Bush Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito on March 23, 2007:
"By giving our enemy a date-certain timeline for withdrawal, we are simply asking them to duck into the shadows and wait for us to leave. Such timelines hog-tie the hands of our commanders in the field and essentially hand our enemy a roadmap to victory."
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday the two countries have agreed that timetables should be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the battle-scarred country.
Appearing together at a news conference, Rice and Zebari mutually asserted that a final agreement between Washington and Baghdad on a withdrawal plan and accompanying strategic framework pact is close to fruition - but not there yet.
So is Capito going to accuse her president and Condi Rice and the Iraq administration of giving "the enemy a road-map to victory"?
Bush refused to admit reality last year (and many years before that). Capito went with him every step of the way. How many soldiers have died in Iraq in the past year and a half to get to the exact same position on timelines we could have been then?
That unleashed capitalism that Republicans love to tout:
The parents of an Iraq war veteran who died in his sleep in February while recovering from post-traumatic stress disorder have sued his insurance company after it refused to pay his life insurance.
In a lawsuit filed in Kanawha Circuit Court in July, Stan and Shirley White of Cross Lanes maintain that Houston-based American General Life Insurance Co. wrongly denied them the proceeds from their youngest son's life insurance policy.
Andrew White joined the Marine Corps Reserve in July 2003, and served as a combat engineer, disarming "improvised explosive devices" and patrolling areas near Iraq's border with Syria.
snip
In August 2007, White was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and began treatment at the Veterans Affairs clinic in Kanawha City.
Although he was taking prescription medicines at the time of his death, a toxicology screen performed as a part of an autopsy indicated normal levels of his medication, the lawsuit maintains. The autopsy found no disease, organ damage or health problems, the lawsuit states.
The state Medical Examiner's Office determined that White's death was accidental, according to the lawsuit.
However, when his parents submitted his death certificate to AIG, the insurer denied their claim.
If Republicans had their way, the insurance industry would not be subjected to regulations and victims of corporations would have no recourse in the courts.
The right-leaning Politico reports Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author Ron Suskind's new book contains even more bombshells than his previous two books on the administration:
A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.
Suskind writes in "The Way of the World," to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery - adamantly denied by the White House - was designed to portray a false link between Hussein's regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.
The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official "that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion."
George W. Bush wanted to be a "war president." Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, we invaded Iraq. If you want more lies and unnecessary wars, vote for John McCain and rubberstamps like Shelley Moore Capito. If you think the country deserves better, vote for Barack Obama.
West Virginia Army National Guard soldiers returned home. From the Charleston Gazette:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Spc. Denny Conley, 21, of Clay County had nearly 50 people welcoming him back to West Virginia after serving one year in Iraq with the West Virginia Army National Guard. He was excited to see his family, to drive his truck and smell the fresh, West Virginia air.
"It smells so good," he said as a breeze blew through a hangar at the Charleston Air National Guard base on Sunday. "It's been a long road home."
Approximately 150 West Virginia Army National Guard members returned home on Sunday to a welcome-back celebration. The 821st Engineer Company unit left about a year ago for deployment to Iraq.
BYRD VOTES AGAINST NEW COMMAND
FOR GENERAL PETRAEUS
Washington, DC - Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. today was one of only 2 Senators to vote against the nomination of General David Petraeus for the position of Commander, United States Central Command.
Byrd cited several reasons for his opposition to the nomination including the problem of continuity of command in Iraq; General Petraeus' unwillingness to address questions regarding other regional issues, such as in Afghanistan or Iran during his confirmation hearing; and on the issue of "stop loss" policy.
Byrd's statement on the nomination follows:
"I will vote 'no' on the nomination of General David H. Petraeus, the current commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, to be Commander, United States Central Command. I was unable to attend General Petraeus' nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee because I was managing the Supplemental Appropriations bill on the Senate floor, but I reviewed his testimony. I also posed a number of questions to General Petraeus after the hearing, and studied his responses."
"I appreciate General Petraeus' evident intelligence and his expertise and experience in Iraq. He wrote the book on countering insurgencies for the Army. He led the 101st Airborne Division during the V Corps drive to Baghdad in 2003. He established the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq in 2004. He has served as Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq since January 2007. He is the architect of the so-called 'surge strategy' that is even now being played out in Iraq."
