Another 50 Billion Dollars for Iraq

I woke up this morning time thought about Iraq. Last nighttime I learned President Shrub have asked for another 50 billion dollars to cover the cost of the Republic Of Iraq war. Some news federal agencies study the cost of the warfare is now at 3 billion dollars a week.

How much more than agony can be inflicted on the Iraki people for another 50 billion? How many more than American soldiers will be killed while disbursement that 50 billion? Who is going to acquire that 50 billion dollars? What is not being done in this state because another 50 billion is going to person waiting in Iraq?

Do some reading online and you can happen studies of the dingy statuses in Iraq. The substructure is so mediocre that in Bagdad the electricity is on about 8 hours per day. That is the Capitol metropolis and is the most developed metropolis in the country. Other topographic points are even worse with sewerage in the streets and no imbibing water. Forget about electricity.

Are we to disbelieve these studies are just broad faultfinding and arrested development on the jobs in Iraq? Or can we look at this and recognize money is just being shoveled down a achromatic hole? Companies have got been paid millions for Reconstruction work on substructure and the state of affairs is still abysmal. About 20 billion dollars appropriated by United States Congress four old age ago for Reconstruction have been spent.

Take Bechtel for example. This company have been paid 1.3 billion dollars for sewerage undertaking work. Less than one-half of the undertakings have got been completed. About 40 percentage of their measures for work have got been for "support" costs. Nearly 250 million dollars have been billed under the class "Other". I am certain this form is repeated over and over again with these "no command contracts".

I was looking at a listing of the top 200 contractors for the Federal Soldier Government. KBR, a subordinate of Halliburton, is figure 6 on the list, you will remember the Frailty President's human relationship to Halliburton. Almost 6 billion dollars for KBR from the Department of Defense. The top 5 are a who's who of weaponry makers.

Verizon received over 200 million in Defense Contracts from the Department of Defense. And there is old Blackwater USA, the private materialistic contractor at just below 600 million dollars. Blackwater is the employer of former armed forces people, White Person South African military, South American thugs, and Central American decease squad members. Read Jeremy Scahill's book about Blackwater USA.

This is all published information and probably legal. But, it is interesting who acquires what from the government. A tragical outcome, and also a form in the Shrub Administration is, people who have got got blown the whistle on corruptness in Republic Of Iraq have actually been punished. For audacious to describe illegal weaponry sales, Navy veteran soldier Donald Vance states he was imprisoned by the American military in a security chemical compound outside Bagdad and subjected to rough question methods.

Vance made his study to the Federal Bureau of Investigation business office in Windy City because there was no 1 in Republic Of Iraq he could trust. He revealed an weaponry selling operation that was selling anything to anyone who had the money. These were the weaponry intended for usage by the United States armed forces being sold to insurgents. Vance tried to expose it and lesion up in prison house being tortured.

Apparently, the unspoken word in Republic Of Iraq is don't state anything about corruptness or incorrect doing because you will be destroyed for doing so. A very neat agreement for any corporation who desires to do a buck.

Think tank: Europe must steer Kosovo to independence or face renewed conflict

PRISTINA, Serbia: An international think tank said Tuesday that the European Union should support independence for Kosovo or risk plunging the region into violence.

New talks between ethnic Albanians and Serbia are likely to fail, the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank, said in a report, adding that the EU's failure to form a common position on Kosovo's independence would have "very disturbing consequences for Europe."

"If it is incapable once again, it would almost certainly lead to bloodshed and renewed regional chaos that would blow back into Central and Western Europe in the form of refugees and stronger organized crime networks," said Sabine Freizer of ICG.

Kosovo has been under United Nations and NATO control since 1999 after NATO's 78-day air war against Yugoslavia, waged to stop a crackdown on the province's separatist ethnic Albanians.

The report, titled "Breaking the Kosovo Stalemate: Europe's Responsibility," called upon the bloc to coordinate a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leaders if talks between the two sides, slated to end by Dec. 10, do not result in an agreement.




Today in Europe

However, it urged Western diplomats to "restrain Kosovo Albanians from unilateral actions," fearing an unsupervised declaration of independence could prompt leaders in Kosovo's Serb-dominated north to respond with a separatist move of their own.

Envoys from United States, the European Union and Russia launched a 120-day effort to end the impasse over Kosovo after Russia's threat to block in the U.N. Security Council a Western-backed plan to grant the province internationally supervised independence.

