Violence Declines Further in Iraq
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Violence in Iraq dropped further during the summer according to a Pentagon report released yesterday.
Overall, civilian deaths across Iraq declined 77 percent in the three months from June to August compared with the same period a year ago, with June recording the lowest monthly death rate on record since the war began, the report said. Sectarian killings increased slightly in July and August, but they remained 96 percent lower than for the same period in 2007, it said. For example, there were 26 ethno-sectarian deaths in Baghdad in the summer months -- in contrast to more than 1,200 in the same period last year.
Total attacks and other security incidents remained at their lowest levels since early 2004, even as the U.S.-led coalition withdrew thousands of troops.
"Security incidents are now at the lowest levels in over four-and-a-half years, instilling in the Iraqi people a sense of normalcy that permits them to engage in personal, religious, and civic life without an inordinate threat of violence," the report said.
Nevertheless, the report voiced concern over several problems that could rekindle violence among competing groups and upset the recent progress on security.
One major concern is the Iraqi government's delays in reintegrating the nearly 100,000 predominantly Sunni volunteer fighters known as the Sons of Iraq into the army, police or other jobs, it said.
Iranian influence in funding, training and arming militias is "the most significant threat to long-term stability in Iraq," the report found. It said many leaders of the Iranian-backed "special groups" fled to Iran after Iraqi and U.S. military operations began last spring in strongholds such as Basra, Baghdad and Maysan province. Those operations "inflicted heavy losses" on the special groups and the Mahdi Army militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the report said. The report also said some Mahdi Army fighters are ignoring a call by Sadr to join a political movement and are instead forming "new, more lethal" special groups, which continue to receive Iranian aid.
"Whether recent security gains are long-term will depend, in part, on how these issues continue to develop," the report said.
Iraq’s anti-corruption efforts receive boost from UN partners
Antonio Maria Costa
29 September 2008 – The United Nations today launched a five-year plan to help Iraq prevent and combat corruption, a key element in the Government’s efforts to rebuild the fledgling democracy after years of strife and misrule.
“In the past, Iraq’s national wealth was stolen, its public assets were squandered, and its common wealth was dished out to cronies of the regime. The anti-corruption system needs a complete overhaul,” said Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of the UN Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
In the past, Iraq’s national wealth was stolen, its public assets were squandered, and its common wealth was dished out to cronies of the regime.
“By ratifying the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) last March, the Government of Iraq demonstrated its commitment to fight corruption. The UN is providing the tools to do the job,” he added.
The new initiative, which will be carried out jointly by UNODC and the UN Development Programme (UNDP), is designed to strengthen Iraq’s main anti-corruption bodies, as well as promote greater cooperation among them through the Joint Anti-Corruption Council. A national anti-corruption law is currently being drafted.
Projects will focus on strengthening prevention, transparency, accountability and integrity in the private and public sectors, in line with the UN anti-corruption treaty.
“The aim is to put in place the legal framework and build capacity to deter corruption at all levels of government, improve internal and external oversight, and strengthen anti-corruption law enforcement,” said UNDP Country Director Paolo Lembo.
The programme, which will be partly funded with resources from the UN Iraqi Trust Fund, will also strengthen the capacity of Iraqi anti-corruption officials to prevent, detect and investigate money-laundering, and enable asset recovery.
“Under the old regime, billions of dollars were stolen from the Iraqi people. As a party to the UN anti-corruption Convention, it will be easier for the new Government of Iraq to recover those assets,” said Mr. Costa.
Tackling corruption is one of several commitments undertaken by the Government under the UN-backed International Compact for Iraq, launched in May 2007.
The Compact, a five-year national development plan, includes benchmarks and mutual commitments from both Iraq and the international community, all with the aim of helping the country on the path towards peace, sound governance and economic reconstruction.
Iraq no longer poses threat to global peace and security, UN gathering hears
25 September 2008 – Iraq no longer jeopardizes international peace and security, given its successes in promoting national dialogue, consolidating security and improving relations with its neighbours, the President of the war-torn Middle Eastern country told the United Nations today.
“Advancements have been achieved on the ground due to ongoing national reconciliation activities, bringing forth the end of sectarian killings and the improvement of the security situation, coupled with the return of thousands of displaced families to their homes and the commencement of construction projects and the offering of services to citizens.”
The country’s security and military forces have greatly improved their ability to respond to gangs, militias and terrorist organizations, the President said. They have extended their successes beyond the capital Baghdad to Basra, Mosul, Diyala and other provinces.
The troops have also been replacing multinational forces in many parts of Iraq, most recently in Anbar. “The forces are also working to take over full responsibility to defend and preserve the democratic gains of our people,” he told delegates.
The Government acknowledges that much work remains to be done, and Mr. Talabani appealed to the world – and neighbouring countries in particular – for continued support.
In line with the new Iraqi constitution, the country has made strides towards “building good relations with neighbouring countries with common interests, while not interfering in their internal affairs, and relying on diplomacy and direct lines of communication and peaceful channels to resolve arising difference,” he said.
“Based on this, Iraq no longer threatens international peace and security, and therefore calls upon the international community to take steps towards removing Iraq from Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter,” the President added.
"...the Iraqis have essentially met all of the benchmarks that Congress imposed as signs of political progress."
===
Iraqis pass provincial-election law
September 24, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
Yet another milestone on political reconciliation has been met in Iraq. Earlier today, the National Assembly unanimously passed a law establishing provincial elections, one of the key indicators demanded by the US Congress to show progress in uniting Iraq under a democratic form of government.
The late agreement will likely push elections back to January:
QUOTE:
Iraq’s parliament has unanimously approved a provincial elections law after weeks of deadlock.
The lawmakers voted Wednesday in favor of the measure after overcoming an impasse due to objections over power-sharing issues in the province that includes the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.
==end quote==
The Assembly decided to unlink the two issues by forming an ad-hoc committee to propose a settlement of Kirkuk. That allowed the parliament to address provincial elections directly, and the unanimous result indicates the unity among all of Iraq’s sectarian groups for provincial elections. That will finally allow local government to take some of the burden of management off of Baghdad and give tribes and communities a greater influence on day-to-day decisions, including rebuilding efforts.
In the larger overall picture, the Iraqis have done well to have come so far in a short period of time. Two years ago, Iraq was tearing itself apart in an orgy of violence and retribution. One year ago, many members of Congress refused to believe that the country could be saved. One year after Hillary Clinton called General David Petraeus a liar for reporting that the surge had shown progress, the Iraqis have essentially met all of the benchmarks that Congress imposed as signs of political progress. That’s an impressive turnaround.
I thought it was good and worth noting. :)
This comment I felt was key:
The surge was just one reason for success in Iraq, said Brig Gen. John F. Campbell, the deputy director for regional operations at the J-3 on the Joint Staff. The surge was important, but so were the increased capabilities of Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi Awakening, though "you could argue the other two couldn't happen without the first," he said.
While acknowledging the Iraqi security forces and Awakening Councils, "you could argue the other two couldn't happen without the first." The US surge in forces was the critical lynchpin facilitating the other two happening. Without the US forces - without the surge - there would have been no success in Iraq.
This is something to remember when some say the surge had nothing to do with the success in Iraq and it was the Iraqis only themselves who did it.
===
Coalition, Iraqi Surge Was Keystone to Success in Iraq
By Jim Garamone , American Forces Press Service
MichNews.com
Sep 10, 2008
WASHINGTON - At the end of 2006, Iraq seemed on the verge of a civil war.
Al-Qaida was inciting divisions between Sunni and Shiia Iraqis. The newly elected government seemed ineffectual. Militia groups roamed neighborhoods and intimidated those who did not agree with them.
More than 100 U.S. servicemembers per month were being killed in fighting in the country. Today, that number has dropped dramatically, thanks largely to the troop surge and a new strategy that senior military officials credit with laying the groundwork for success throughout Iraq.
U.S. officials understood the challenges in Iraq and studied ways to stabilize and improve the situation. Even after his party lost the November 2006 congressional elections, President Bush said there would be "no retreat" from American goals for Iraq.
Civilian and military officials debated, posited, proposed, tested and eventually adopted a new way forward for the effort in Iraq that came to be known as "the surge." Bush announced the surge on Jan. 10, 2007. The bare bones of the plan committed more than 20,000 Army and Marine combat troops to the fight. The plan was to concentrate the troops in Baghdad and Anbar province – the two most restive areas in Iraq at the time. Baghdad, with a population of around 7.5 million people, is the center of gravity for the country. Progress there, it was thought, would influence the level of violence around the country.
Bush said the surge, plus a new strategy, would give the Iraqi government the time to develop and grow. "If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," he said in a speech to the nation.
"I am of conviction that this military plan – properly part of the new political emphasis and new economic plus-up – can provide the success we are looking for," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee the day after Bush announcd the plan. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates – in office for less than a month at the time – agreed with the assessment.
"Your senior military officers in Iraq and in Washington believe in the efficacy of the strategy outlined by the president last night," Gates said to the House committee. "Our senior military officers have worked closely with the Iraqis to develop this plan. The impetus to add U.S. forces came initially from our commanders there."
In October 2006, 106 Americans were killed due to all causes in Iraq. In December 2006, the number rose to 112. In July 2008, the number of Americans killed was 13. Last month, 23 were killed.
The surge was just one reason for success in Iraq, said Brig Gen. John F. Campbell, the deputy director for regional operations at the J-3 on the Joint Staff. The surge was important, but so were the increased capabilities of Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi Awakening, though "you could argue the other two couldn't happen without the first," he said.
Campbell was the assistant division commander for the 1st Cavalry Division, which formed the core of Multinational Division Baghdad. He was in Baghdad from the start of the surge and left earlier this year.
The first of the surge brigades arrived in Baghdad from Kuwait in January 2007 – the 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team. The soldiers went almost immediately into combat operations. Between then and June, four more brigades, a Marine expeditionary unit and two Marine battalions deployed to Iraq. Thousands of "enablers" – combat service and combat service support servicemembers – also deployed.
At the same time, the Iraqis were engaged in their own surge, which often is overlooked, Campbell said. The Iraqi surge was equally crucial to the turnaround in the country, the general noted, and the Iraqi military committed to sending nine battalions into Baghdad. This was a precarious commitment.
"In October [2006], the Iraqis had sent two battalions to Baghdad, and the experience was not good," Campbell said. Many Iraqi soldiers deserted upon hearing of the deployment; others ran at the first sign of trouble.
The coalition force focused on training the Iraqi forces prior to the surge. "They became more confident, better able to withstand pressure," Campbell said. "They could stand up in a fight. When these forces came into Baghdad as part of the Iraqi surge, they were much better trained, they had good [coalition] transition folks with them and were more confident."
The Iraqis planned to deploy the battalions to Baghdad for 90-day tours. In contrast, the coalition forces would be on the ground for 15 months.
"You need time on the ground, you need to develop relationships, you need to get to know the people," Campbell said. "They realized they needed more time to understand the ground, develop the relationships, meet the sheiks, meet the people, understand the leaders."
Ultimately, the Iraqi units stayed in place for six months, with others in place for a year.
The experience on the ground, working with U.S. forces, helped the Iraqi forces increase their capabilities. "Just being next to a U.S. soldier, they got better," Campbell said. "They wanted to look like our guys. They wanted to carry the same weapons. They wanted all the kit like we had. [They benefitted from] seeing how our guys handled themselves around people, around kids and the like."
More troops are important, but what really made the surge effective was the counterinsurgency strategy, Campbell said. The mission of counterinsurgency operations is to protect the population from attack and separate the vast majority of people from extremists.
"You have to get out and live with the people 24/7," Campbell said. "We weren't living on a big [forward operating base], going out and patrolling and then coming back to live."
The coalition units set up combat outposts and joint security stations in the neighborhoods of Baghdad – often in the places with the most attacks. The strategy in Iraq in 2006 was to "clear, hold, build" – clear the neighborhoods, hold them and then build in the neighborhoods so the people would see the benefits of peace.