"The 'surge strategy' is, in fact, one of the reasons why I believe General Petraeus should remain in his current position as Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq. Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Supreme Commander of the Allied Armies at the conclusion of World War I, observed in his 1920 book, Precepts and Judgments, that 'Great results in war are due to the commander. History is therefore right in making generals responsible for victories - in which case they are glorified; and for defeats - in which case they are disgraced.' The book is still out on the success or failure of the 'Surge Strategy.' General Petraeus should bring it to its conclusion before he is rewarded with a promotion."
"Continuity of command has been a problem in Iraq. Historically, when the United States has been involved in protracted conflicts, continuity of command has been maintained, be it Generals Eisenhower or MacArthur during World War II, or General Westmoreland during the Vietnam Conflict. General Petraeus has only been in his current position for eighteen months. Since President Bush believes that General Petraeus has done well in his current position, but he, Secretary Gates and General Petraeus have all described the security situation in Iraq as tenuous and reversible, it does not seem prudent to remove the mastermind behind the fragile successes that have been thus far achieved."
"Almost one year ago, on July 14, 2007, President Bush said in a radio address that, 'When America starts drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right - not because pollsters say it would be good politics.' That strategy does not work well, however, when you keep changing commanders. No new commander is going to come in and say 'reduce the troop levels on my watch,' because if, through their lack of familiarity with the conditions on the ground, they are wrong, that defeat would be their disgrace, just as Marshal Foch observed in 1920. So, a year after President Bush's statement, troop levels in Iraq are only just returning to something close to the 'pre-surge' levels of January 2007, when General Petraeus assumed command in Iraq. If, as General Petraeus has said, no further decisions on additional draw-downs will be made until sometime in the fall of 2008, a new commander will be called upon to make that decision."
"I am also concerned about General Petraeus' unwillingness to address questions regarding other regional issues, such as in Afghanistan or Iran, during his nomination hearing. Such evasiveness is not politic; it is troubling at a time when news reports suggest that the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan and that President Bush may be contemplating military action against Iran. Despite the press of his responsibilities in Iraq, General Petraeus must be concerned with how other operations or other political considerations in the same theater affect his options in Iraq. Equally, he must consider how political changes in his chain of command might affect his operations in Iraq, yet he will not admit even the existence of contingency plans for potential troop drawdowns that might be required by a new administration. If the competing priorities for manpower and materiel are to be sorted out at the CENTCOM level, it must be done with a clear understanding of what is possible and what is achievable, by someone willing to take a stand in support of all the men and women who will be called upon to carry out those priorities, not by someone who only salutes and carries out orders or by someone who knows only a fraction of the full situation. General Petraeus' career will be judged in large part by his role in the Iraq conflict; his reticence to address other regional issues raises questions about his willingness to devote the focus and the resources needed to address them properly."
"Finally, the repeated rotations of U.S. soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a toll on our military. Elements of the 4th Infantry Division, 1st Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division, and the 172nd Infantry Brigade are facing a third tour in Iraq and Afghanistan. Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are facing a fourth tour. With these repeated tours and the continuation of the 'stop loss' policy of forcibly retaining troops on active duty in order to maintain unit integrity necessitated by the strain this war is placing on our forces, it is difficult to understand why these troops should not be entitled to a continuity of command. The troops appreciate the effectiveness of working together as a unit when confronting danger on a regular basis. They deserve a leadership corps that, like them, functions together as a unit and stay together."
"More than 12,000 service members are currently affected by 'stop loss' orders that prohibit them from retiring or leaving the service even though they are eligible for retirement or their terms of enlistment have expired. That total includes 6,800 active-duty Army personnel, about 3,800 Army National Guard personnel and almost 1,500 Army Reservists who are not allowed to leave military service despite having fulfilled their service obligations."
"Lt. General James Thurman, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, has said that he hoped, but could not promise, that if the demand for troops stabilized at around 15 combat brigades, the use of the 'stop loss' could be ended by the end of Fiscal Year 2009, or the beginning of Fiscal Year 2010 - in September or October of 2009, more than a year from now. 'But demand exceeds supply right now,' he stated. For the 12,000 affected service members, and those who will become eligible to retire or leave service between now and late 2009, this amounts to another 18 months of forced conscription. Until the practice of 'stop loss' is ended, perhaps General Petraeus and other military leaders should remain in their current assignments until the U.S. can transition the responsibility for the security of Iraq to Iraqis."
Ineffective Bush Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito on March 23, 2007:
"By giving our enemy a date-certain timeline for withdrawal, we are simply asking them to duck into the shadows and wait for us to leave. Such timelines hog-tie the hands of our commanders in the field and essentially hand our enemy a roadmap to victory.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie yesterday and today:
Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.
