quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'm all ears. Or eyes. Or whatever. Go ahead, I'm dying to hear this.

Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media when they discuss relations between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaeda network. This became clear yet again last week when news outlets reported on the Department of Defense-sponsored Iraqi Perspectives Project (all five volumes of which are now available here). The vast majority of news reports focused on a single sentence that was incorrectly taken to mean that no ties, links, relations or connections of any sort existed between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the al-Qaeda movement.

What exact word or phrase best describes the relations between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as other Islamic terror groups, is certainly debatable. What is not debatable, based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, is that Saddam Hussein's regime funded, trained, and assisted terrorist groups (including al-Qaeda proxies), and sometimes actually ordered them to attack American citizens, American interests, and American allies. To compound the danger, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was simultaneously using its intelligence and security apparatus to plot and conduct terror attacks of its own.

The most contentious issue regarding Saddam Hussein and terrorism may be the extent to which Saddam supported anti-American terrorist groups (as opposed to his more agreed-upon support for anti-Israeli groups), particularly Islamic terrorist groups. On this topic the report says that Saddam's animosity towards the United States continued after the first Gulf War, so he reached out to and supported Islamic-fundamentalist and related terrorist organizations that also saw the U.S. as an enemy. Internal Iraqi documents reveal that Saddam's regime knew it had to keep these relations top secret, due to the increased Western scrutiny that Islamic terrorism began receiving during the 1990s because of Iran's open support for Hezbollah.


Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al-Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision.


From 1991 through 2003 the Hussein regime "regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing and executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power." White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe commented to me that the report confirms that Saddam "had ties to regional terrorism" and that in a region where there was "no lack of terrorist groups willing to attack the U.S.," it was not surprising to see who Saddam had been supporting.

The former regime's stash of documents includes a list of some of the groups that were willing to commit these attacks on behalf of the Iraqi regime. The "Renewal and Jihad Organization" was one group willing to "carry out operations against American interests at any time." The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri's group, which merged with Osama bin Laden's terrorists to form al-Qaeda) is described in the report as having "agreed" on a plan for attacks against the Egyptian government. The Islamic Scholars Group in Pakistan is described by Iraqi officials as willing to "carry out any assignment we task them with." Another Pakistani organization, which the report refers to as the Pakistan Scholars Group, is listed as not being "tasked with commando operations during the (Gulf) war," possibly implying that the group was available to commit "operations" at Iraq's beckoning. (For more on Saddam Hussein's associations with Islamic groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ray Robison's "Both in One Trench" is a must read.)

The report also reveals that in the late 1990s Saddam was willing to "support or co-opt" a group named "Army of Muhammad" that it knew to be loyal to Osama bin Laden. Iraq was aware that the group had plans to attack American military bases in Arab countries (a goal that Saddam's regime shared) and American embassies (another shared goal). Internal Iraqi documents note that the group was seeking Iraqi assistance, though they do not mention what Iraq's response was. Saddam was impressed with al-Qaeda attacks on American embassies and other targets, and his pattern of support for groups wishing to attack American interests suggests that refusing to grant the desired assistance to the Army of Muhammad would have been a deviation from normal behavior.

Another document lists an Islamic militant group in Afghanistan as dependent on Iraq for financing, and an Islamic group in Egypt as agreeing to make attacks in exchange for financing and training from Iraq. Saddam's regime also provided supervision and oversight, as well as 30,000 rifles and 10,000 pistols, to help get a Sudanese terrorist training camp off the ground at a time when anti-American Islamic terror groups were prevalent in the country. According to the report, Saddam's regime also maintained in-country training camps for all kinds of non-Iraqi groups, many of which were looking to destabilize America's allies in the Middle East.

Other documents show that a Kurdish Islamic group received "financial and moral support" from Saddam's regime and that the regime wanted to establish an organizational relationship with the group. This is probably the group referred to later in the report as conducting attacks against American and other U.N. humanitarian workers, as well as Kurdish officials and civilians, on behalf of the Iraqi regime.

A September 2001 document mentions Saddam's efforts "make common cause" with a number of Islamic radical groups in Kuwait, including a Shiite group. Another document mentions a Sri Lankan group that volunteered to carry out suicide bombings on Saddam's orders during the first Gulf war. Additional internal memos show Iraqi officials reporting to one another that Hamas was willing through the 1990s to conduct suicide attacks against Americans on behalf of Saddam's Iraq. These memos also listed Abu Abbas, the notorious Palestinian terrorist, as another man willing to lead his forces for Saddam in attacks against Americans.