The plan, drafted by former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, would give broad rights to the Serb minority in Kosovo and proposes that the province separate from Serbia after a period of international supervision under EU leadership.

The 37-page report of the International Crisis Group urged the EU and U.S. to enforce the Ahtisaari plan, despite Russia's opposition to Kosovo's independence.

Ethnic Albanian leaders and Serbian officials are to hold the next round of talks with international envoys Aug. 30 in Vienna, Austria. Both sides have expressed doubt that an agreement can be reached.

Hashim Thaci, an ethnic Albanian negotiator, said Tuesday the province's leaders "will be very clear, cooperative and determined that Kosovo's independence be official and recognized very soon by the U.S., EU and that Russia should not in any way be allowed to unilaterally prevent this."

Kosovo's leaders insist on independence from Serbia following the 1998-99 conflict that left 10,000 dead in the face of an onslaught from Serbian forces. Serbia considers the territory an integral part of the country.

"If Kosovo explodes because the independence issue is mishandled, the regional risks would include that eight years worth of international resources and prestige dedicated to managing the crisis would be lost," the report said.

"The genie of ethnic conflict would be let loose again."

A Successful Iraqi Exit Strategy

Jimmy Carter was right. George W. Bush has been the worst president! Who the hell invades a country and just brings democracy? When you go to a friend's house for dinner, you bring a bottle of wine, some dessert, right? You don't go to your friends and say, "Hi, we didn't bring anything, but we were thinking that the pork chops should be divided evenly and let's take a vote on whether we eat the salad before or after the main course."

If I were president I would have brought brownies for the Sunnis. And not just any old brownies, the good ones with huge walnut chunks and maybe with some caramel spread on top. The Shi'ites would have gotten chocolate chip cookies like only Americans know how to make them. And I may have even put a Hershey's kiss on top of each cookie. How can anyone hate you when you've given them a kiss?

Now everybody loves us, except maybe the Kurds. I forgot about the Kurds. They get to have a little sampling of both. Let's face it, the Kurds have had a rough century; they could use two desserts.

I can't stay forever making cookies and brownies. I have other countries to feed and will need to car pool my daughter to her ballet and soccer games. So here's our exit strategy. The Sunnis love their brownies and the Shia love their cookies. So we do a little reversal and give the Sunnis (who love the brownies) the recipe to make the cookies (and perhaps ask Hershey's to send a few million kisses wholesale) and give to the Shia (who love the cookies) the recipe to make brownies. Now, next Thursday when the Sunnis want their brownies, they're going to have to ask the Sunnis to make it for them. Of course, they'll agree to do it since their going to want the Shias to make them their cookies.

We have created interdependence. And we have finally brought some good desserts to a region that has suffered far too long from some pretty boring desserts all made with honey. What if you don't like honey? You can't have baba ghanoush or hummus for dessert!

Now I've still forgotten the Kurds. O.K. we will give them the recipe for both so that if the Shias are busy one weekend, the Kurds can make the brownies. But the Kurds can't have any ovens, because if they have ovens and both recipes, they're going to want to be an independent country.

You know how around Christmas time you melt some chocolate and then spread crushed candy canes over it? I think the Iranians would love that. Maybe even enough to give up their nuclear program.

U.S. Senate to vote on whether to cut off money for Iraq war in 2008

WASHINGTON: The Senate is expected to vote as early as this week on whether to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, as well as on a softer measure calling for U.S. troops to leave by October.

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday the two measures would be offered as amendments to a water projects funding bill being debated this week. While the Senate had planned to take up Iraq legislation this week, Reid had previously been unclear what specifics members would consider.

The first amendment, backed by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold, would require that combat operations end by March 31, 2008, by cutting off money after that date.

The second measure would provide more than $120 billion (€88.5 billion) to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as various domestic projects. It would call for troops to begin leaving Iraq by Oct. 1, but allow the president to waive that requirement.

Passage of the $120 billion (€88.5 billion) in war spending would not allow the Senate to begin negotiating with the House of Representatives and send President George W. Bush a bill by the end of the month, said Rodell Mollineau, a Reid spokesman. Nevertheless, he added, "these are important votes. This will give members an opportunity to debate these issues and have up-or-down votes on these."




Today in Americas

The House last week approved, 221-205, legislation that would fund the war in two-month installments, giving Congress a chance to cut off money for the war after July. The House measure was considered unlikely to survive in the Senate, where Democrats wanted to fund the war through September.