The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.
Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq".
"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.
So will Capito accuse our Iraqi allies of handing "our enemy a roadmap to victory" or will she continue to bury her head in the sand of Iraq like she has since November 2007 and not say anything official? Is there any reason to expect consistency from Capito since she so often speaks out of both sides of her mouth?
Despite the traditional press selling a line that "teh surge is teh awesome" and we've turned a corner to victory, do you suffer from a vague unease that maybe things are all peaches and cream over in Iraq?
Oh, and lest we forget. The Iraq War is bad for our economy. Not just a little bit bad, but really, really bad.
Why are gas prices so high? One reason rarely mentioned: a weak dollar. Why is the dollar so weak? Record deficits.
We have record deficits because of economically damaging Republican tax cuts for the very wealthiest and over a trillion dollars (and counting) for a discretionary war in Iraq.
All around, a colossal failure for all but the very wealthiest 1% of Americans.
For years many of us on here have referred to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as unindicted war criminals. Now a retired major general agrees:
The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted-both on America's institutions and our nation's founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.
In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. And the healing professions, including physicians and psychologists, became complicit in the willful infliction of harm against those the Hippocratic Oath demands they protect.
After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.
The former detainees in this report, each of whom is fighting a lonely and difficult battle to rebuild his life, require reparations for what they endured, comprehensive psycho-social and medical assistance, and even an official apology from our government.
But most of all, these men deserve justice as required under the tenets of international law and the United States Constitution.
Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito has no trouble supporting war criminals.
I originally wrote this July 28, 2006 at Daily Kos. ...
From the White House press briefing July 27:
Q In terms of world opinion, you keep saying the "what if" game, if it seems as though the strategy is to isolate Hezbollah. Is there a risk with the United States and Israel gets isolated in terms of world opinion by not saying, let's cut the shooting now, cut the rockets now, and work it out? I hear what you're saying about --
MR. SNOW: Let me counterpose. There's an even greater danger that if the U.S. looks ineffective in doing this, that you not only have a loss in terms of world opinion, but credibility. And you cannot -- we've said it many times, you cannot run foreign policy on the basis of public opinion polls. Quite often there are perceptions that people may get from fractional coverage of the situation that don't expose the real realities on the ground. We are in very constant consultation with people in the region to try to find out exactly what the facts are.
From The New York Times:
Now, with hundreds of Lebanese dead and Hezbollah holding out against the vaunted Israeli military for more than two weeks, the tide of public opinion across the Arab world is surging behind the organization, transforming the Shiite group's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and forcing a change in official statements.
The Saudi royal family and King Abdullah II of Jordan, who were initially more worried about the rising power of Shiite Iran, Hezbollah's main sponsor, are scrambling to distance themselves from Washington.
Listen. Some where at this moment in Israel or Lebanon or Iraq, a father like me is wailing in agony because his child is dead from an explosion or gun shot.
With each birth of my daughters I thought my heart would swell and explode through my chest because I was so filled with so much love and happiness by their arrival. I love my life, but if I ever had to trade it to keep one of them safe from harm, I would make that bargain with a glad heart for I love them so.
And some where in Lebanon or Israel or Iraq, a father who felt the same way about one of his children is holding a still-form. No torment in hell holds worse suffering.
Listen. Close your eyes and listen. You can hear his screams even here on the other side of the world.
The world should stop spinning in orbit to hear such a tormented soul's cry of despair.
Dear Lord, people are dead because the president failed to listen. Children are dead. They cannot listen. They cannot hear their father's cries. They cannot hear their mother's desperate screams to come back to them. They cannot hear their brothers and sisters calling out their names.
No, he believes he can govern by photo ops. They do not require him to listen.
So when Bush's spokesman speaks of a "greater danger," what danger is he speaking of? There is no danger in asking people to stop killing each other and to sit down and listen. What is more dangerous than the bombs dropping and the gun shots flying? Snow claims that the administration is in consultation with people, but certainly the Lebanese people will no longer listen to us. They are going to listen to Hezbollah for standing up to those that sent the bombs that were dropped on them.
The same is true for the Israelis and the Iraqis. They are not going to want to listen to those that shipped death and destruction their way.
And so the world trembles at the anguish of the fathers and mothers with their children dead. You can hear them, but Bush cannot. He does not listen.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