The sheer number and consistency of Saddam Hussein's contacts and agreements with, and assistance for, terrorist groups show that these relationships were part of a larger pattern, as Saddam looked to expand his relations with anti-American Islamic militant and terror groups. The authors note that some of these groups took orders from Saddam's regime to carry out attacks on American interests and allies.

A less contentious issue is the use of terrorism by arms of Saddam Hussein's intelligence and security branches. In 1993 Saddam ordered his men to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia." This occurred within days of al-Qaeda's decision to do the same thing. In 1990 terrorists acting on behalf of the Iraqi regime attempted to bomb an American ambassador's home in Jakarta and an American Airlines office and the Japanese embassy in the Philippines.

The regime later showed a willingness to use suicide terrorism, possibly due to the limited effectiveness of previous anti-U.S. attacks. A late September 2001 document reveals that the Iraqi regime had been recruiting volunteers for suicide attacks. The authors state that training for suicide bombings became so routine that eventually a formal national policy and training schedule were adopted. Some of the regime's willing "martyrs" were likely the topic of a document pertaining to plots in Saudi Arabia, for which these suicide bombers signed secret agreement forms affirming their commitment to Saddam. Plots described in additional documents (and possibly referring to the same plots) discussed blowing up buildings in Saudi Arabia (a country that did see terror attacks of this nature during the 1990s) and killing members of Kuwait's royal family. Again, it should be noted that these terrorist attacks were to be committed at Saddam's behest and to be done secretly.

The files continued to detail orders for "operatives (being) sent into countries around Iraq to attack American installations." In these examples we have direct orders from Saddam to Iraqis and non-Iraqis to target and kill Americans.

The former regime's documents also discuss a 1999/2001 plan called "Operation Basra Revenge" that would have used missiles, rockets, and later suicide attacks with speedboats to "destroy American and British naval vessels." (This document was pointed out by the writer Scott Malensek.)

The report details the regime's production of suicide vests, IEDs, and car bombs for plots that included targets in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Saddam's embassies in these countries were warehouses for missile launchers, plastic explosives, TNT, Kalashnikovs, booby-trapped suitcases, and grenades. These tools were all available to a regime that had internal orders to attack American civilians, military members, bases, embassies, and ships.

All this capability would be meaningless, of course, if there were no intention of using it. The authors make clear that Saddam was willing to conduct anti-American terrorism, saying: "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

Instead of squabbling over who is and isn't a member of al-Qaeda and what the requirements of a "link" or "connection" are, this report details Saddam's broad support for (and sometimes direction of) a multitude of terrorist groups targeting Americans and American allies. Based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam's Iraq did not just use terrorism against America and her allies but took advantage of "the rising fundamentalism in the region" as an "opportunity to make terrorism . . . a formal instrument of state power." Because of Saddam's removal, which came at considerable cost in American blood and gold, a "formal instrument" of state terrorism is no longer secretly plotting to kill Americans. The American public deserves to know what a threat was removed for that price.

By Mark Eichenlaub
National Review Online

quote:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&pagenumber=154

the issue was whether or not it was right to bomb an ally without consent and whether or not he should have been questioned about it. not about the pursuit itself.

quote:

Seriously, I would absolutely love to hear your justification.

i believe that the fundamental right of all people, regardless of their religion or race or gender, is to have a self determinate government and all the great things that governments like those throughout history has proved to be common and viable.

i believe that the Arab nation of Iraq will prove to be no different and they will continue fight alongside all other self determinate governments in the effort against Islamic fascism. whether that Islamic fascism is the fake kind such as under Saddam Hussein and his children or the very real kind such as the Taliban and Al-Queera.

quote:

I've been waiting to hear a justification that rings true for five years now.

you have heard the justification for years now. you just don't believe in it to be true. i or anybody else can't do anything more about that.

quote:

Opus already explained the Clinton cutbacks... they were an extension of cutbacks already begun under a Republican administration.

point taken. i have some disagreements with opus about that of course and i would happily discuss them. i'm just calling them the way i see them.

a liberal Democrat has yet to prove to me in practice or rhetoric they would support a strong national defence as much as John McCain would.

quote:

And what liberal wing of the Democratic Party?

youre joking right? do you think all Democrats share the same worldview?

quote:

Obama is the core of this wing?

yes. he has the endorsements of just about every major left-wing PAC known. (if he doesn't, tell me which ones haven't)

quote:

I'd love to see sources that show that he wants to cut back our military.

i really don't think he would be dumb enough to run on a campaign in favor cutting back the military. but i'm not daft enough to think that the most liberal Senator in Congress, together with the willing intent of a Democrat controlled Congress would not.

and again, given the choice between him or McCain, i'll take my chances with the latter.

quote:

My point is that those are distinctions that McCain has no real advantage on.

he has more of an advantage than my alternatives.

