Of course that didn't happen via the White House. They supplied Congress with General David Petraeus (top commander in Iraq), US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullens. That's about all that they supplied.
But the White House is far from the only one to blame. The hearings kicked off on Tuesday, April 8th. That's when Pathetic Democrats of America launched their healthcare (not warfare!) campaign ("Activisim With Inspiraton," they proclaimed offering little evidence of either). The Pen felt the day was the perfect day to send out e-mails on their new impeachment play -- and begging for money for a Congressional race. Democrats.com's Bob Fertik was also reaching for your wallet as he urged you to subscribe to Consumer Reports for the Faux Left (Mother Jones).
Though The Nation magazine appeared unaware (at noon Tuesday) that the hearings had started, at least they were e-mailing a thank you to those who donated money (as opposed to again begging for more money). (If you doubted how serious the financial situation is at The Nation, you had only to look at Katrina vanden Heuvel's pale, wan face in the group photo the e-mail contained.) Most pathetic of all (we didn't call The Nation's e-mail pathetic, to be clear) was
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee which sent out one of their typical please for money and didn't have the good sense to promote the hearings (which might have actually drummed up money since some Democratic members of Congress were on fire Tuesday) and instead went with "The Road to Victory Goes Through New Orleans." Was Chuck Schumer unaware of the hearings that had started four hours before the panhandling in his name was sent out?
To its credit, CREDO sent out an e-mail on the hearings ("No More Funding For War In Iraq!" on Tuesday. Also on Tuesday Shirley Golub (challenging US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) sent out a fundraiser via The Pen and somehow managed to focus solely on impeachment and forgot the war. Not convincing us to vote for you, Shirley. For the record, we don't believe for a moment that the 2009 Congress will impeach the Bully Boy after he leaves office (yeah, we've heard US House Rep John Conyers float that 'plan,' we still don't believe it) and think it's honestly pathetic that so many candidates are running on that. But we're not seeing very many period who were aware that hearings were going on.
Credit where it's due, CODEPINK may have been the only organization last week to send out a mailing on the hearings ("Is General Petraeus Telling The Truth?" which went out Wednesday morning) and included: "While General Petraeus says the presence of the U.S. military helps reduce violence, 71 percent of Iraqi women say they do not feel protected by U.S. soldiers and 65 percent report that US soldiers are only making security worse." (The Nation's Wednesday e-mail alert on one blog post about the hearing was cancelled out with the next day's mailing which found nothing about the hearings.)
There was a lot to be disappointed in. On the Democratic side, Tuesday's biggest disappointment was Senator Barack Obama who stumbled and fumbled and demonstrated that he really does think merely showing up is enough.
Among the most noted embarrassments from Bambi was this 'question':
"Should we be successful in Mosul, should you continue, General, with the effective operations that you've been engaged in, assuming that in that narrow military effort we are successful, do we anticipate that there ever comes a time where Al Qaida in Iraq could not reconstitute itself?"
It popped up all over the net and was purge of the "uh"s that he was so repeatedly fond of. For the record, Barack showed up at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday determined to jump in line as opposed to waiting his turn (yes, that is a character trait for the entitled prince). Senator Bill Nelson waived him ahead, declaring that Barack was pressed for time. Heaven forbid a little thing like the Iraq War keep him. Having been waived ahead, Bambi stammered through his entire meandering 'questioning' and used up his alloted time. But the world owes Bambi something (we have no idea why) so he demanded an additional minute and then took seven. He still didn't accomplish anything -- a portent for a Bambi presidency?
It was a very embarrassing performance for a sitting Senator let alone one who wants his party's presidential nomination. By contrast, Senator Hillary Clinton was one of the stars of Tuesday morning's Senate Armed Services Committee. (In the morning Petraeus and Crocker testified before then, then the duo moved on to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.) Clinton not only came prepared, she was also able to absorb and question the testimony being offered by Petraeus and Crocker during the hearing. We should probably add, she didn't ask for any special favors and waited her turn to speak (which is determined by seniority).
Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, had questioned Petraues about Iraqi Prime Minister (puppet of the occupation) Nouri al-Maliki's assault on Iraq, about how the US was maintaining that it knew nothing about the assault until it commenced.