But there were issues with the strategy, Campbell said.
"We could clear, no problem. We're the best at it in the world," he explained. "The problem was we didn't have the numbers to hold and protect the citizens of a city of 7.5 million people. We just didn't have the numbers of either coalition or Iraqis to do so."
The surge provided the numbers, and coalition and Iraqi forces went out into the neighborhoods. "When you are able to saturate them and stay there 24/7, and you live with the people, and they know you're going to be there every day, it makes a difference," the general said.
Baghdadis grew accustomed to having coalition and Iraqi troops around. They saw them day after day, and they started believing that the coalition and Iraqi soldiers would provide protection from al-Qaida terrorists or militias.
"Every day we stayed there living with them meant more people understood we were there for the long haul," Campbell said. "That brought the people around."
Iraqi citizens began phoning in tips or telling soldiers where the roadside bombs were or where the enemy weapons caches were hidden. They began turning in those people who murdered and intimidated them in the name of al-Qaida.
And the government and coalition units began pumping money and jobs into the regions.
Command and control of the Iraqi forces also helped improve the results of the surge. The Iraqis established the Baghdad Operations Center under the command of Army Lt. Gen. Abud Qabar.
"All the Iraqi army, all the national police and all the local police [operated] under his control," Campbell said. Before, Iraqi army units reported to the Iraqi Defense Ministry, and police units reported to the Interior Ministry.
"With the BOC, there was one chain of command and unity of effort," Campbell said.
The Iraqis increasingly planned and executed their own operations. Police and army personnel began working closely together, and this enabled the coalition to take troops from some more peaceful areas and place them in other areas where they could help improve security. This extended the reach of the surge, Campbell said.
The "Awakening," in which Iraqi sheiks began taking an active role in providing security, began in Anbar province, and quickly moved to Baghdad and its environs.
"There was rough going initially in Abu Ghraib and inside Ameriyah," Campbell said. Both areas are primarily Sunni, and al-Qaida wanted to keep them. The terror group had intimidated the citizens. The extremists tortured and killed hundreds of Iraqis in their campaign to control the neighborhoods. But the people in those areas were tired of violence, and they began following tribal elders and sheiks in cooperating with coalition and government forces.
It took time for the improvements in security to happen, Campbell said.
"We didn't have the final brigade combat team until June," he said. "And even then, there was heavy fighting. When you go into areas you've never been before, you expect higher casualties. And we got them."
In June 2007, the coalition faced tough casualties, but by August the attacks were beginning to subside. Even the Muslim observance of Ramadan – the month that ordinarily signals an increase in attacks – saw a drop.
"The surge allowed us to get control of areas, maintain control using Iraqi troops and police, and pump money and jobs into the economy," the general said. "It helped us link up with the sheiks and tribal leaders and push the Awakening process along."
In many parts of Baghdad today, markets are operating, doctors are practicing, children are learning and fathers are working. That would have been inconceivable in 2006, Campbell said.
"I saw the surge in the beginning, and when I left in December 2007 I had seen it turn Baghdad around," he said. "The surge was very successful and I could see the results. I would have told you maybe halfway into my tour that I would not have felt good about leaving. But later, I saw all the benefits. I thought we really gave the Iraqi people a fighting chance."
Iraq's Army grows in numbers and readiness The U.S. military says that an increasingly capable Iraqi Army could assume primary combat responsibility by mid-2009.
By Tom A. Peter
September 15, 2008
Basra, Iraq - As violence has declined across Iraq, new recruits to this country's fledgling army are no longer sent directly from basic training to the front lines.
When the insurgency was at full bore and spectacular suicide bombings more commonplace, young and inexperienced soldiers were hastily dispatched to take on militants, often with disastrous consequences for the Iraqi Army.
But today it's a different story and Iraq has a much different Army.
"Prior to the last year or year and a half, the demand for combatants in Iraq was so great that troops would come out of basic training and be thrown more or less directly into combat and not be pulled out," says Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
At the same time that attacks have declined and key militant leaders have been killed or arrested, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) has steadily grown. Overall, the ISF, which includes the Army, police, and all other military branches, has increased by 146,100 personnel, or roughly the total number of all US troops stationed in Iraq. Now, the ISF is 591,700 strong, according to US military officials.
"This huge size increase has given them enough people that they can now … afford more training before they throw people right onto the front lines, but even after they've been committed to combat they can now rotate battalions and brigades back out for formalized training," says Dr. Biddle.
The quality of the Iraqi military will be a key question for American politicians as they increasingly focus on whether to draw down US troops.
Even just a year ago, the state of the Iraqi military made such discussions a moot point. Inexperienced and laden with corruption, the military was in no position to replace coalition forces.
While there remain questions of how it will fare when US forces finally withdraw, the Army's growing size, experience, and even greater sectarian mix has many praising its capabilities.
When President Bush announced plans last week to bring home 8,000 US troops from Iraq, he said, "Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight."
Over the summer, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the former commander of coalition forces overseeing the training of the Iraqi military, told Congress that the Iraqi military should be ready to take control of primary combat responsibilities in the country by mid-2009.
In the early days of Iraq's security forces, Shiites dominated the ranks, leaving many Sunnis feeling disenfranchised and seeking the aid of insurgents for their own protection. The Army had essentially become the opposite of what it was under Saddam Hussein's control – a tool for enforcing Sunni Baathist dominance throughout the country.
Today, the sectarian blend of Iraq's security forces – 54 percent Shiite, 31 percent Sunni, and 15 percent Kurd – roughly resembles that of the nation, say US military officials.
"At first when I came to this brigade [in 2006], the entire unit was Shiite. There was only one Sunni," says Brig. Gen. Sabah Fadhil Motar al-Azawi, commander of the 26th Brigade. "After we succeeded in Ramadi in the fight against Al Qaeda and JTJ [Jamaat al-Tawhid wal-Jihad], I asked my division commander to give my brigade some soldiers and officers from Ramadi [a predominately Sunni city]."
Now, General Azawi says, his unit is a 40 percent Sunni.
For the time being, Iraqi leaders say they're doing their best to keep sectarian issues from resurfacing.
"If I see someone who wants to make an issue about the differences between Sunnis and Shiites, I stop him, and explain that we are here to fight and arrest the people who are making problems for Iraq. I tell them that we are all brothers and we are not different," says Sgt. Maj. Ali Ouda, an enlisted leader in the 26th Brigade.
Iraq says does not need U.S. financial aid
By Mohammed Abbas Reuters -
Monday, September 15 2008
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq does not need any financial aid from the United States, the government spokesman said, in the wake of criticism from some U.S. politicians that Washington is paying too much towards Iraq's reconstruction.
Since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, U.S. taxpayers have paid $48 billion (27 billion pounds) for stabilisation and reconstruction in Iraq, a congressional report said last month, adding Baghdad had spent little of its growing oil revenues on rebuilding infrastructure.
"I think we are in a position now not to ask for financial aid from anybody, even the United States," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters at the weekend in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.
"I think we have enough money to spend and we are not in need of any money in the future."
Iran's influence? You can hear it on Iraqi streets
Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:39am BST
By Mohammed Abbas
NAJAF, Iraq, Sept 30 (Reuters) - In the holy Iraqi Shi'ite city of Najaf, Iranian tourists throng the streets, speak to shopkeepers in Farsi and pay in Iranian money. Farsi chants blare from speakers at a nearby shrine.
The scene would probably horrify both the United States and Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbours, who suspect Shi'ite non-Arab Iran of nefarious and subversive influence in Arab lands. Even some of Najaf's citizens are wary of Iranian leverage.
But the city, a centre of religious and political power in Shi'ite-majority Iraq, benefits from Iranian tourism and aid.
The uniforms of rubbish men sport Farsi inscriptions, as do their gleaming new Iran-donated rubbish trucks. Iranian builders toil at the site of a new Iranian-sponsored hospital.
Iranian donations pay for the renovation of Shi'ite holy sites, and Iran has offered cash and expertise to boost electricity capacity in Iraq's Shi'ite south.
Each year hundreds of thousands of Iranian pilgrims visit Najaf's shrine of Imam Ali, one of the most important figures of Shi'ite Islam.
Najaf officials, up for re-election in provincial polls expected early next year, play down Iranian influence.
"Do you see Iranian councillors? Iranian police? ... There is no influence at all," Najaf provincial governor Assad Abu-Gelal said in a recent interview in the southern city.
But ordinary residents say Iranian influence is there, and they don't necessarily mind.
"There's an Iranian hand in Najaf, but it's a positive hand. They've help develop the city, the hospital, the tourism," said Hussein Abbas, who works in a Najaf toy shop. The province's current administrators will get his vote in the provincial elections, he added, despite the whiff of Iranian backing.
SWORN ENEMIES
Iraq and Iran were sworn enemies under Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab dictator who launched a ruinous eight-year war with Shi'ite Iran in the 1980s in which 1 million people died, many Iraqi Shi'ite conscripts.
But since U.S. troops overthrew Saddam in 2003 and a Shi'ite led-government came to power in Baghdad, Iran has conspicuously shown off its clout, partly through its ties with Shi'ite politicians and parties that were based in Iran for years during the rule of Saddam.
In March this year, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a triumphant visit -- becoming not only first Iranian leader to visit Iraq since the 1980s, but also the first regional head of state to visit since the U.S.-led invasion.
Iran has had a full-service embassy in Baghdad for years, while no Sunni Arab state had an ambassador in the Iraqi capital for three years until this month.
Washington -- Tehran's arch enemy for 30 years -- accuses Iran of supplying Shi'ite militants in Iraq with arms, training and cash, accusations Tehran denies.
Almost all of oil-rich southern Iraq's provincial councils, including Najaf, are dominated by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (ISCI), a Shi'ite political group formed in exile in Iran during Saddam's reign.
Many Iraqis, including Shi'ites, say ISCI is still backed by Iran. Yet ISCI is also a key part of Iraq's U.S.-backed government, and strongly denies Iran directs its policies.
"ISCI was in Iran. And from Iran we went to Washington. Iran has no ties to America. It's at political war with it," said Najaf deputy governor and ISCI member Abdul Hussain Abtan.
"We allow for good relations with Iran, but built on mutual respect, and not interfering in each other's affairs."
CLEAR AS THE SUN
Iraqis bristle at the prospect of their politicians taking Tehran's orders.
"We love the tourists, but if (Iran) tries to take part in politics, we'll fight it. And it is clear as the sun that they are," said Karar Kadham, sitting outside the Imam Ali shrine.
But he praised ISCI's leadership in the city and predicted most Najaf residents would vote to keep the party in power.
Majid Ali, a clothes shop owner, was careful to distinguish between Iranian cultural and political influence, saying Najaf city has had trade and religious links with Iran for centuries.
But he said he would not vote in local or national polls because Iraq's political leadership was "constrained" by Iran.
"Iran's aim is clear. To counter U.S. influence. They're facing the United States and the Arabs on the Iraqi stage," he said, before breaking off for a phone call in Farsi.
Ali Abshar, an Iranian pilgrim in Najaf, said he felt comfortable in the city, and that it was just like the Iranian city of Qom, Shi'ite Islam's other main seat of learning. He had no hard feelings over U.S. demonisation of his country.
"Americans came and got rid of Saddam," he said, holding two thumbs up and grinning.
Local boys have been enjoying the newly refurbished Mithaq Pool in Sadr City.
The streets of Sadr City are slowly coming back to life.
Within minutes of getting out of a heavily armoured vehicle, we are surrounded by laughing children.
Some are playing table football on the pavement. Others are trying to jump into every shot we film for our television report.
A public swimming pool has just re-opened - the first in this neighbourhood of the Iraqi capital. It is for boys only, but at least they get the chance to cool off.