G5...Nothing Mccain is advocating could be considered a strong national DEFENSE. If anything he is pushing the opposite. He wants a strong offense and endless military presence around the world that leaves us extremely weak at home...both economically and militarily. Mccain wants to reshape the world with US treasure and blood. Defense is way down on his list of priorities.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt If anything he is pushing the opposite. He wants a strong offense and endless military presence around the world that leaves us extremely weak at home...both economically and militarily. Mccain wants to reshape the world with US treasure and blood. Defense is way down on his list of priorities.

i guess that matters if we take the word DEFENCE in national defence literally in its meaning.

it wouldn't take much to convince me that thats how a liberal Democrat would see it.

the way i understand national defence can be summarized HERE

nice try though

quote:

McCain Gets Iraq Facts Wrong Again: Says Sadr — Not Maliki — ‘Asked’ For Ceasefire» Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he was “surprised” by violent clashes between central Iraqi government and militias connected to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr last week in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. “Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,” McCain told reporters on his campaign bus. As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann noted last night, at the same time McCain expressed surprise about the developments in Basra, he also got basic facts wrong about the ceasefire that halted the violence on Sunday. McCain claimed that “it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire,” not Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki: Asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we’ll see.’’ Watch it: As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’s description of what happened is “completely misleading” and wrong. In fact, Sadr’s call for a ceasefire only came after members of Maliki’s political party traveled to Iran to broker a deal with him: The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country. There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said. Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq. According to the AP, “the peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces” not only “left the cleric’s Mahdi Army intact,” but it also left Maliki “politically battered and humbled within his own Shi’ite power base.” This is not the first time in recent memory that McCain has gotten basic facts about Iraq wrong. Two weeks ago, he repeatedly made false claims that Iran was training al Qaeda fighters in Iraq. Matt Duss has more at the Wonk Room.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/01...dr-facts-wrong/

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i guess that matters if we take the word DEFENCE in national defence literally in its meaning. it wouldn't take much to convince me that thats how a liberal Democrat would see it. the way i understand national defence can be summarized HERE nice try though

You really don't think defense funding should be stream-lined to reduce waste? That's mostly what the Democrats are talking about these days - they understand we're in a precarious security position as well, but the opportunity cost of throwing money into over-funded mandates is pretty high, and a source of concern among Dems. Yesterday's WashPo ran a story about inefficiency in the Pentagon on the front page -

quote:

GAO Blasts Weapons Budget Cost Overruns Hit $295 Billion By Dana Hedgpeth Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, April 1, 2008; A01 Government auditors issued a scathing review yesterday of dozens of the Pentagon's biggest weapons systems, saying ships, aircraft and satellites are billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. The Government Accountability Office found that 95 major systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion, bringing their total cost to $1.6 trillion, and are delivered almost two years late on average. In addition, none of the systems that the GAO looked at had met all of the standards for best management practices during their development stages. Auditors said the Defense Department showed few signs of improvement since the GAO began issuing its annual assessments of selected weapons systems six years ago. "It's not getting any better by any means," said Michael Sullivan, director of the GAO's acquisition and sourcing team. "It's taking longer and costing more." Chris Isleib, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a written statement, "We'd like to look at what GAO has said, and then at the appropriate time make an informed comment." The Pentagon has doubled the amount it has committed to new systems, from $790 billion in 2000 to $1.6 trillion last year, according to the 205-page GAO report. Total acquisition costs in 2007 for major defense programs increased 26 percent from first estimates. In 2000, 75 programs had cost increases totaling 6 percent. Development costs in 2007 for the systems rose 40 percent from initial projections, compared with 27 percent in 2000. Current programs are delivered 21 months late on average, five months later than in 2000. "In most cases, programs also failed to deliver capabilities when promised -- often forcing war fighters to spend additional funds on maintaining" existing weapons systems, the report says. The GAO chose 72 of the 95 systems to examine, based on high-dollar value and congressional interest. The various systems were at different stages of the acquisition process over the last year. The report details such projects as the Navy's $5.2 billion Littoral Combat Ship, which has had such extensive troubles that the service expects the cost of its first two ships to exceed their combined budget of $472 million by more than 100 percent. The Navy canceled construction of the planned third and fourth ships by Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, the prime contractors on the project. The government is facing higher development costs on eight major programs, including Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing's Future Combat Systems, a technology to connect unmanned aircraft and vehicles. The prices for those two programs have risen 36 percent and 40 percent, respectively, from the initial contracts, the GAO said, partly because the government wants "new and unproven technologies" and did not undertake early analysis to make sure its requirements could be met. In a statement, Lockheed said that the Joint Strike Fighter "is performing solidly, making outstanding technical progress in the context of the most complex aircraft ever built" and that "the bedrock and the cornerstone" of the F-35 program have been "affordability and cost containment." In another case, the initial contract target price of Boeing's program to modernize avionics in the C-130 cargo plane is expected to skyrocket 323 percent, to $2 billion. Another Boeing program, for a radio system, is up 310 percent, to $966 million. "Boeing's commitment is to deliver on our promises to our military customers and meeting their requirements in the most cost-effective way possible," the company said in a statement. The GAO's Sullivan said the reasons for the cost overruns and delays are threefold: There are too many programs chasing too few dollars; technologies are often not mature enough to go into production; and it takes too long to design, develop and produce a system. "They're asking for something that they're not sure can be built, given existing technologies, and that's risky," Sullivan said in an interview. Costs of some systems were driven up as much as 72 percent when changes were made to the program requirements after development of the system had begun, the report says. Half of the programs studied had 25 percent increases in the expected lines of code in their software. Steven L. Schooner, co-director of the government procurement law program at George Washington University, said the GAO's report reveals the recurring problems the Pentagon faces with its costly procurements. "The nature of major weapon systems development is that you have to expect that the initial estimates, and typically the initial contracts, are overly optimistic and unrealistic," he said. "Unfortunately the purchaser -- the government -- typically lacks the discipline to freeze the configuration such that the contractor has any reasonable chance of developing what it promised on time and for the price promised." Defense Department officials have tried to improve the procurement process, the GAO said, by doing more planning and review in the early stages of a contract. But "these significant policy changes have not yet translated into best practices on individual programs," Gene L. Dodaro, acting comptroller general of the GAO, wrote in the report. "Flagship acquisitions, as well as many other top priorities in each of the services, continue to cost significantly more, take longer to produce, and deliver less than was promised," Dodaro said. "This is likely to continue until the overall environment for weapon system acquisitions changes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

Defense spending is getting out of control - it doesn't need to be decreased so much as reviewed for what is actually necessary and what is being wasted.

___________________

quote:

And He's Great To Have a Beer With, Too by Hunter Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:41:14 AM PDT Sigh. Media Matters points out, yet again, the inconsistencies behind what John McCain says and what John McCain does, and how easily it gets lapped up by "pundits" who supposedly have the experience and analytical skills to know better: quote: On the March 30 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, New York Timescolumnist David Brooks asserted that Sen. John McCain's March 26 foreign policy speech "was so important because he broke with [President] Bush on several ways" and described one of those ways as, "Should the U.S. go it alone on certain issues? He said no, we are -- we need a strong America, but in the community of nations. And he detailed that." Similarly, David Broder wrote in his March 30 Washington Post column that McCain "outlin[ed] a vastly different approach from President Bush's" in the speech, in part by offering a "repudiation of unilateralism." I think the problem here isn't that Brooks or Broder are willingly misrepresenting anything as much as they are just profoundly gullible people. You know the other prominent Republican that is constantly emphasizing the importance of a world community of nations, in his speeches? George W. Bush. Does it all the damn time. Of course, what Republicans like George Bush and John McCain consider "multilateralism" consists of other countries doing what America wants, or we'll do it anyway and rename food to spite them. This is the neoconservative foreign policy lifecycle: praise the community of nations. Demand the community of nations do something. Ignore the community of nations and do it anyway. Mock the community of nations. Then come back to the community of nations when something else needs doing, and repeat the process. This is a pattern, in coverage of John McCain, and it's the exact same pattern that we saw in 2000 when Bush unveiled the phrase "compassionate conservatism" and a lot of other teleprompter driven hoo-ha to make profoundly conservative, even reactionary policies sound practically, peppily populist. In McCain, we're already seeing it in a stream of small absurdities, like the press-wide pronouncements that he opposes bailouts of failed banks while he... supported the bailouts of failed banks. People like Brooks and Broder spend their time admiring what McCain says; what McCain actually has done is a secondary point. So McCain is subject to the usual Bush rules: he can do whatever he wants, so long as he speechifies something up to the contrary. Nobody worth caring about will ever actually check. Well, Hmm. I think my basic premise may need some reworking, here. Brooks I think does it out of gullibility; Broder, though, has such a consistent history of "independently" finding praise for conservative speech while ignoring the results of conservative action that for him, I don't think gullibility has much to do with it. This, though, is going to be the dynamic of the campaign. Listen to what I say, don't watch what I do, McCain will say. And since we've got an entire phalanx of press people who are skilled in the Pavlovian analysis of political blustering, but not very good at sussing out the truth behind it, most of our "elite" pundits will lazily go along. Honestly, Senator John "Let's Bomb Iran" McCain as the picture of multilateralism? Do these people read their own papers, or roll them up and smoke them?