Petraeus made several statements in response including that they "had a Friday night heads up" and discussed it in a Saturday morning meeting prior to the assault starting. Clinton noted that she found Petraeus' comments of interest ("I was struck by it, so I wrote it down") and noted that in addition to the Friday heads up, Petraeus spoke of plans in place prior to that, US plans,
in a region that the British are still responsible for (they still haven't withdrawn, they're still stationed at Basra Airport). "What did you mean by the resources you were planning to deploy and over what length of time?" Clinton asked. Petraeus acknowledged that prior to the "Friday heads up," the US had "a plan [which] was being developed" regarding Basra but al-Maliki skipped over that plan and insistead upon "moving up the time table and compressing . . . the resources". Translation, this al-Maliki stand was merely his leaping ahead of action that the US was already planning.
Senator Clinton is advocating for a withdrawal (of some form) and noted the attempts to smear those calling for withdrawal. "I fundamentally disagree" with that, she said of the criticism that withdrawal "is irresponsible or demonstrates a lack of leadership." Having done work before showing up (pay attention Barack), Clinton was able to back up her questions with news reports -- she cited both Thom Shanker's "Army Is Worried By Rising Stress Of Returns Tours" (New York Times) and Cameron W. Barr's "Petraeus: Iraqi Leaders Not Making 'Sufficient Progress'" (Washington Post). On the former, she noted the strain that military was under and on the latter she noted Petraeus' own statements. "No one feels there has been sufficient progress" in Iraq, Petraeus told The Post and Senator Clinton pointed out, "Those are exactly the concerns that my colleagues and I raised when you testified before us in September." She noted his statement then, before Congress, of how no progress would mean careful thought and informed Petraeus, "We're there now."
Again, it's the difference between doing the work required and breezing in late and rushing to get your airtime so you can quickly move on.
The Status of Forces Agreement was also addressed by Clinton (and would come up in the afternoon hearing as well) who introduced legislation last December on the issue calling for the White House to seek Senate approval. This is the treaty the White House wants to sign with the Puppet. Treaties must be approved by the US Senate and the administration is trying to circumvent that by calling it a Status of Forces Agreement though (as Senator Joe Biden and others would point out in the afternoon, it's nothing like any Status of Forces Agreement the US currently has).
"With respect to our long term challenge, Ambassador Crocker, the administration" is planning to make an agreement with Iraq, Senator Clinton pointed out and wondered "will it be submitted to the Iraqi Parliament for ratification?" All indications say yes, Crocker responded; however, when pressed by Clinton about the White House submitting the plan to the Senate for approval, Crocker declared no "at this point" because they don't think they "require the advice and consent" the Constitution insists the executive branch submit to. His reponse "seems odd to Americans," Clinton pointed out, when "the Iraqi Parliament may have a chance to consider this aggreement" but "the United States Congress does not."
Clinton, a trained legal mind, demonstrated she knew exactly what she was doing and her points would be repeatedly raised by Senators and Representatives throughout the hearings (with most having the good manners to cite her).
The afternoon found many strong voices on the Democratic side but chief among them was Senator Joe Biden who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was the picture of "on message." From his opening remarks, he clearly identified what the realities were, "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence down so that Iraq's leaders could come together politically. Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together." He noted any gains were "fragile" and was among the many to question the "Awakening" Council. Many more should have questioned them because in both hearings Tuesday and Wednesday, Petraeus' prepared remarks on the "Awakening" Council would include that by paying them ($300 US dollars a month), the US was cutting down on damage to US vehicles. Petraeus was bragging -- to the US Congress and the American people -- that the US military was forking over its lunch money to avoid getting beat up in the playground. It was not a proud moment but an indication of just how lost the Iraq War is.
As Biden noted, there was no political process. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel drove that point home noting that day-to-day events in Iraq was "holding our policy hostage" and he couldn't see any diplomatic "surge" on the part of the White House or anything remotely "Kissinger-esque" in US Secretary of State Condi Rice's non-actions.
If you saw or heard any commentary from the right-wing, you know that Senator Barbara Boxer drove them crazy. No wonder, she used her time effectively and wasn't in the mood for nonsense. She noted the years and years of training of Iraqi security forces (many of whom defected during the assault on Basra) and, after all this money and time, "what concerns me and most of my constituents, you said -- many times -- the gains in Iraq are fraigle and reversable. . . . So my constituents and I . . . have to wonder why the best that you can say is the gains are fragile and reversable?" Boxer noted the strong points Hagel raised and agreed with him that she's not seeing anything on the diplomatic front or any leadership coming from the White House.