Screaming with delight, they dive, jump and splash into the water. This is a side of Baghdad you rarely get to see.
Business grants
Violence has left its scars all over Sadr City. On the main streets, there are bullet holes and burnt-out buildings everywhere.
Security has, though, improved dramatically in recent months.
There are a lot of people who don't like us, but as far as the enemy goes, they have mostly moved on.
Earlier this year, Iraqi and US forces took part in a huge offensive. The militias melted away.
The Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr - who along with his Mehdi Army was one of the biggest thorns in the US military's side - called a ceasefire.
Since then, the streets have been much less dangerous for US soldiers. But anti-American feelings are still strong.
"There are a lot of people who don't like us," says US army Sgt Derryl Haidek. "But as far as the enemy goes, they have mostly moved on."
His men spend most of their days handing out business grants rather than battling insurgents - a sign of progress.
Shopkeepers can be given up to $2,500 (£1,390) for repairs or improvements. It is one way to ensure a less hostile reception.
Lingering fear
The residents of Sadr City are angry about the dire state of public services - the lack of electricity and clean water are the perennial complaints. But people feel much safer now.
A supporter of Moqtada Sadr holds up a poster of him,
Moqtada Sadr has not said whether his Mehdi Army will eventually disarm.
"The number of killings and kidnappings has dropped," says Atheer Jabbar, one shopkeeper. "There are no threats to us anymore".
US commanders say the Mehdi Army has been pushed out of Sadr City. But there is a lingering fear the militias are simply hiding and waiting to fight another day.
I asked Qusay Abd al-Wahhab, a member of the Sadrist block in the Council of Representatives, whether Mr Sadr had been defeated.
"No, not defeated. He has simply suspended his operations," he said.
Mr Abd al-Wahhab said the insurgency could quickly resume if his leader gave the order.
The real strength of Mr Sadr's supporters as a military force is one of the big unknowns in Iraq today.
The Mehdi Army seems diminished. Mr Sadr himself spends most of his time in Iran, but he still has huge political and religious influence in parts of the country.
The fighting could resume if US troops withdraw rapidly from places like Sadr City, or if the US announces an intention to stay for many years.
US troops have built a barrier in Sadr City to reduce sectarian violence.
Whilst highly sensitive negotiations on the future of coalition forces continue in Baghdad, troops on the ground are trying to hold on to the recent gains in security. But they have come at a price.
US troops have built a barrier which cuts Sadr City in half.
The residents of this poor, battered enclave now find themselves almost entirely surrounded by concrete walls.
Life is far from normal here - even if people are starting to feel a little more hopeful.
Sara!
Regarding your post about being right...Like you, I wish I was now looking foolish for projecting such things...but the real truth is the Arab League Of Nations has failed the world and thus it appears we may be reaping the whirl wind of the failure to control Iran...
The leader of Iran is continuing to make dire threats of Israel...these threats are made for a purpose...1. To unite the Arabs ...2. To unite under the Islamic Banner ...3. To poke and prod a fight...they want to be attacked...
The US has silently massed a huge aircraft force just off the coast of Iran...this was done for a purpose...you can decide what that purpose is...show or actual force, I really don't know...but I can tell you, that Iran does not have long to do some back peddling, which I believe will not come...
I saw a article the other day, that stated, if the Meltdown bill does not pass...President Bush will be forced into a situation that he really does not want to take but feels it is necessary to save the economy...This particular writer stated the dates between Oct 7th and Oct 15th was the range to watch for...
It will interesting to see if anything significant happens during that period....
Things are looking pretty grave with that situation, and of course, a war with Iran will involve Iraq, and so the fate of the Dinar. I still think the first shot to commence hostilities is in the hands of Israel, and they will hold off doing anything militarily until November. I also believe that the bailout deal will be done. Right now, they are saying the markets are doing fine, why bother? The news continues to say that no meltdown has happened.. this is nothing but "Chicken Little" and a bogus threat of collapse. But the reason the markets have not given up the ghost or faltered terribly is the incredible infusion of cash which CENTRAL BANKS have given to prop it up until America gets the bill approved. We teeter on the brink of a very, very deep abyss.. with uninformed conservatives unable or unwilling to see that President Bush is right that there are exceptions even to the conservative view of non-interference in the markets.
===
Central banks pump in $620bn as shares plummet
Gary Duncan, Robert Lindsay
September 29, 2008
Central banks around the world unveiled a plan to pump massive amounts of cash into the global banking system in a concerted effort to boost market confidence and inject liquidity into the global markets.
The move followed a fall in the Dow Jones of nearly 300 points in morning trade to 10,869 as the market took fright at several bank nationalisations in Europe and the US despite the approval of the "son of Tarp" — the Troubled Asset Relief Programme —bailout. The FTSE 100 index of leading shares was down almost 5 per cent, taking it to a new low for the year and below the psychologically significant threshold of 5,000.
As nine central banks used currency swaps to oil the wheels of dollar liquidity in the money markets, sterling plunged and was on course for its steepest one-day drop against the dollar for at least a decade and a half.
This was in response to the nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley (B&B), the stricken UK mortgage bank, which fuelled markets' fears over Britain's battered banking sector and the fallout for its economic prospects.
In the US, the Dow Jones fell nearly 300 points in morning trade to 10,869 as the market took fright at several bank nationalisations in Europe and the US despite the approval of the "son of Tarp" — the Troubled Asset Relief Programme —bailout.
US Treasury debt staged a meteoric rally as investors scrambled for the safe haven of American government securities. The 30-year Treasury bond’s price rose more than three points. The flight to safety was even after the Federal Reserve said it would substantially increase currency swap limits to $620 billion (£342 billion ) with nine leading central banks in response to short-term strains in the money markets.
In its latest severe sell-off, the already sharply weaker pound plummeted by almost 5 cents against the dollar today compared with its level at the close of New York trading on Friday.
The fall of more than 2.5 per cent in sterling saw it tumble from $1.8445 to levels below $1.80, taking it to a 10-day low of $1.7962. The pound has now shed almost 11 per cent against the greenback from peaks above the watershed of $2 reached at this time last year.
The price of Brent crude fell more than $5 a barrel to $98.05, its lowest level for almost six months.
Markets were anxious about Britain's fast deteriorating economic outlook and the stability of its banking sector as B&B followed Northern Rock in being nationalised. The worries followed the fire sale of HBOS, the nation's biggest mortgage lender to Lloyds TSB, and led to the London stock market succumb to a fresh hammering of its leading shares.
The FTSE 100 index of British blue chip stocks closed down by 253 points, or 4.97 per cent, taking it below the psychologically significant threshold of 5,000 to 4,835.45 and to a new low for the year, down 28 per cent from the 6,730.71 level it reached on October 12, 2007.
The steep sell off of sterling and London shares came as agreement reached on Capitol Hill on a proposed $700 billion rescue plan for the US banking system was overshadowed by the latest woes for British and continental European banks. As well as B&B, the Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourg Governments nationalised parts of Fortis, the European banking and insurance giant, and agreed to inject €11.2 billion into the group.
Iceland's government also took control of Glitnir, that country's third biggest bank.
Analysts said the developments switched attention back to the international nature of the banking and financial upheavals spawned by the credit crisis.
"I think there has been a very lax attitute over the last couple of weeks ... [suggesting] it's been seen as a purely US-centric problem," Jeremy Stretch, of Rabobank, said.
"We've gone from a piecemeal response in the US to something more substantive with the bailout package. Whether it works or not is a different matter."
The euro also fell heavily against the dollar amid concern over the eurozone's banking strife and the adequacy of arrangements for bank rescues in the 15-nation bloc. The euro lost as much as 1.8 per cent against the dollar, falling to levels of about $1.4340 from a US close of $1.4613 on Friday.
Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 index was down 1.3 per cent at 11,743.61, and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index shed 2.1 per cent to 18,286.90.
“They’re worried that another fire is starting in Europe,” said Castor Pang, an analyst at Sun Hung Kai Financial in Hong Kong.
If you didn't see this one, it is worth watching and remembering those who sacrificed to make this Iraqi victory possible.
===
Vets for Freedom ad: Acknowledge our victory!
August 26, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
Vets for Freedom has a new ad released that demands acknowledgment from Democratic Party officials that the surge succeeded in stabilizing Iraq. VFF makes the lack of recognition personal in this spot, with Iraq War veterans making the point that they comprised the surge, and that they deserve the recognition that comes with victory:
Vets for Freedom Chairman Pete Hegseth, a decorated former Army infantry platoon leader in Baghdad, said in a statement: “Vets for Freedom will not stand by and let the incredible progress of our troops go unnoticed by the American public and lawmakers from either side of the aisle.
Hegseth is at the convention to tell lawmakers, delegates and the press about his observation during a recent return to Iraq.
“It is essential that our top legislators — regardless of party — understand the importance of victory in Iraq, the consequences of defeat and the success of the surge,” Hegseth said. “Sen. Obama has said that he would still oppose the surge if given another opportunity and has pointed to every outside factor but the surge to explain improvements in Iraq. We hope he will listen to the veterans who have served there and support this important resolution for the sake of the troops.”
===end quote==
VFF focuses on one particular Democrat in their pursuit of recognition: Barack Obama. Even the New York Times reports that the surge “clearly” has succeeded; why can’t Obama? Just as clearly, any acknowledgment that the surge succeeded would serve as an admission that Obama got it wrong in January 2007 and continued getting it wrong ever since.
In other words, political considerations outweigh the truth for Barack Obama, and outweigh the right these veterans have to the recognition not just of their service, but of their victory.
You can add your voice to the Vets for Freedom effort to have the people who would command our military acknowledge the fruits of their efforts by calling or writing Obama and other Democrats.
Vets for Freedom ad: Recognize the victory, Senator Obama
September 17, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
Vets for Freedom has a new television spot that will air soon in selected markets. Called “Petraeus vs Obama”, the ad juxtaposes several statements by both men that demonstrate rather clearly that General David Petraeus had told the truth about the surge from his earliest statements, while Obama refused to recognize the success of the mission:
The VFF compiled a helpful list of Obama’s statements rejecting the success of the surge. In some cases, he refused to acknowledge any improvement in Iraq at all, and in later examples gave credit for the improvement to others, rather than the American soldiers who fought and defeated the terrorists. Many of these statements make it into the ad itself, but frankly, they had too many examples to include them all, so be sure to read the document.
The ad wants Obama to vote in favor of Senate Resolution 636, which would explicitly recognize the success of the surge and thank the men and women who won the victory.
Giving credit where it is due.. this is definitely worth repeating.
The imminent victory in Iraq - AND,
the vets for freedom vying for acknowledgement of that fact.
===
Return to Samarra: Imminent Victory in Iraq
August 31st, 2008
by Gary Larson Vets for Freedom (VFF) revisit former battle stations in Iraq . . . and find victory is at hand. Not good news for the defeatists and news media.
It has mostly vanished from front pages, a battle nearly won — at least in Iraq, with more to do globally and in Afghanistan. News on inside pages now tell of homicide bombers' attacks by young females, so desperate is al Qaeda. But it is mostly quiet on the Iraq Front. Unless capitulation as sought (yet!) by the irresolute, victory is at hand.
Reason for popping the cork? Not yet. But indisputably, the U.S.-led coalition is winning. Even the well-meaning anti-war crowd (as opposed to “crazies”) might not like to admit it's close to over, and how that must hurt that cut-and-run crowd. Shall we all shed a tear for them?
False premises abound. Slogans such as “He Lied Us Into War” and “No WMDs” and the granddaddy of them all, “No Blood for Oil!,” take the place of cold hard logic and stubborn fact. Whoppers, yes, but like most mindless slogans of a ranting mob, these are articles of faith for the myopic, usually intensely partisan anti-war clique.