http://www.dailykos.com

___________________

I don't like McCain but at least he did call all those religious nuts "agents of intolerance" back in 2000.

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd I don't like McCain but at least he did call all those religious nuts "agents of intolerance" back in 2000.

That was a long, long time ago.

Columbia Journalism Review:

quote:

Campaign Desk The McCain-Hagee Connection Why is the press ignoring this hate-monger? By Zachary Roth Fri 7 Mar 2008 02:27 PM More than a week after John McCain’s endorsement by the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic pastor John Hagee, the media continues to give the GOP nominee a free pass. Consider the following pronouncements by Hagee, the man who McCain proudly introduced as an ally last week. On Jews: quote: It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day. And: quote: How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come. On gays: quote: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans. Hagee, of course, is also a virulent anti-Catholic, who has suggested that the pope is the anti-Christ, and that Adolf Hitler’s anti-Semitism was the result of being educated at a Catholic school. One would think that when a leading presidential candidate proudly touts the support of such a figure, the issue would receive close scrutiny from the press. But last week, once McCain assured reporters that, just because Hagee was endorsing him, it didn’t mean he agreed with everything Hagee said, the mainstream media essentially let the matter drop. Chalk another up for the Straight-Talking candidate. That’s all the more remarkable given the high-profile grilling Barack Obama has received on the subject of Louis Farrakhan. In a recent Democratic debate, Tim Russert asked Obama to reject Farrakhan’s support. And in January, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen drew attention to the fact that a magazine controlled by Obama’s pastor had given an award to the Nation of Islam founder. But so far, neither Russert nor anyone else at NBC News has seen fit to press McCain on the subject, and Cohen hasn’t chosen to write about it. And remember, Obama did nothing to solicit Farrakhan’s support, while McCain actively sought Hagee’s and appeared on stage with him. We’ve asked both NBC News and Cohen whether they plan to, given their concern about Obama’s Farrakhan “ties,” and will let you know what we hear.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/th...onnection_1.php

___________________

In lieu of me explaining why the SURGE!! isn't working, I'll let the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee do the legwork:

quote:

WASHINGTON — A leading Democrat on Saturday declared last year's troop buildup in Iraq a failure. Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the military push didn't succeed because U.S. troops remain committed there in large numbers and political reconciliation has not been achieved. "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically," said Biden, D-Del., in this week's Democratic radio address. "Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together." He later added, "There is little evidence the Iraqis will settle their differences peacefully any time soon." Biden offered an early rebuttal to next week's testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador there. Petraeus and Crocker are expected to say the recent buildup in troops has succeeded in improving security. But they also likely will say that a period of assessment is needed this summer before officials can decide whether troop withdrawals can continue. Democrats have called this approach unacceptable and said they would pursue an alternative policy through legislation. They said their focus will be on restoring the strength of the Army and Marines and refocusing the nation's resources on fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. "I believe the president has no strategy for success in Iraq," Biden said. "His plan is to muddle through, and hand the problem off to his successor." Republicans say they are satisfied with the recent drop in violence and that more time is needed to improve the situation there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/...-a_n_95221.html

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."

that's too funny.