She then turned to the militias and noted British reports that al-Maliki will not bring the "Awakening" Council members into the Iraq security forces because he's "concerned about" the loyalty of "about half of them". $182 million a year is how much the US tax payers are paying the "Awakening" Councils, she pointed out, and wondered why the Iraqis weren't footing this bill? If the Iraqi government is supposed to be standing up, why isn't it footing the bill? She promised she would be raising this issue, this $182 million a year of tax payer money, when the White House sent people up the Hill to ask for more money to fund the Iraq War.
Crocker stated what he'd repeat over and over throughout his subsequent hearing appearances (but he said it first to Boxer), he'd take that matter up with al-Maliki when he returned to Iraq. Left unstated was why it had never been brought up before?
For example, on Wednesday at the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Crocker would reply to Republican Representative Dan Orbach's suggestion that any agreement with Iraq should "include a provision that the Iraqi government pay for any security that we're providing them with," by stating, "Uh, Congressman, in the last few days, uh, uhm, had that message emphasized loud and clear. . . . That's uh something" to be discussed. Echoing Boxer, Orbarcher informed him that if the answer wasn't "yes," "there's going to be trouble on the Republican side as well as the Democratic side" when the White House asks for more war funding. It was bi-partisan consensus that most outlets missed.
That committee met Wednesday afternoon. Earlier that morning Petraeus and Crocker appeared before the US House Armed Services Committee and it's chair, Ike Skelton, would wonder, "How do you take the training wheels off" and get the al-Maliki government to stand on their own? Petraeus repeatedly insisted, throughout the hearings, that al-Maliki's assault on Basra was successful and that was never more laughable than when he responded to Skelton that Basra was proof positive that the training wheels had come off.
"Condition based results" was the buzz jargon Petraeus was attempting to inject into the news cycle over the two days and, Wednesday morning, House Rep Silvestre Reyes was one of the few to point out that the violence surges here and then surges there. The "condition based result" appeared to be deploy here, deploy there. And wasn't the 'surge' supposed to prevent that? House Rep Ellen Tauscher had a long range question and, later in the day, people would repeatedly echo her point. She wanted to know what Petraeus planned to do in the immediate future. She pointed out that elections would take place in the US this November and a new president would be elected. "If you report to a commander-in-chief . . . that wants a plan," one for withdrawal, she wondered, "what would you advise?"
He replied he would insist on "dialogue again" about the "risk" of withdrawal and then attempted to obscure the fact that he'd just admitted he would be presenting a case opposed to withdrawal by insisting he was aware the US military was under civilian control ("we are not self-employed, we take orders and we obey.") Tauscher asked the same question of Crocker. The month is April 2008 but apparently Crocker lacks the ability for mid-range planning. He informed Tauscher, "That's looking fairly far into the future uh and I've uh learned to keep my timelines short when it uh comes to do with things in Iraq." In seven months the US will hold elections and the incoming president may be one who advocates for withdrawal but seven months is apparently too far into the future for Crocker to contemplate. The day prior Hagel wondered about the lack of a diplomatic plan and Crocker appeared eager to demonstrate that any planning was beyond his grasp.
Among the members referencing the Status of Forces Agreement was US House Rep Susan Davis who returned to Clinton's questions about the treaty and how odd it was to the American people that the Iraqi Parliament would have a say on their end (as they are guaranteed in Iraq's Constitution) but the US Congress (also guaranteed that right) wouldn't, "That strikes people in our districts as strange. I wonder if you could talk on that" and how such an agreement might or might not "be used as leverage?" Crocker hemmed and hawwed and Davis noted that the Status of Forces agreement could be used for leverage.
Realizing he was never going to provide her with a straight answer (and might ask her to repeat her question for a fourth time), Davis moved on to the "Awakening" Council and how there are concerns that these militias (trained and paid by US tax payers) could return to violence. (At one point, Crocker lectured the Senate that this was a normal part of bargaining -- paying off the 'enemy.') Crocker had no real answer to Davis' question but noted it was something that had been discussed "with the Prime Minister" of Iraq and (insert laughs here) the US was more than prepared to provide these thugs with "job training and employment opportunites." One would think $300 a month was enough to provide them with but Crocker's apparently starting his own Save The Thugs fund.