Truth be told, success leaves the anti-war folks a rather gloomy bunch. Think of the America First supporters after Pearl Harbor, when reality hit, and the turncoat Copperheads during the Civil War. Short-sighted losers all, selling their nation and its military short, they became intractable prisoners of a limited worldview, a sort of time warp, suffering from vision impairment. Like that “S” word on bumper stickers, it happens.
Winning battles is somehow bad news also to mainstream American media (MSM). Many a liberal Democrat and their media allies are reluctant to acknowledge imminent victory, let alone celebrate it. Today a fragile, hard-won new democracy exists in Iraq. Bad news?
Silence of the left-liberal class suggests an unwillingness to admit they were wrong. Big fat egos get in the way, and the baggage of past utterances. Nay-sayers even to coalition's surge, a most logical thing, the vision-impaired folks insist, as did their hero John Kerry, this war is the “wrong war,” at the “wrong time” and “unwinnable.” Oh?
Imagine a bloodless, 100% politically correct war, and a splendid time for one. Try never? In this case, a regime which shot at UN aircraft, ignored UN sanctions, subsidized terror elsewhere, provided shelter for al Qaeda, invaded and raped its neighbors, murdered its Kurds, etc., brought it on. The Saddam-led force was sworn to evil. Remember Iraqi SCUDS raining down on Tel Aviv? Opera-goers going to concerts with gas masks on their belts? Like the horrors of 9/11, how soon we forget. Contrast this to World War II when the rallying cry was “Remember Pearl Harbor!”
Accepting defeat willingly, putting down our nation's military as inept or worse, as criminal, is emblematic of the new hard Left. To those doggedly pessimistic, “Amerika” can do no good. The tawdry blame-America syndrome strikes. It seems to pop up in every generation. Could it be, ah, a result of the nation's educational structure? Just a not-so-wild speculation, that . . .
Such negativism, such passivity in the face of darkness, would trump the requisite war victory, possibly with an eye to the next election cycle. Laying down one's arms would leave the field open to enemies by declaring neutrality rules. Shameful, yes, but hardly new. Such cowardice, shall we say?, in the face of evil, can come back to bite the rear-ends of the peace-at-all-cost types.
Devilishly shrewd Machiavelli described it this way in 1513: “One who is not your friend will want you to remain neutral. Irresolute princes, to avoid present dangers, usually follow the path of neutrality, and are mostly ruined by it.” (The Prince at Chap. 21). Who needs Nostradamus?
House Speaker Nancy (“Save the Planet”) Pelosi and nasty slanderers of our military, such as Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), tried their damnedest to bring the troops home in ignoble defeat, leaving the field to the enemy, and good Iraqis dangling in the wind.
When the “pull out now” stance of the anti-war crowd is pointed out, or even hinted at, their sole refuge is to hide behind a claim that they are being labeled unpatriotic, not truly American. It's a bogus claim. How about calling them . . . naive? Geopolitically challenged? Clueless? Obtuse?
Against this dreary backdrop, a patriotic group of ex-Iraq and Afghanistan war vets is seeking to showcase imminent victory in Iraq. Their message goes largely ignored by the liberal MSM, not really a surprise, considering the selective reporting and liberal-left agenda pushing.
They call themselves Vets for Freedom (VFF). Theirs is a non-partisan group out to set the record straight about where they served, in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are led by U.S. Army Capt. Peter Hegseth, a decorated combat veteran from Minnesota and a Princeton University grad ('03).
Hegseth and other VFFers returned this summer to their former duty stations. Hegseth went back to Samarra, Iraq. What he found and reported on did not get a lot of ink back home, or air time, with a few exceptions. (C-Span interviewed him!) Blogs, bless them, reported extensively on his and colleagues' return to war zones. Thank God for responsible blogs's truth-telling.
“What I’ve seen in Samarra,” Hegseth writes, “and [what's] happening throughout Iraq, is enough to make Americans of either party proud. After years of getting it wrong — or at best, only partly correct — today we are winning the war and setting the conditions for an enduring peace in that country, even in perpetual al Qaeda cesspools like Samarra.
“Faced with a determined enemy, hell-bent on bringing America to her knees in Mesopotamia, American military will, its adaptability, and might, are carrying the day,” he writes at the well-designed VFF blog. (Check it out at www.vetsforfreedom.org.)
To those who say al Qaeda was not in the forefront, he responds: “I challenge anyone to walk the streets of Fallujah, Baqubah, Samarra, or elsewhere in Iraq, and tell the locals that their city — their neighborhoods — have NOT been al Qaeda battlefronts.
“Every Samarran I spoke with — every single one — brought up al Qaeda, pronouncing the name with a guttural disdain distinct in Iraqi accents. Most have had a family member killed by al Qaeda’s indiscriminate tactics, and have no desire to live in their seventh-century fantasy world.
“A few months ago, a raid south of Samarra uncovered the primary administrative hub for al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). The bunker complex — piled high with medical records, travel documents and pay stubs — was where foreigners were sent before receiving their suicide assignments. Al Qaeda literature and videos littered the underground headquarters.”
(Why wasn't this data-rich raid given more attention in MSM? Did it not fit a preconception?)
Party-line defeatists argue Iraq is a “distraction” from the real war. (Afghanistan apparently is the real deal.) One-sided war critics also claim, without evidence, that the presence of coalition forces perpetuates new-breed hatred for Americans, thereby creating more radical Muslim jihadists.
But Michael Moore's lie-laced 9/11 film probably produced more hatred, and it's drawing SRO audiences lapping up his anti-American, Bush-hating diatribe in Middle East cinemas. (One wonders how many U.S. “troops” Moore has killed or maimed by his anti-American rhetoric. That question is off the table to Democrats, who attended its premier in droves, and the MSM. Shhh.)
Peacekeeping? In Iraq? Who said anything about that? Soldiers serving are more than tolerated for the peace they bring to once-embattled neighborhoods, reports Hegseth. Some GI's are adored, and given spartan gifts, for bringing peace and hope to reclaimed neighborhoods. In some places they are now celebrated as heroes, a dastardly fact the MSM are loathe to report.
As to “distraction,” anti-war pundits have it backwards, argues Hegseth. “Iraq has actually proven to be a distraction for al Qaeda,” he says. On the run, losing badly, it throws the evil-doers off track. How many lives have been saved by al Qaeda attacks NOT executed in Iraq and elsewhere? That will be forever a matter for speculation — another question the anti-war mavens would prefer not engage.
Hegseth calls al Qaeda's decision to go full-bore into Iraq in 2003 a “strategic blunder.” His assessment is validated by intercepted letters between al Qaeda leaders. They bemoan their huge losses, their loss of control. This fact, too, gets scant mention in MSM.
It would have been a “strategic blunder” if coalition forces were withdrawn before victory, in accordance with some politician's timetable. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory would seem especially stupid to some, but not to the anti-war freaks.
Some still naively insist, Hegseth observes, that if we left Iraq high and dry — but not, for some inscrutable reason, Afghanistan — everything will be hunky dory. And the tooth fairy exists?
What particularly bothers Hegseth (and yours truly) is “the self-aggrandizing notion that opposing the Iraq war then [at the beginning] automatically devalues the importance of the endeavor today.”
A member of the New York National Guard, Capt. Hegseth stresses the incongruity of the war critics' stance with today's reality: “Today’s hardcore Iraq war detractors — politicians, pundits, polemicists alike — all use the same lines of argument to smear the importance of the Iraq war at every turn.”
“My experiences in Samarra,” he adds, “and facts of the new counterinsurgency strategy [of General Patrias, or “General Betrayus” to the anti-military Left] directly refute this. As we have surged into neighborhoods — to protect the Iraqi people, earning their trust, and benefiting from their help — violence has dropped, and locals have turned against the jihadists.”
Terrorist and weapons caches are being singled out by local Iraqis now, reporting to coalition forces to scoop them up. The decline in violence may not sit well with war protesters, or enhance their candidates' chances, but it's quite true. Even The New York Times says so, and every fair-minded person knows its stridently anti-war, anti-”W” bias.
Reluctantly, some anti-war pushers are brought kicking and screaming to a realization “we” (now including them, as Johnny-come-Latelys) are winning. Still puzzled, though, by “our” war aims, they continue to pile on the administration they so despise (hate is not too strong a word), which merely spared the nation of another 9/11. Such is the nature of true irony.
Thanks to political courage and military will and self-sacrifice, Americans can, if they will, take pride in victory in and for 25 million Iraqi citizens and, coming later with NATO help, victory also in mountainous Afghanistan. Freedom is not free, we are constantly reminded, by combat deaths and the wounded, and the immense debt. But then, freedom never did come on the cheap.
The world is watching. “Whether Americans like it or not,” Pete Hegseth concludes: “What ultimately happens on the streets of Samarra — militarily, politically, economically — will reverberate through the Middle East and the world. Will our allies and our enemies see a strong America that wins its wars and stands by its friends?” Or not? Aye, that is the question.
* * *
Author's note: Vets for Freedom's efforts to tell Americans about their realities of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been much reported. Capt. Peter Hegseth's VFF was denied an educational platform even in his hometown, Forest Lake, Minnesota. At the 11th hour the local American Legion post stepped forward to give local citizens an opportunity to hear from the touring Vets for Freedom. My article on this city's effrontery to our military, as also reprinted in Hegseth's local newspaper, was first published here as “Outrage in Minnesota: Spurning Our Military Heroes.”See:
Iran scuppers US deal for key troops in Iraq Iran is successfully blocking US efforts to secure a long-term troop presence in Iraq, the American ambassador to Baghdad has conceded.
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
26 Sep 2008
In remarks that acknowledged that Tehran is at least as powerful as Washington in Iraq's corridors of power, Ryan Crocker blamed Iran for delays in finalising an agreement that would underpin the US operation in Iraq beyond the end of this year.
Iraqi and American negotiators missed a July deadline to seal a legal framework for US bases and troop operations in the country. Until Mr Crocker's remarks that Iran was "pushing very hard" against the deal, Iranian interference was a factor that went officially unacknowledged.
Mr Crocker also told the Los Angeles Times that Iran was exerting increasing control over extremist Shia muslim activists that were previous linked to the upstart cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr. He said:
"I think what we may be seeing is a situation in which these groups or their successors are far more tightly linked to Tehran and perhaps less linked to Sadr."
America maintains more than 140,000 troops in Iraq as part of an active combat operation to defeat both Sunni terrorists linked to al Qaeda and Shia militias implicated in the deadly violence of Iraq's civil war. But the UN mandate that legitimised and granted legal protection to the US-led coalition that overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003 is due to expire at the end of the year.
Iran has condemned leaked drafts of the bilateral agreement to replace the mandate. Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, replaced professional diplomats on the negotiating team with members of his private office in August, a development that has pro-Iranian politicians at the heart of the negotiations.
Baghdad maintains that US efforts to secure immunity from prosecution in Iraq for troops and contractors is an unacceptible demand. David Satterfield, the top US negotiator, travelled to Baghdad with a counter proposal but Mr Crocker admitted Mr Maliki was unwilling to concede the principle when popular opinion in Iraq was overwhelmingly opposed.
"The Iraqi people disagree with anything that breaks their independence and sovereignty and judicial sovereignty," he said. "On this basis, the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government look at the agreement as being imposed on them."
Mr Maliki has also insisted that the US pull out all its troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 but the US is only prepared to concede a transition to fully Iraq control of security by that date would be a shared goal.
Securing the approval of the Iraqi parliament for any deal looms as a further impediment to a quick resolution of the impasse. Iraqi MPs have warned that there is deep suspicion of US intentions across the political spectrum. Dhafer al-Ani, a Sunni politician, warned that parliament would conduct a protracted debate on the document: "Due to the sensitivity of the issue, the arguments in parliament will be acute."
Then recently, SOME movement in a positive direction...