"On our side of the aisle, Democrats believe they should do something very, very close to what was done in the bill that was sent to the president to be vetoed," said Reid.

Reid's strategy is likely to appease party members like Feingold who say they will not vote for legislation that funds the deeply unpopular war without binding language demanding U.S. troops leave. While Reid co-sponsored Feingold's proposal, he has said he would not push it as a caucus position.

"The American people deserve to have the Senate go on record about whether or not it wants to end our misguided mission in Iraq and safely redeploy our brave troops," said Feingold.

However, Feingold's tough anti-war measure is unlikely to pass the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow majority and several oppose using the budget to end the war.

Arianna Huffington: Tony Blair's Legacy: George Bush's Iraq Trump Card

Arianna Huffington 47 minutes ago

With on his slow-bleed resignation, we can expect the floodgates to open on stories analyzing his ten year run as prime minister and the impact he had on America.

"Hand on heart," he said in announcing he will leave office at the end of June, "I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That's your call. But believe one thing: I did what I thought was right for our country."

Maybe so, but his hand-on-heartfelt convictions had dire consequences for U.S. foreign policy. Blair was exactly what George W. Bush needed to sell his fraudulent and immoral war in to the American public: a seemingly reasonable and non-partisan stamp of international approval (after all, he'd been bosom buddies with , hadn't he?). Blair enabled the Bush myth that the invasion of Iraq was a coalition effort, that it wasn't just Mongolia, Moldova, Singapore, Poland, and Tonga making up the Coalition of the Willing to Go Along. It was Britain. Great Britain.

More than being just Bush and Cheney's cheery wingman, Blair was one of their top salesmen, pitching dossiers, Nigeran yellowcake, and the specter of chemical weapons "" raining down on Europe. Although Blair was far from the only enabler to Bush's Iraq fantasies -- spineless Congressional Democrats and a wildly compliant press certainly did their part -- the impact of his unwavering support was enormous.

Iraq is 's war, but Tony Blair's legacy will be forever tainted by the part of it he claimed for his own.

Blair made Bush's ordeal in Iraq less lonely, but it cost him

WASHINGTON: The Iraq war has been a lonely quest for President George W. Bush, but it has been less so thanks to the unwavering backing of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Blair is stepping down on June 27 after a decade in power, and no issue during his tenure is leaving a more indelible imprint than his no-apologies support for the U.S.-led war effort.

Bush seemed optimistic Thursday about the possibility of continuity on Iraq between Blair and his likely successor, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, the government's financial chief.

The president told reporters on Thursday that he believes Brown "understands the consequences of failure" in Iraq. As Bush sees it, a U.S. defeat would give a boost to terror everywhere.

Britain ranks second, after the United States, in terms of troops committed to Iraq. The British total is 7,100 but a reduction to 5,000 is planned for late this year.






Today in Americas

With Blair's announcement, Bush faces the final 19 months of his term in office without his closest ally and, as the president described him, "good friend."

The two appear to have a relaxed relationship. In Russia last year, unaware that a nearby microphone was on, Bush was heard to greet his colleague with a "Yo, Blair," leaving the prime minister embarrassed.

While there was shared anguish over the maelstrom in Iraq, neither leader has given any hint of regret over the venture. Both have paid a dear price politically, scoring under 30 percent in polls, the fallout from a war that is highly unpopular in both the United States and Britain.

Julianne Smith, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said there is no question that Blair's legacy "will suffer from the stain of Iraq."

Blair, she said, was content to "cozy up to the United States to the bitter end, refusing to look back and question his choice."

Charles Kupchan, of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Blair "leaves under a cloud, having lost the confidence of his own party and with the Conservatives well ahead in the polls."

A month ago, Brown met with Bush for the first time without Blair being present. The two men spoke for a half-hour after Bush dropped in on a meeting between Brown and U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley. Brown was in Washington for meetings at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

"I have found him to be an open and engaging person," Bush said, also describing him as an "easy-to-talk-to, good thinker."

On Iraq, Brown had promised to "spend what it takes" to disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is expected to keep British troops in Iraq for the near future, and to maintain Britain's strong relationship with America.

While Brown's ultimate course on Iraq is unclear, Europe has been generally projecting a friendlier image toward the United States. The latest concrete example is the recent election of Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France, which followed the accession in Germany of Chancellor Angela Merkel in late 2005.