Wednesday afternoon's hearing was chaired by Howard Berman who, thankfully, noted the length of the hearings thus far, "That's why we are asking both Ambarassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus more or less to summarize the main points of their testimony, at their discretion, a report to Congress that has been heard once in the House and twice in the Senate already. This way, we'll move along more quickly to the questions posed by members of the committee." Of note is that Petraeus written prepared remarks were about a fifth less than Crocker's. This did not change even after Tuesday morning's first hearing when one might have expected Crocker to wonder if he should edit his talking points down.
Despite sticking strictly to the time limits (which allows witnesses to stall and eat up time thereby avoiding answering questions), this was a lively hearing. House Rep Gary Ackerman noted the nonsense of circular logic, how -- all explanations for going into illegal war having proved false, the US is in Iraq today because, as the old WWII song went, "we're here because we're here." He noted the lack of any accomplishments and that Congress' "job is to question. Our job is to raise those points." Ackerman wanted to know what counted for the 'end' because, "How do you know we've won because at the end of this thing, unless we decide it's an end, nobody's going to hand you a revolver, nobody's going to hand you a sword. Nobody seems to know the answer to that question."
That was a point that especially concerned Rep Robert Wexler whose constituents include Esther and Len Wolfer whose son Stuart died the previous Sunday and left behind a wife (Lee Anne Wolfer) and three daughters. "What is the definition of 'winning'?" Wexler asked and then quoted Len Wolfer who wanted to know "For what" did his son die? "For what?" asked Wexler, "for what had he lost his son? What has all this been for and please, respectfully, don't tell us as you told Senator [John] Warner [yesterday] to remove a brutal dictator. What did Stuart Wolfer and the . . . others die for?" Petraeus declared, "National interests." A lie and a non-comforting one at that.
US House Rep Brad Sherman picked up on Tauscher's point about the changes in store, ""Will you begin on November 5th . . . to prepare plans to execute the policies of the incoming president or alternatively, will the incoming president . . . find a dilemma where if they order immediate withdrawal it will be an unplanned withdrawal" which would lead to more of the same currently going on (stuck in a quagmire)? As with Crocker, Petraeus has difficulty seeing into the immediate future ("Congressman, I can only serve one boss at a time.") -- apparently the military doesn't allow for multi-tasking -- news to the enlisted who are expected to do everything but things are apparently different at the top. (Senator Norm Coleman would raise this issue Thursday afternoon as well and there would still be no concrete answer.)
"General, we often hear President Bush and [Senator John] McCain say we must win in Iraq," US House Rep Robert Wexler noted. "What is the definition of 'winning'?"
Wexler explained that he had sought out input from his constituents as to what question they would be asking if they were on the committee. Stuart Wolfer, 36-years-old, died in Iraq on Sunday. He was a major on his second tour of Iraq and "his family was relieved that he was in the Green Zone because they hoped he would be safe there." He was killed in an attack on the Green Zone. He leaves behind a wife Lee Anne Wolfer and three daughters. His parents, Esther and Len Wolfer, live in Boca Raton. Len Wolfer wanted Wexler to ask, "For what?" Wexler explained, "For what had he lost his son? What has all this been for and please, respectfully, don't tell us as you told Senator [John] Warner [yesterday] to remove a brutal dictator. What did Stuart Wolfer and the . . . others die for?"
Sadly, this is where a lot of the press coverage ended, on Wednesday. Despite the fact that Thursday would find US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the chair of Joint Chief of Staffs Michael Mullen testify on the issue of the Iraq War.
First up was the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations where chair Biden referenced reports on the Status of Force Agreement while hearing testimony from the US State Department's David Satterfield and the US Defense Department's Mary Beth Long.
Biden noted the promises being made in the proposal, "We've pledged we're not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat. We've just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat?" Biden dubbed the proposed agreement "What the United State Will Do For Iraq" and how the "series of promises . . . flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country. We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a 'standard' Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy."
Biden noted the "internal threat" aspect being proposed and how these requires the US "to support the Iraqi government in its battle with all 'outlaw groups' -- that's a pretty expansive commitment." This requires the US "to take sides in Iraq's civil war" and that "there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out."