===
Maliki says Iraq ready to compromise on US security pact
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Iraqi Premier Nuri al-Maliki said Monday that the government was ready to compromise to reach a security accord with the United States, saying the country still needs US troops despite the recent drop in violence. The speech came after a deadly spate of attacks took the lives of 35 Iraqis Sunday night.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Maliki said neither he nor Iraq's Parliament will accept any pact that falls short of the country's national interests. A poorly constructed plan would provoke so much discord inside Iraq that it could threaten his government's survival, he said.
Maliki said, however, that he was firmly committed to reaching an accord that would allow US troops to remain in the country beyond next year.
"We regard negotiating and reaching such an agreement as a national endeavor, a national mission, a historic one. It is a very important agreement that involves the stability and the security of the country and the existence of foreign troops. It has a historic dimension," he added.
Supporters of popular cleric Moqtada al-Sadr oppose the accord, arguing that US forces should leave Iraq as soon as possible. Neighboring Iran has also been speaking out vociferously against a long-term US presence in Iraq.
Maliki also noted with gratitude the high cost paid by American taxpayers and by the US military and the forces of other coalition members to secure Iraq's freedom and liberty over the past five years.
Maliki also said the government would be offering a compromise on the thorny issue of legal jurisdiction for US forces in the country involving some limited immunity for US forces.
"We have proposed that the legal jurisdiction would be ... with the Americans ... when the troops are performing military operations," he explained. "When they are not performing a military operation, they are outside their camps, the legal jurisdiction would be in the hands of the Iraqi judiciary."
"If we don't reach an agreement by January 1, 2009, the [US] troops will have to remain in their bases," Maliki added, "and then there should be a plan for a quick withdrawal.
Concomitant with Maliki's interview, Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned rising officers Monday of the limits of US military power and encouraged them to be skeptical of technological solutions to complex wars.
In a speech on "hard power" at the National Defense University, Gates said the US military needed to strike a better balance between spending on hi-tech weaponry and meeting the requirements for fighting low-tech wars in broken states.
"Let's be honest with ourselves," he said in remarks prepared for delivery. "The most likely catastrophic threats to our homeland ... are more likely to emanate from failing states than from aggressor states."
He also has advocated greater reliance on "soft power," such as diplomacy and economic influence, over "hard" military power.
"Be modest about what military force can accomplish, and what technology can accomplish," he said. But the human dimension of warfare "is inevitably tragic, inefficient, and uncertain," Gates added.
And a further acknowledgement.. of the necessity of US troop presence..
along with a tie-in to the current financial crisis:
===
Iraq minister pleads for no US withdrawal
September 28, 2008
Iraq's foreign minister said yesterday "there is a new world now" due to the global financial crisis and he hopes it won't lead to a withdrawal of the 146,000 US troops in his country. Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari said a withdrawal could have consequences for the region that everyone would regret.
Japan to enhance capacity to collect accurate information on Iraq
The government will try to enhance its capacity to collect accurate information on Iraq in response to a set of proposals by experts and growing business interest among Japanese companies, trade ministry officials said Tuesday.
(www.noozz.com)
Too early to set date for finalizing agreement's talks -Sagheer 30/09/2008 17:23:00
Baghdad (NINA)- MP Jalal al-Sagheer of the United Iraqi Alliance has sated that "a progress" has been made at the negotiations of the Iraqi-American security agreement, in relation to the Iraqi demands which had been presented to the American[s].
(www.ninanews.com)
I haven't been able to digest this article yet but it sounds interesting......
=======================================================================================================
Central Bank of Iraq: Iraqi dinar is more adopted in regional transactions for backing US dollar and other currencies
The economic consultant in the Central Bank of Iraq, Mudhir Muhammad Salih clarified that the bank decided within the future plan which will begin next year, the execution of removing three zeros from the Iraqi currency, which is now suffering from inflation that can not be remedied only through this project, which will give a lot of prosperity and stability in The availability of high and strong cash liquidity ,and to facilitate transactions in line with the stage of growth and optimistic economic prosperity that Iraq will witness in the coming months or years, but it is «a long-term relatively project, and will be implemented gradually to give a kind of comfort and harmony in the economic situation.
Salih stressed on the Bank determination in favor of implementing the project of deleting three zeros from the Iraqi dinar, to convert a thousand dinars to one dinar, which the first phase of the project will begin after a period of time over a year, because this requires careful planning before implementation, and if applied directly it will overburden citizens and may cause problems Even in the cash transactions between people. like what happened when the currency was changed , we found people running to exchange their funds in banks ,but now the first step would be to continue to deal in both existing and new currency until the exhaustion of the old currency from market normally and without the citizens feel so.
He added that the Iraqi economy based on its dealings in cash monetary system,which means direct cash transactions because of weak banking systems and mechanisms ,besides the citizens fears from dealing with banks. Thus we need time to stimulate people to this type of transactions after they used to the old transactions which issued a hike up cash for (20) trillion dinars created in a need for large catagory and this is why the demand for the dollar to the completion of internal trading (dollarization), despite the high value of the Iraqi dinar.
Modhir said that Iraq will convert from 20 trillion to 15 billion dinars and this would have positive effects on the daily economy and banking, and people will be feel comfortable, and I see it is very important and civilian matter, especially that most countries such as Turkey and Brazil dealt with the inflation for many years through such mechanisms And worked to replace the currency and delete zeros and raise the value through long-term plan to implement this project.
In anticipation of any disruption or fluctuations may occur in the secondary market or in cash transactions , we should adopt accurate measures and steps that would solve all the problems in the trading bloc committed a result of enormity of cash in the Iraqi market.
Modhir explained that Iraq has suffered from hyperinflation in the past two decades, which was reflected as hyperinflation ,and that monetary issuance raised to be approximately 25 billion dinars in the early nineties, as to be in 2003 six thousand billion, and if we add significant structural changes on the size of the budget that is the source of Expansion of the monetary mass, we can say that the country is not able to stand in its ciruculations such large amount of cash currency units, a legacy of a hyper-inflation. He noted that the reduction in the new currency will give a lot of prosperity and stability in the availability of high and strong money fluidity and facilitate transactions in line with the stage of growth and optimistic economic prosperity that Iraq will witness in the months or years to come.
The following is from our long time nemisis in Iraq: Mookie.
__________________________________________________________
Sadr announces readiness support minorities 30/09/2008 19:13:00
Najaf (NINA) – Muqtada Sadr, head of Sadrist Trend, announced readiness to support Iraq's religious and ethnic minorities to obtain their national rights and demands.
(www.ninanews.com)
Considering the volatility in the region..
and Russia's presence there and invasion recently of Georgia..
This is worthy of note to the board as a positive development. :)
===
Gorbachev to form political party in Russia
By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sept 30 2008
MOSCOW - A Russian billionaire said Tuesday he is teaming up with former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to form a new political party that will challenge the country's recent steps away from democracy.
Alexander Lebedev, a former lawmaker who has built a fortune in business and investment, said he and Gorbachev would work together in a political movement tentatively named the Independent Democratic Party.
Kremlin critics say that during his eight years as president, current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reversed Russia's post-Soviet movement toward democracy and enhanced state control over the economy, courts and media.
In a statement on his Web site, Lebedev said the new party was Gorbachev's idea. "The initiative belongs to President Gorbachev. He gave our people freedom, but we have not learned how to use it."
Lebedev said the party would advocate a "return to a normal electoral system," calling for the restoration of gubernatorial elections, a stronger parliament, independent courts and media, and a smaller state role in the economy.
Gorbachev has generally praised Putin for lifting the nation out of the post-Soviet troubles that many Russians blame on the late Boris Yeltsin, a longtime rival of Gorbachev who replaced him in the Kremlin.
But he has cautiously criticized the political system put in place by Putin. The United Russia party of the immensely popular Putin dominates parliament and regional governments while Kremlin critics have been sidelined, sometimes though force.
Earlier this year, Gorbachev suggested that United Russia was in danger of becoming like the all-powerful Soviet-era Communist Party and called for major changes in the electoral system.
Lebedev, a major private shareholder in the Russian airline Aeroflot, joined with Gorbachev in 2006 to buy 49 percent of Novaya Gazeta, an independent newspaper that has challenged the Kremlin with penetrating investigative reporting. Anna Politkovskaya, a prominent investigative reporter murdered that year, worked for Novaya Gazeta.
In June, Gorbachev and Lebedev urged the creation of a national museum and memorial to honor victims of Soviet-era repression — a move seen as a challenge to the government, which critics say has glossed over the crimes of Josef Stalin to justify its own retreat from democracy.
LONDON, Oct 1 (KUNA) -- The Iraqi government has begun talks with European allies about arms purchases as it rebuilds its military in a drive towards independence from US forces, it was reported here Wednesday.
Iraqi representatives have visited UK defence officials in recent months as part of a series of "fact-finding" missions in Europe, according to people close to UK Trade and Investment, the agency charged with attracting investment into Britain, the Financial Times (FT) newspaper said.
"It is a concerted effort to see what is available in the marketplace", said one official familiar with the talks.
The Iraqis were interested in a range of equipment, from secure communication systems to border protection technology, the main business daily in Europe said.
The talks underscore Iraqs ambition to strengthen the capabilities of its security forces as they increasingly take over operational control from the US military.
The US has also pushed to arm Iraq for the same reason.
Iraq has spent about three billion dollars (1.7 billion pounds), money from its own resources, mostly on US-made military equipment, including rifles, pistols, ammunition, mortars, various aircraft and a range of transport vehicles, through the US foreign military sales (FMS) programme since January 2007.
Some of the larger items include 140 Abrams tanks, made by General Dynamics, six Lockheed Martin military cargo aircraft and 24-Russian-made armed reconnaissance helicopters.
US companies have already supplied roughly half the ordered equipment, while the remaining 1.5 billion dollars is under contract.
Iraq has about 300 million dollars remaining in its FMS account, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.
Future equipment sales are expected to be financed by Iraqs rising oil revenues, the FT added. (end) he.bz.
KUNA 011421 Oct 08NNNN
(www.kuna.net.kw)
TEHRAN, Oct 1 (KUNA) -- The supreme guide of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calld on Wednesday on Muslim nations to join ranks in face of their enemies.
The top guide, in his sermon at Eid Al-Fitr prayers, said Muslims of the world should preserve their unity and solidarity for sake of confronting schemes of the enemies, designed to sow seeds of discords among them.
"These enemies are plotting to make the Muslim nations be afraid of each others and fabricating lies to make them fearful of Iran," Khamenei said.
Millions of Iranians took part in the Eid prayers today. (end) mw.rk KUNA 011338 Oct 08NNNN
(www.kuna.net.kw)
Baghdad, 28 September 2008 (Voices of Iraq)
Print article Send to friend
Member of the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce Ismail al-Khaseki on Friday announced the participation of an Iraqi delegation in the 3rd meeting of the Arab-Russian business council to be held in Moscow on October 22-23.
“A delegation from the Iraqi chambers of commerce association will take part in the third meeting of the Arab-Russian business council, run by the Moscow chamber of commerce,” al-Khaseki told Aswat al-Iraq.
“The Iraqi delegations will work on boosting trade relations and cooperation with Russia,” he explained.
“The delegation will invite the Russian investors to invest in industrial, constructional and agricultural projects in Iraq,” he also said.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
Bin Laden Escape Tied to Iraq War Planning
October 01, 2008
Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON -- New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block Osama bin Laden's retreat from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the weeks after Sept. 11.
That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the theater to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.
Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept the al-Qaida leaders, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.
On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border.
The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. Central Command commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.
Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al-Qaida and the Pakistani border, according to David Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.
Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.
Franks apparently already realized that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al-Qaida exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the [Pakistanis] to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out," according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War.
Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that."
A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.
A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed Musharraf had refused Franks' request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book Inside Centcom that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that," because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.
But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.
Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look you are missing the point: There are 150 valleys through which al-Qaida are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.
Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin." The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.
But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than was available.
Lamm said the ARCENT had so few strategic lift resources that it had to use commercial aircraft at one point to move U.S. supplies in and out of Afghanistan.