I'm just going to keep cataloguing articles that display inconsistencies in the McCain platform (there have been a lot of them of late):

This from the Boston Globe:

quote:

McCain camp working out healthcare details Aides struggle to sort out his promises By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | April 3, 2008 WASHINGTON - When Senator John McCain unveiled his healthcare proposal last fall, a journalist asked whether the Arizona senator's battle against skin cancer would make him sympathetic to the idea of requiring that insurance companies provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions. McCain flatly rejected the idea. "That would be mandating what the free enterprise system does," McCain said. McCain's response highlights the challenge he faces as he prepares to try to sell his healthcare plan in the fall campaign. He says the country must provide access to healthcare for all our citizens, and that "we need to help people who need it." But McCain also wants to shrink government's role in healthcare and doesn't want to impose regulations on insurance companies. As a result, McCain's aides have been scrambling to come up with ways to satisfy those who want more coverage without violating what they call McCain's conservative principles on the issue. McCain, for example, has spoken in general terms about how he might help people with preexisting conditions. He has said he favors what he calls a "special provision including additional trust funds for Medicaid payments." The comment left even some of his aides unsure of his meaning. Medicaid funds are generally used to help lower-income Americans. Lately, some of McCain's aides have said he might try to divert some Medicaid funds into a program that would help people with preexisting conditions, but his advisers can't yet say how such a program would work or how many people would be covered. "These are real questions, and I think there will be answers, and there better be, but they are not there yet," said McCain adviser Thomas P. Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot more remains to be hammered out." Indeed, while McCain talks about having a comprehensive healthcare plan, many of the details are being debated within the campaign as aides try to determine how to pay for McCain's promises. The crux of McCain's healthcare plan is to end a tax break for employers who provide health insurance premiums now utilized by many workers. That would be replaced with a tax credit worth as much as $5,000 per family for the purchase of health insurance. McCain would also promote cost controls and competition among insurance companies. He has also joined with Democrats to support legislation that would allow the purchase of prescription drugs from Canada. But McCain's plan has no guarantee that people could get insurance, and no requirement for people to do so. McCain believes his plan would make insurance more affordable, which would bring it within reach of many more families. But many critics say that failing to require insurance companies to provide coverage could leave millions of people without affordable medical care. The McCain plan has come under attack from Democrats, who say it mostly benefits the wealthy and the healthy. "It's fine except for the poor and the sick," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has worked on Democratic healthcare plans. Still, Gruber said, McCain's plan "has a lot to recommend it," particularly the tax credit to buy health insurance. The question of how to provide insurance for people with preexisting conditions is increasingly a focus of scrutiny in McCain's plan. Shortly after McCain unveiled his proposal last October, Dr. Timothy Johnson, the Boston-based medical editor of ABC News, pressed McCain at a forum to explain why he felt no need to "prevent insurance companies from cherry-picking" healthier customers and denying coverage to some people with preexisting conditions. McCain responded that the idea of imposing mandates on insurance companies was a simple answer, but one that he was not sure would be effective. McCain then spoke of the need for Americans to improve their physical condition and suggested some people with preexisting conditions could be put in what he called "high-risk pools." But McCain's bottom line was that he would not put requirements on insurance companies. But even some pro-business voices have said McCain's plan falls short of helping enough people in need. Fortune magazine said earlier this month that McCain had the best health insurance plan, but then criticized his handling of people with preexisting conditions. "The problem with McCain's approach - and it is a huge problem - is that McCain ventures so far toward total laissez-faire liberty that he risks leaving the poor and sick behind," the magazine said. "Anyone with cancer, diabetes, or other preexisting conditions will see their premiums multiply, too." Grappling with such criticisms, some of McCain's aides have floated the idea that people with preexisting conditions could get an extra tax credit to help pay for insurance, funded by savings in the Medicaid program. But the amount of the credit hasn't been determined, the possibility of extracting enough savings from Medicaid is debatable, and it is unclear whether a credit would be enough to persuade an insurance company to accept a person who would be likely to have large medical expenses. "We are working on it," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's top policy adviser. "We'll put out more details. As we do, it will be clearer to people." McCain has frequently sought to downplay the oft-cited statistic that 47 million people do not have health insurance. He has said that a very large portion of them are healthy young Americans who simply choose not to get insurance. However, the American Medical Association has said that 8.3 million of the 47 million are between ages 18 and 24. A McCain aide said the senator was referring to a study that found about half of adults without health insurance are between 19 and 34. Democratic critics said that many younger Americans don't have health insurance because they can't afford it and their employers don't provide it. McCain's plan is starkly different from those put forward by the Democratic presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton wants to mandate that all Americans get health insurance, while Barack Obama would require that all children have insurance. McCain has criticized their programs as "government-run healthcare," while the Democrats say their plans will offer choice from private plans. McCain compared health insurance to buying a home, saying it was desirable but not required. "I think that one of our goals should be that every American own their own home," he said. "But I'm not going to mandate that every American own their home. If it's affordable and available, then it seems to be that it's a matter of choice amongst Americans."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...thcare_details/

___________________