It was an important point and one not made often enough (we're not recalling anyone else making it). Biden spoke of his "frustrations" because "we want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist." The agreement itself was one-sided, Senator Russ Feingold agreed, and wanted to know about any conditions in the agreements "that the Iraq government must meet" but was informed that no one in the administration had thought to insert any. Feingold also noted the reality of the puppet government. "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true colation," Feingold asked, "won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the withdrawal of troops?"
That was apparently as shocking to the two as the suggestion that an agreement might need to include conditions for both sides. Satterfield wanted to claim that the government was legitimate and had popular support (and seemed unaware of the fact Feingold pointed out, that the bulk of Iraq's Parliament favors US withdrawal).
But Satterfield appeared ignorant of many details. Feingold explained to him that Congress could decide to pass a law overriding the agreement. He followed that up by asking Satterfield what he thought that would mean and the response was that the White House "would have to look careful at it at the time . . . It would propose a difficult question for us."
"I would suggest," Feingold responded, "your difficulties are with the nature of our Constitution. If we pass a law overiding it . . . that's the law."
Senator Robert Menendez raised an issue that peace activists should especially pay attention to. The White House doesn't want a UN authorization. If it had that authorization, it would have continue authorization for the occupation of Iraq (it has no authorization for the illegal war). You need to pair that with US House Rep Sheila Jackson's remarks the day before that currently the US is acting without any authorization ("Let me say that I frankly believe we are operating without authority, the 2002 authorization has been completed . . . We should now bring our troops home.") as well as Biden's point in Thursday morning hearing that the White House is attempting to enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government and that if the US is doing that "with a government in Iraq, it's not longer a threat" -- "it" being Iraq. Which again begs the questions of under what authority the US is remaining in Iraq? The legal aspect concerned Senator Jim Webb as well who wanted Satterfield to explain "the international authority after December 31st would come from what document?" The response Satterfield latched onto was "excutive agreement" which, for the record, does not allow for such authority.
"What you're maintaining," Webb pointed out, "is that an executive agreement can bind us -- let me use a better word -- can authorize a continue military presence in Iraq?" Webb noted that no such executive agreement can allow for that and the only way any agreement can is via Senate consent. Though we doubt Congress will pursue this aspect, the groundwork was clearly laid -- in both houses -- to argue that should no treaty be introduced to the Senate and passed by the Senate and should the Iraqi government not renew the United Nations authorization for continued occupation by the US, any remaining legal standing the US has for being in Iraq would expire on December 31st. That's a point for the peace movement to pay attention to.
As Joe Biden concluded at the end of the hearing, "), "I respectfully suggest that you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on." Again, the peace movement needs to pay attention to that point.
The afternoon saw the Senate Armed Service Committee hear testimony from Gates and Mullen and Carl Levin, the chair, informed Gates early on that there was "no way you can paper over the difference between" Gates' view on the drawdown and Petraeus' view. Levin was referring to the ridiculous statements Petraeus offered under questioning (by Levin) about the drawdown where he attempted to state that a pause was not a pause and that his stating that drawdown would be paused was in way in conflict with Gates' published statements. Levin pointed out that Petraeus refused to use the terms "brief" or "pause."
It's sad to see an adult obviously lie to Congress and it was sad to watch Gates insist that the only difference ("certainly"!) was in the way he and Petraeus described it -- that actually, descriptions aside, they had advocated the same thing. Despite Levin informing him there was no way to "paper over the difference," Gates attempted to do just that maintaing that he and Petraeus were on the same page. At the end of his rope, Gates finally began speaking of "benefits" and saying they include that he is "allowed to hope more than" Petraeus is.
Levin reminded the secretary that his job was to give a clear assessment and "I hope that you're doing more than hoping."
Gates appeared oblivious throughout and no where was that more apparent than when Senator Bill Nelson raised the issue of reimbursment for security (a topic Boxer had raised as Tuesday and that had been repeatedly raised throughout two days of Congressional hearings but Gates had somehow missed the news reports on those). "Based on this hearing," Gates chirped, "I'm more than happy to take this back to the administration." Again, he appeared unaware that Ryan Crocker had (repeatedly) stated he would be broaching the issue with al-Maliki. It was all news to Gates and we'd be very concerned that the US had a Secretary of Defense in a bubble if we believed a word Gates offered Thursday afternoon.