Even if the helicopters had been available, however, they could not have operated with high effectiveness in the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border region near the Tora Bora caves, according to Lamm, because of the combination of high altitude and extreme weather.
Franks did manage to insert 1,200 Marines to Kandahar on Nov. 26 to establish control of the airbase there. They were carried to the base by helicopters from an aircraft carrier that had moved into the Gulf from the Pacific, according to Lamm.
The Marines patrolled roads in the Kandahar area hoping to intercept al-Qaida officials heading toward Pakistan. But DeLong, now retired from the Army, said in an interview that the Marines would not have been able to undertake the blocking mission at the border. "It wouldn't have worked -- even if we could have gotten them up there," he said. "There weren't enough to police 1,500 kilometers [930 miles] of border."
U.S. troops probably would also have faced armed resistance from the local tribal population in the border region, according to DeLong. The tribesmen in local villages near the border "liked bin Laden," he said "because he had given them millions of dollars."
Had the Bush administration's priority been to capture or kill the al-Qaida leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the theater over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.
"You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan," said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.
The views of Bush's key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001, Rumsfeld had refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al-Qaida in Afghanistan despite a National Security Presidential Directive adopted at the Deputies' Committee level in July and by the Principles on Sep. 4 that called for such planning, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9/11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and July 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have U.S. troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.
Even after Sep. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.
Bush's top secret order of Sep. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford's book Pretext for War.
Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in NSC meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden's escape to Pakistan
(www.military.com)
Muqtada Sadr, head of Sadrist Trend, announced readiness to support Iraq's religious and ethnic minorities to obtain their national rights and demands.
I certainly hope this will move ALL of the Iraqi parliamentarians toward resolving this in favor of national rights and the legitimate demands of minorities. Without that safeguard, no one will be safe in Iraq. History shows us that trammelling of rights begins small.. and works its way until there is a virtual dictatorship. I have seen this abrogation of minority rights as the thin edge of the wedge.. minority Christians first, then the Sunni Awakening groups.. it portends monstrous evil... and more bloodshed.
And I have hoped for so much better for Iraq and her people.
I am relieved to hear Mr. Sadr's support of minority rights and hope others will follow.
Bipartisan support.. hopefully will make the difference,
so we can move on from this economic crisis.
===
Obama and McCain urge revival of bailout
By Caren Bohan Sept 30 2008
RENO, Nevada (Reuters) - White House contenders Barack Obama and John McCain sought to persuade skeptical Americans on Tuesday to back a $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan, warning they face economic calamity if there is no deal.
So far Democrat Obama and Republican McCain have had little impact on the debate surrounding the Wall Street rescue, which was torpedoed in the House of Representatives on Monday.
A day after Obama and McCain blamed each other for contributing to the collapse of the legislation, each stressed the need for both parties to work together to try to reach an agreement palatable to some of the 95 Democrats and 133 Republicans who combined to defeat the bailout.
And they both encouraged Americans to back a Wall Street bailout because, as McCain said in Des Moines, Iowa, "inaction is not an option."
A new poll by the Pew Research Center found weakening public support for the bailout. The September 27-29 survey said Americans only backed the plan by a 45 percent to 38 percent margin.
Obama told thousands at an outdoor rally in Reno, "It is not a time for politicians to concern themselves with the next election. It is a time for all of us to concern ourselves with the future of the country we love. This is a time for action."
Both Obama and McCain said they backed lifting the limit on bank deposit insurance from the current maximum of $100,000 to $250,000 as a way to restore confidence and prevent potentially
Each candidate had a telephone conversation with President George W. Bush about the crisis.
"I will be talking to leaders and members of Congress later today to offer this idea and urge them to act without delay to pass a rescue plan," Obama said in an e-mailed statement to reporters.
McCain said he believed one reason Congress did not approve the package was because "it hasn't really sunk in that the people who are hurting and are being hurt are Main Street families, small businesses, those kinds of people that are the engine of our economy."
Obama said that "continued inaction in the face of the gathering storm in our financial markets would be catastrophic for our economy and our families."
He also said he believed a move to try to start over from scratch with a new bill would not succeed and said lawmakers instead should try to find ways to broaden support for the current bill.
We all are beginning to see repeated articles stating Iraq's inentension to lop three zeros from the Iraqi Dinar. These articles communicate to me we are close to a change in the direction of this investment.
In my personal opinion, these articles are propaganda designed to discourage further speculation in the Iraqi Dinar. I also believe once the smaller denominations are introduced to the market the larger notes especially the 25,000 and 10,000 will be pulled from circulation.
The introducion of these smaller denominations will probably occur on or before a change in monetary policy by the Central Bank. A change is coming and I think for those of us who hold these notes will reap a great reward.
I look forward to actually planning and participating in that pig roast.
A voice of reason and caution... helping reality to sink in.
Surely Americans can see that if all her politicians are coming together..
that something very big and important is happening?
Can they investigate what.. and support the measure.. hopefully? Before the crash hits and, as Hillary says below,
QUOTE:
"we are facing a very serious economic slowdown, a recession that could be of long-lasting and deep impact."Without a bailout, Clinton said, "I think it will be even more expensive and difficult to dig ourselves out of this deep hole that we're in."
===
Clinton: 'It Sounds Dire, But Commerce Could Stop'
Sep 30, 2008 Says She Understands The Concerns Of 'Innocent Taxpayers,' But A Possible 'Recession Impacts Everyone'
WASHINGTON (CBS/AP) ― Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. Senate may have to lead the way in passing a $700 billion Wall Street bailout package, now that the House has rejected the measure.
"I certainly would support the Senate going first, so long as we have the votes ... as early as tomorrow if that's what would make this process successful," Clinton told reporters by phone Tuesday.
The New York Democrat, who nearly won her party's presidential nomination, said she believes public opposition to the bailout deal may be weakening after the market reacted badly to the failed House vote Monday and more businesses express worries about the future.
"It sounds dire but there is a risk that commerce could grind to a halt," she said.
After the deal failed in the House Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial average sank 778 points, or nearly 7 percent, to its lowest close in nearly three years. It was the largest point drop and 17th largest percentage drop in its history, but far less severe than the 20-plus-percentage drops seen in the stock market crash of October 1987 and before the Great Depression.
The market recovered somewhat in Tuesday morning trading, rising more than 200 points by midday. (due to the HUGE infusion of cash by Central Banks, see article I posted, above - Sara.)
Clinton suggested negotiators on the government bailout package should "maybe cool off a little from the emotion and the pressure of the last two weeks and get back to Washington starting tomorrow and do what we have to do to try to stabilize not only our nation but the entire world."
Voters furious over the proposal to have taxpayers foot the bill should understand that it's not just a problem facing bankers, Clinton said.
"They have to recognize that we are facing a very serious economic slowdown, a recession that could be of long-lasting and deep impact," she said.
Without a bailout, Clinton said, "I think it will be even more expensive and difficult to dig ourselves out of this deep hole that we're in."
Why the bailout is not like the Iraq war
Monday, Sept. 29, 2008
Reuters/Michael Caronna
People walk past a display showing financial data in Tokyo September 29, 2008. Japan's Nikkei average fell 1.3 percent on Monday, down for a third day as investor caution about the implementing of a U.S. bailout plan for the financial sector outweighed initial relief that a deal was being done.
The news that the federal government has organized another bank rescue -- Wachovia to Citigroup -- proves that the financial crisis is ongoing and unlikely to be resolved soon, no matter how many imperial powers are bestowed upon Hank Paulson.
But does the $700 billion deal make Paulson the Donald Rumsfeld of the economy? Over the last week, critics of the bailout, generally from the left, have delighted in drawing parallels between the rush to invade Iraq and the rush to bail out Wall Street. Paulson is the new Rumsfeld. The bailout plan is an "Authorization to use Financial Force." The process has been pushed through too quickly, alternatives haven't been properly explored, and the cost is unthinkably huge.
Plenty of reasons exist to dislike the bailout, and in a perfect world, a financial intervention on this scale would be mulled over at our leisure and crafted with care. But this is far from a perfect world, and the Iraq metaphor just doesn't hold up.
The leftist view/arguments, with refutes:
1) Most obviously: In the financial crisis, we have found the "weapons of mass destruction" -- the exotic financial derivatives whose proliferation created what Warren Buffett called a "daisy chain of risk." The dominoes are falling. Bear-Stearns, IndyMac, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, Lehman, Washington Mutual, Fortis, Wachovia... If nothing is done, massive job losses and a severe economic contraction will follow.
2) U.S. military intervention in the petro-states of the Mideast was a cherished neoconservative policy goal. I defy anyone to find evidence that the nationalization of the financial economy was a similar neocon dream. Quite the opposite: the bailout is a de facto recognition that New Deal-style government intervention in the economy is necessary and justified in extreme circumstances. The catastrophic undermining of 30 years of triumphant deregulatory ideology can't possibly be what the Bush administration had in mind when it took office eight years ago.
3) The invasion of Iraq lowered America's standing in the world. I haven't polled the rest of the world on the bailout, but my guess would be that large swathes of humanity would rather the U.S. spend many hundreds of billions of dollars in an effort to prevent global markets from collapsing than do nothing, and potentially set off a global depression. They might point fingers at us and smirk, but that's a price we'll have to pay.
It's embarrassing, it's enraging, it's hasty and it is obscenely expensive. But the bailout is not like the invasion of Iraq.
IAEA lacks tools to find hidden atom work: ElBaradei
Wed Oct 1, 2008 1:31am EDT
By Mark Heinrich
VIENNA (Reuters) - The International Atomic Energy Agency chief said on Tuesday the agency's failure to detect nuclear arms work in Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s showed his inspectors lacked authority to pre-empt proliferators.
His remark was telling because an IAEA probe of Iran has stalled over Tehran's failure to explain allegations of secret nuclear arms research and its refusal to grant inspectors access to military-affiliated sites and officials they deem relevant.
IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said the crux of the problem was that some countries under investigation, the latest being Syria, had failed to ratify an agency protocol permitting short notice IAEA visits to sites not declared to be nuclear so as to ensure no bomb-related work is going on at secret locations.
"Our legal authority is very limited. With Iraq, we have discovered that unless we have the Additional Protocol in place, we will not really be able to discover undeclared activities," he said on the sidelines of the U.N. watchdog's annual 145-nation General Conference in Vienna.
"Our experience is that any proliferator will not really go for declared diverted activities (that would quickly reveal them as violators of the Non-Proliferation Treaty), they will go for completely clandestine undeclared activities," he said.
In the 1970s-80s, Iraq under then-dictator Saddam Hussein developed a nuclear weapons program hidden from the IAEA because of severe restrictions on inspector access. It came to light only after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War and the IAEA spent the next seven years dismantling it.
Diplomats say that the key to resolving current IAEA investigations of Iran and Syria is extra access to sites not declared to be nuclear. But they say both have ruled this out, saying such sites involve their conventional military and so lie outside the IAEA's writ.
Iran and Syria deny having any covert weapons programs or illicitly hiding any nuclear activity from the IAEA. ElBaradei has called on Syria as well for greater transparency and access. Damascus also has not ratified the Additional Protocol.
Opening the IAEA gathering on Monday, ElBaradei said the agency, guardian of the NPT, lacked funding, state-of-the-art equipment and legal authority to extract full cooperation from countries under nuclear investigation.
He said the failure of some 100 countries, including the United States, to ratify the decade-old protocol was "an abysmal record" that handicapped the IAEA's verification mandate.
The IAEA has also since May been investigating Syria, based on U.S. intelligence alleging that it had almost completed a secret nuclear reactor that might have made bomb-grade plutonium before the site was destroyed in an Israeli air strike.
The United States and Western allies have put Iran and Syria under fire in the IAEA debate, accusing both of stonewalling U.N. investigators and demanding unfettered cooperation.