All the more strange when you consider Nelson pointed out that "Senator [Susan] Collins, Senator [Lindsey] Graham, Senator [Evan] Bayh and a whole host of us" had been asking about reimbursment throughout the week's hearings.
Thursday also saw the Bully Boy of the United States offer up an embarrassing speech where he pledged to continue the illegal war and indicated that he was still itching for war with Iran. (In fact Iran appeared to be at least half the speech.) Senator Joe Biden's response pointed out the obvious failures of Bully Boy's speech, "The President confirmed what I've been saying for some time -- he has no plan to end this war. His plan is to muddle through and then to hand the problem off to his successor. So the result of the surge is that we're right back where we started before it began 15 months ago: with 140,000 troops in Iraq, spending $3 billion every week, losing 30 to 40 American lives every month -- and still no end in sight." If the words sting the White House, it's because they're true. As Hillary Clinton noted, "Today, President Bush delivered yet another address on Iraq -- but we've heard enough speeches that are long on promises, short on facts. And the fact is, there will probably be more troops in Iraq after the surge than before the surge. Iraq has barely moved toward political reconciliation, meeting only a few of the benchmarks set out by the Bush Administration at the start of the surge. And violence has once again spiked in Baghdad and Basra. On Tuesday, I asked General Petraeus when he came before the Senate Armed Services Committee what conditions would mean we should change course, given that the surge has failed to achieve political reconciliation. He did not answer. Yesterday I called on President Bush to answer the question General Petraeus did not. But the President refuses to face reality."
The only thing of 'note' in Bully Boy's speech was that US troops would no longer be deployed to Iraq for 15 month tours. It would, instead, be cut down to twelve. And the media lapped that up like cream. The fine print was often ignored. That change goes into effect . . . August 1st. If the change is needed (and it is needed) there's nothing preventing the Bully Boy, in his commander-in-chief role, from changing it immediately. It's sop thrown out in an attempt to
fool the American people that the White House is doing something.
On Saturday, Bully Boy took to the radio to demonstrate how out of touch he is and thinks the American people also are. He spoke of "significant progress" in Iraq and pointed to "three major 'benchmark' laws" being 'passed.' The reality is that in 2007, the White House set 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government and three passed is pathetic. The reality is that none of the three passed have been implemented. The reality is that there is no progress.
Also on Saturday, House Rep John Yarmuth gave the Democratic response (link has text and audio) in which he noted:
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker failed to offer a plan to change direction in Iraq and redeploy our troops. Instead, they offered more of the same, with U.S. troops and taxpayers paying the price. "Americans have already endured enormous losses in Iraq. More than 4,000 troops have given their lives in battle and the American people have spent more than half a trillion dollars to prolong our presence there. While the Iraqi government enjoys a multi-billion dollar surplus, American tax dollars are still being used to pay the salaries of Iraqi security forces, and provide basic services to Iraqis.
The hearings ran from Tuesday through Thursday. Surprisingly, they started early for Congress (9:30 a.m.) and lasted long (well after five o'clock). Some questions have been asked about the tactics the Congressional Democrats (and some Republicans) are currently pursuing (including in e-mails to this site). To be clear, what's been done has been done. We're not speaking of the illegal war, we're speaking of attempts to end it. None of that has ended the illegal war. We're very interested in how Congress intends to pursue the groundwork they set up last week on legalities and economics. We're not Bob Gates so we won't be hopelessly hoping.
But we do think some new tactis are being implemented and if that's what it takes to end an illegal war that's lasted over five years (and should have never started), then so be it. If, however, it turns out this was just grand standing on the part of Congress, we will be very harsh in our later critiques.
What we do know at this moment is that KPFA hasn't forgotten that the nation is engaged in an illegal war:
Live On Air and Online at kpfa.org! April 22 from 10am-1pm
Join us on April 22nd for this very important follow up to Pacifica's groundbreaking Winter Soldier live coverage. We will be following the San Francisco trial involving wounded vets and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In this first class action lawsuit U.S. Veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder sue the VA, alleging a system wide breakdown in the way the Government treats those soldiers.
During this special broadcast we will be bringing our listeners live updates from the San Francisco federal courthouse, we'll speak with wounded Veterans attorney Gordon Erspamer, (taking this case pro bono because his father was permanently disabled in World War II and never received proper health care) and speak with Veterans advocates including Veterans for Common Sense, and Vets for America.
Read more about the broadcast here.