(www.reuters.com)
Vets for Freedom ad: “Skipped”
October 1, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
Vets for Freedom has a new ad on Barack Obama's lack of attention to Iraq as well as his record of missing votes. However, VFF has more of a problem with the votes Obama managed to cast, as the ad shows:
"My dictionary defines 'moderator' as 'the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.'
"But there is nothing 'moderate' about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She's so far in the tank for the Democrat presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out," Malkin writes.
Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren reported the McCain campaign didn't know about the book.
===
VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book Focuses on blacks who are 'forging a bold new path to political power'
Posted: September 30, 2008
By Bob Unruh
The moderator of tomorrow's vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out on the day the next president takes the oath of office that aims to "shed new light" on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."
Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service program "Washington Week" is promoting "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," in which she argues the "black political structure" of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality.
Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.
During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."
"Well, that's all you've got," she told Cheney.
Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney."
But she also was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., earlier this month.
A clip of Ifill's coverage of Palin can be seen here:
PBS viewer Brian Meyers of Granby, Conn., said he was "appalled" by Ifill's commentary directly following Palin's convention speech.
"Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust," Meyers said. "Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin's performance."
Columnist Michelle Malkin, in a post on her blog today, wonders how Ifill can objectively moderate the debate tomorrow night with the personal interest she has in the election's outcome.
"My dictionary defines 'moderator' as 'the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.' On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions.
"But there is nothing 'moderate' about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She's so far in the tank for the Democrat presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out," Malkin writes.
"Ifill and her publisher are banking on an Obama/Biden win to buoy her book sales. The moderator expected to treat both sides fairly has grandiosely declared this the 'Age of Obama.' Can you imagine a right-leaning journalist writing a book about the 'stunning' McCain campaign and its 'bold' path to reform timed for release on Inauguration Day – and then expecting a slot as a moderator for the nation’s sole vice presidential debate?"
Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren reported the McCain campaign didn't know about the book.
"It simply is not fair – in law, this would create a mistrial," she said.
"She spent a lot of time with Obama. She praises him in the book," Juan Williams, a senior correspondent with National Public Radio said. "The book's success [is] invested in Obama. … Suddenly everyone's going to be saying Gwen Ifill is somewhat biased against Gov. Palin."
The One led by eight on Monday and by six yesterday.If it’s true that McCain’s chances are at the mercy of the economy, why’s he gaining in the middle of an economic crisis, after an 800-point drop on Wall Street? I’m tempted to call it an outlier — but if it is, how’d he gain five points in the new WaPo poll too? The knee-jerk answer is that he’s riding a wave of residual goodwill from the House GOP’s revolt against the bailout, but (a) passionate opposition to the bailout is cooling, (b) McCain actually took credit for getting a bailout deal done before it was undone, and (c) he’s unambiguously in favor of the Senate bill so the backlash may only have been delayed. (Then again, Obama’s unambiguously in favor too so he shouldn’t reap any political windfall.)
===end quote===
I think the answer is found in McCain's leadership as shown in this new Ad, "Week":
What a week. Democrats blamed Republicans, Republicans blamed Democrats.
We’re the United States of America. It shouldn’t take a crisis to pull us together.
We need a President who can avert crisis. Put people back to work. Grow our economy. And move people from surviving to thriving.
We need leadership without painful new taxes. That will make our country strong again. I’m John McCain and I approve this message.
==end quote==
Ed Morrissey comments:
Two weeks ago, McCain used this same approach in his ad, “Foundation”. In this, McCain even eschews the scary imagery of Wall Street and keeps the camera on himself the entire time. It’s the strongest, most effective approach McCain has, and the mystery is why Team McCain hasn’t made more use of it.
McCain gets to sell himself as the true arbiter of bipartisanship once again, mostly because Barack Obama has been AWOL from the bailout debate. Originally, it looked as though McCain made the wrong call by injecting himself into the debate, and Obama smart for distancing himself — especially when people opposed the idea of Congressional action so sharply. That changed with the 777-point loss on the Dow on Monday, in which over a trillion dollars of value dissipated. Suddenly, the tenor of the calls changed significantly, and people wanted leadership in Washington.
The timing seems perfect for the launch of this ad. Voters look for leadership, and only one candidate even bothered to show up for this crisis on his own. McCain needs to establish himself as a reliable leader who won’t go Harry Reid in a crisis, and this ad starts that process.
"Suburban voters have decided victors in not only the last five presidential contests, but control of Congress and state houses"
===
Hofstra poll: McCain leads suburban vote
BY KARLA SCHUSTER
September 29, 2008
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain holds a slight edge over Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama among suburban voters, according to a new poll sponsored by Hofstra University released Monday.
The nationwide poll, conducted for Hofstra's National Center for Suburban Studies, found that 48 percent of suburban voters said they support McCain, compared to 42 percent for Obama.
By comparison, the poll found that McCain leads Obama among rural voters, 51 percent to 35 percent, while Obama is ahead in urban areas, 57 percent to 34 percent.
"Suburban voters have decided victors in not only the last five presidential contests, but control of Congress and state houses," said Lawrence Levy, director of the National Center for Suburban Studies.
The poll also revealed a significant gender gap in McCain's support among suburban voters -- suburban men favor him over Obama by a margin of 51 percent to 40 percent, while suburban women are evenly split, with both men drawing 45 percent.
The telephone survey of 1,033 suburban residents and 493 urban and rural residents was conducted from Sept. 15-21. The total margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points; for suburban residents it was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Whew! Was I ever glad to read this article!
After all.. if the socialist/communist America-hating leftists all criticize the bailout..
you just gotta KNOW it is the right thing for a free Democratic America to do. :)
Sara.
=== Latin America leftists slam U.S. on financial crisis
Tue Sep 30, 2008
MANAUS, Brazil, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Latin America's socialist leaders accused the United States on Tuesday of "irresponsibility" in its handling of a financial crisis that has dried up credit markets and threatens economies around the world.
While Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned the crisis could slow economic growth across Latin America, he still took a stab at Washington and predicted that U.S. economic power is in dramatic decline.
"This crash of capitalism and of neoliberalism will be worse than that of 1929," Chavez told reporters at a meeting with the leaders of Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador in Brazil's Amazon city of Manaus. "The world will never be the same after this crisis."
With world money markets in trouble, policymakers are hoping the U.S. Congress will quickly revive and approve a $700 billion rescue package that would allow the U.S. Treasury to buy up bad debt from struggling banks.
But Bolivian President Evo Morales, who is a close ally of Venezuela's Chavez and has nationalized the natural gas industry as part of his socialist reforms, criticized the U.S. plan as a bail-out for the rich.
"In Bolivia, we nationalized for the people to have money, while the United States wants to nationalize debt and a crisis of the wealthy," Morales said before meeting with Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa and Chavez.
Correa, Morales and Chavez all promote socialist reforms and have been harsh Washington critics.
The Senate passed the Bailout... now to the House.
Foxnews headline reads, QUOTE:
A revised $700B financial industry bailout bill passes Senate by 74-25 vote, House to vote Friday.
===
Senate Passes Revised $700B Financial Bailout
Wednesday, October 01, 2008 AP
WASHINGTON — After one spectacular failure, the $700 billion financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, winning lopsided passage in the Senate and gaining ground in the House, where Republicans opposition softened.
Senators loaded the economic rescue bill with tax breaks and other sweeteners before passing it by a wide margin, 74-25, a month before the presidential and congressional elections.
In the House, leaders were working feverishly to convert enough opponents of the bill to push it through by Friday, just days after lawmakers there stunningly rejected an earlier version and sent markets plunging around the globe.
The measure didn't cause the same uproar in the Senate, where both parties' presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, made rare appearances to cast "aye" votes.
In the final vote, 40 Democrats, 33 Republicans and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted "yes." Nine Democrats, 15 Republicans and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted "no."
The rescue package lets the government spend billions of dollars to buy bad mortgage-related securities and other devalued assets held by troubled financial institutions. If successful, advocates say, that would allow frozen credit to begin flowing again and prevent a deep recession.
Even as the Senate voted, House leaders were hunting for the 12 votes they would need to turn around Monday's 228-205 defeat. They were especially targeting the 133 Republicans who voted "no."
Their opposition appeared to be easing after the Senate added $110 billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class, plus a provision to raise, from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on federal deposit insurance.
Leaders in both parties, as well as private economic chiefs everywhere, said Congress must quickly approve some version of the bailout measure to start loans flowing and stave off a potential national economic disaster.
"This is what we need to do right now to prevent the possibility of a crisis turning into a catastrophe," Obama said on the Senate floor. In Missouri, before flying to Washington to vote, McCain said, "If we fail to act, the gears of our economy will grind to a halt."
Proponents argued that the financial sector's woes were already being felt by ordinary people in the form of unaffordable credit and underperforming retirement savings and without the bailout would soon translate into even more economic pain for working Americans, including more job losses.
"There will be no balloons or bunting or parades," when the rescue becomes law, said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman. But lawmakers will have "the knowledge that at one of our nation's moments of maximum economic peril, we acted — not for the benefit of a particular few, but for all Americans."
With constituent feedback changing dramatically since Monday's shocking House defeat and the corresponding market plunge, lawmakers' comfort level with the package increased markedly.
Thanks for your posts. I read them, to stay up on things.
I've always considered myself to be a moderate conservative. If I were an American, I'd be a moderate Republican. One thing that has bothered me about the reaction of some Republicans, who were against the bailout, was that their opposition was based on a philosophical view of business and capitalism, which said all state intervention was bad, and business should always be left alone, without government intervention.
I think that belief is part of the reason Americans got into the mess they are currently in.
While I share the belief in minimum government interference, and generally letting business manage their own affairs, I have 700 billion reasons to say the obvious: There is a time and a place for government oversight and intervention. There are exceptions to the hands off business rule. It's just common sense. My belief is that many financially astute people say this financial crisis coming years ago, and they didn't stop it. I don't believe this came out of the blue.
Business is a bit like riding a horse. Grab on the reins too tight, and the horse gets all skiddish and confused. In other words, micromanaging and too much interference is bad. However, let the reins too loose, and the horse goes where it wants. Somewhere in the middle is best. And the yokels on Wall Street and Congress are letting the horse go where it wants, and do it's business on the front lawn, walking over the petunias. If this is conservative business philosophy, I'm out.
What's going on is just plain stupid, and irresponsible.
Conservatives should apply a little common sense. It's fine to maintain the view of minimizing state intervention, while recognizing that there is a place for government oversight. I hope a few prominant conservatives give their heads a shake and re-examine their basic assumptions, about the supposed sacredness of never letting the government "interfere with business".
Since many people likely saw this coming, and knew how much it would cost the American public, I consider this mess, and the bailout, to be either extortion, or daylight robbery mixed with negligence. Someone should go to jail. I have a very low opinion of thievery and incompetance and neglect of the public interest, and I don't know who is responsible. But I am convinced people need to go to prison over this.
In the end, small businessmen, teachers, clerks, and ordinary mom-and-pop Americans will be paying the price for the malfeasance of their public officials. Those responsible have violated a sacred public trust, and trashed public morals and decency, and should be treated no better than the young punk who holds up a 7-11.
Right now the public has a 9% approval rating for Congress.
Recently General David Petraeus handed over the command of the multinational forces in Iraq to General Raymond Odierno. While there has been a remarkable decline in the violence in Iraq over the last few months, the peace process in the war-ravaged nation is still believed to be very fragile.
In a free-wheeling chat with Gulf News, General Odierno shared some of his thoughts on the overall scenario in Iraq and the on-going peace process. Following are excerpts.
Gulf News: How fragile is the peace situation in Iraq? Are we going to witness a collapse of the current situation in the near future?
Gen. raymond Odierno: Iraq has moved on from being a failed state in 2006 to a fragile state today. Our intent is to help Iraq develop into a stable state. Iraq is fragile today because there is not a national vision for the country; public service provision is poor and Al Qaida and the Special Groups are still capable of conducting terrorist activities. We are encouraging Iraqi leaders to come together to develop a common vision for the future.
They need to agree to the nature of the state [federal or otherwise], the degree of power sharing between the centre and the provinces, budget allocation, internal boundaries and sharing the oil wealth. Next year, the Iraqis will have the opportunity to choose their leaders at both the provincial and national levels. This is important for showing that differences can be resolved through politics. We continue to assist the Iraqi government to build up its security force capacity and its capacity to deliver public services. The latter is crucial because it is in the impoverished and neglected areas that discontent grows and terrorists are able to recruit followers.
The US's strategic ally, Ahmad Al Challabi, announced last week that the US had plans to maintain its secret military bases in Iraq. Your comments ...
US Ambassador Ryan Crocker made it very clear in June that the US was not seeking permanent bases in Iraq. Our goal is to help this government in Iraq to exercise full sovereignty and clearly not to maintain a large force in the distant future.
The US and the Iraqi governments are yet to reach an agreement on the deadline for the US army to pull out of Iraq. When do you think a total pull-out will occur.
What I owe the President of the US is my recommendation based on my assessment of the mission here in Iraq. I will present my first assessment to the incoming administration sometime in early 2009, likely after the provincial elections, and recommend whether or not we can further reduce troops from Iraq. It is very difficult to speak with precision on a long-term basis on this.
There is talk about disputes between the US and Iraqi sides over the strategic agreement to be signed between the two countries. These disputes are over issues such as the laws that govern private contractors, US troops and other related matters. Your comments ...
We must have a legal framework to continue to operate in Iraq and our legal framework ends on 31 December this year. I'm hoping that the teams now on the ground will be able to work on an agreement with the Government of Iraq. The Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) is a bilateral agreement between two sovereign nations. Sofa will help normalise relations between the US and Iraq and remove Iraq from Chapter VII status.
Will the US troops train Iraqi soldiers after the agreement between the two countries is signed? And will the Iraqi troops be asked to join the US troops in operations outside Iraq?
We will continue to train the Iraqi security forces for as long as the government needs our assistance. Obviously we'll have to wait for the specifics of any agreement and you would have to talk to the people involved in the negotiations for the details. We assist in training now and provide a wide-range of advise. We look forward to the day when Iraq - like other sovereign nations - will contribute its forces to international peace-keeping missions.
Iraqi Parliament Speaker Mahmoud Al Mashadani has declared that Iraq is not capable of signing a strategic agreement with the US because it is a country under occupation. What is your take on that?
I believe that a Status of Forces agreement is a positive development for Iraq. Negotiations are currently under way to establish a future legal framework that enables us to operate here. I am hopeful the negotiating teams now in Iraq can arrive at an agreement.
Which is more reliable and strong from your point of view, the Iraqi defence forces or the Iraqi police?
Iraqi security forces have grown in capability and capacity and have proven their ability to conduct successful operations. The Iraqi army now operates throughout the country and has taken a lead role in many areas for providing security. The Iraqi police and National Police also continue to grow and show great improvements in maintaining peace in areas once riddled with violence. Direct comparisons in an overall sense are not useful because the size of each force means there are differences across the country within the army and police forces themselves.
The huge accomplishment of General David Petraeus and you is that you both worked hard and succeeded in pushing away the nightmares of a civil war in Iraq. Today, there is a map that shows Baghdad as an area almost empty of Sunnis. What do you think of this demographic shift and don't you think that this in itself will lead to friction and more bloodshed in the future?
During the last couple of years - and particularly after the destruction of the Samarra mosque - there has been considerable displacement, especially in Baghdad. We do not have precise details of who has been displaced from where. However, we are beginning to observe a steady trickle of Iraqis returning to their homes. And in mixed neighbourhoods, local leaders have set up reconciliation committees to help with the reintegration of the displaced back to their homes. There is financial support to those returning to their homes.
What are your priorities? Fighting Al Qaida, warding off sectarianism, backing the political process, stability and peace, the displaced people's portfolio, or other issues?
My priority is to help Iraq achieve its full sovereignty and ensure Iraq moves from a fragile state to a stable state. Coalition forces will continue to pursue Al Qaida and Special Groups that are focused on disrupting progress in Iraq. We will also continue to train and equip the internal security forces in order for them to become self-sufficient in providing security. Coalition forces will continue to support the Government as it addresses the key issues such as essential services [water, electricity, waste management].
We will assist, as requested, during the upcoming elections in Iraq, but let's be clear - the elections are solely an Iraqi enterprise.
What is the legal status of Al Sahwa members today [the Sons of Iraq]? Do you think they will be back to square one if they are not embraced by the Iraqi government?
From yesterday, the Iraqi government has taken the responsibility for integrating SOI members, beginning predominantly in and around Baghdad, into internal security and other services.
The Iraqi Prime Minister understands the importance of this issue. He has issued very specific guidance to his subordinate leaders in the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior on integrating the SOI members into Iraqi security forces.
The situation in Diyala is still very cloudy and there are heavy Al Qaida "pockets" in the area. How safe is Diyala in your opinion?
Diyala still has problems with Al Qaida attempting to maintain and re-energise their presence there. However, the coalition forces and Iraqi security forces continue to put pressure on them, disrupting their safe havens and cutting off their supply lines. Like other areas in northern Iraq, Al Qaida is now on the run in Iraq, with fewer places to hide.
The Governor of Dhi-Qar said the members of the "Special Groups" enter through Iran in big numbers every day. There have been US statements to the effect that the Iranians will carry out political assassinations in Iraq before the elections. Why hasn't the Iraq-Iran boarder been secured yet?
Iraqi security forces and coalition forces continuously patrol the border and man control points.
However, the border between Iraq and Iran is vast. While it is impossible to monitor every possible entry point, Iraqi security forces and coalition forces continue to capture and stop many extremist elements attempting to cross the border.
What is the situation with Al Qaida in Iraq today? Are they really much weaker than before?
Al Qaida's effectiveness has decreased over the last 18 months ... However, they still remain a threat. They have fewer places to hide, but they are still carrying out terrorist activities. The Iraqi people are not passively supporting them to live and operate freely in their areas. The will of the people helped to drive them out and it is critical they continue to keep them out by alerting the Iraqi security forces and the coalition forces of their presence.
The Ministry of Interior has prepared a women's force to help in containing the problem of women suicide bombers. To what extent do you think this will work?
The coalition forces have also used special teams comprising women to specifically frisk females at checkpoints. This proved to be useful in finding weapons and explosives that would have gone unnoticed.
I will present my first assessment in early 2009, likely after the provincial elections, and recommend whether or not we can further reduce troops from Iraq.
(www.gulfnews.com)
In case you were wondering why the exchange rate has remained the same with no movement.
__________________________________________________________
CBI cancels sessions during Eid
Baghdad - Voices of Iraq
Wednesday , 01 /10 /2008 Time 2:36:47
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: The Central Bank of Iraq (CBI) has decided to cancel all sessions coinciding with the holiday period of Eid al-Fitr, or the Lesser Bairam.
"The bank has set an exchange rate of 1,179 Iraqi dinars per dollar for the two sessions following the Eid holiday," a source from the bank told Aswat al-Iraq.
Eid al-Fitr is a Muslim holiday that marks the end of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting. 'Eid' is an Arabic word meaning 'festivity,' while 'fitr' means 'to break the fast' (and can also mean 'nature,' from the word 'fitrah') and so symbolizes the breaking of the fasting period.
The Central Bank of Iraq runs a daily auction from Sunday to Thursday.
(www.aswataliraq.info)
De Mistura expressed diappointement for not including Article 50 in the Election Law 02/10/2008 15:53:00
Baghdad (NINA) - The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Iraq (SRSG) Staffan de Mistura said the United Nations is concerned at the extraction of Article 50 bearing on minority rights, from the provincial election law.
(www.ninanews.com)
Adeeb calls for reconsidering election law to ensure minorities representation 02/10/2008 11:13:00
Baghdad (NINA) - Deputy Head of the Unified Iraqi Alliance (UIA) bloc in Parliament, Ali Adeeb, called for reconsidering the Provincial Councils Election Law as soon as possible to ensure fair representation of minorities in the up coming provincial elections.
(www.ninanews.com)
02 October 2008 (AFP)
Print article Send to friend
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Monday arrived in the Erbil international airport coming from New York city after taking part in the U.N. General Assembly meetings.
"A number of senior Iraqi and Kurdish officials, including Kurdish President Massoud Barzani, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Barham Saleh,www.ekurd.net Kurdish parliament's Speaker Adnan al-Mufti and his deputy Kamal Kerkuki, and a number of ministers, received the president at the airport," the Kurdistan television reported.
The president underwent a successful heart surgery in the U.S. last August.
President Jalal Talabani warned that a delay in an agreement on the presence of US troops in the country beyond 2008 could undermine sovereignty. Talabani, who spent nearly two months in the US for medical treatment, said, however, that he expected an early conclusion of the Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) between Washington and Baghdad.
"We hope to reach good results (on the Sofa agreement) because not reaching an agreement means it will lead to a daily violation of the sovereignty of Iraq," he said in Erbil,www.ekurd.net capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region.
Sofa is to put in place a deal for the future of US troops after the UN Security Council mandate for the multinational force expires on December 31.
But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for any violations committed in Iraq and on the future command of military operations on the ground.
No fears of Arab-Kurdish conflict
Talabani said that there are no fears of an ethnic conflict that may erupt in Iraq, while the President of Kurdistan region Massoud Barzani admitted that the Kurdish role in the Iraqi army has been ignored.
"Arab-Kurdish relations always render brotherhood between the two races, and there are no fears that an ethnic conflict may erupt in Iraq," Talabani said in a press conference at Erbil International Airport, after he arrived from New York.
From his side, Barzani and during the same press conference denied that he accused Sunnis or Shiites of ignoring the Kurdish role in the Iraqi army.
"Kurdish role in the Iraqi army is ignored, but I did not accuse Sunnis or Shiites of standing behind this issue" Barzani said.
Talabani, 74, left Iraq on August 2 to undergo medical tests and treatment for his knee,www.ekurd.net but doctors carried out heart surgery after several tests showed that he had a coronary condition.
The ethnic Kurd, who has been president since 2005, travelled to the US for medical check-ups last year and was also treated for dehydration and exhaustion in neighbouring Jordan in February 2007.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
I like looking at polling data.
But I noticed a change in the results with Barack Hussein Obama leading them about the 20th of last month.
Coincidentally, it corresponded with the new WEIGHTING they are giving the polling data.
Rasmussen said that as of September 20th, when they take in polling data, they weight the data...
and the new ratio is 39.0% Democrat to 33.5% Republican.
Now, they do fancy footwork (below) to explain why this is fair..
and they say this is what ALL the polling firms do.
However, the polling data IS weighted with 39.0% Democrat to 33.5% Republican.
That means they give Obama SIX points advantage in an even matchup.. TO START WITH.
SIX POINTS!!!
Don't you think that should figure even a LITTLE into your thinking about the polling data when it is given?
Remember.. ALL the polling firms do it:
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large.
They say it is totally accurate and legitimate, of course.
But when you think of asking six percent MORE Democrats who will win the election than Republicans.. how do you think the polling results come out? Can you predict the outcome?
Will the data tend to skew toward Obama.. or McCain? Whether it reflects the population or not.. you can see the data will end up with MORE weight toward Obama...
by SIX percentage points.
Is it accurate and reasonable in your opinion to weight the polling data this way?
Supposing we decided to weight the data by race?
Since whites make up a larger majority, lets weight the poll so that it reflects the populace.
Now ask a question which is dear to the hearts of the black community...
like if there should be slavery reparations paid to the black community, for instance.
Then weight the data by population.
Fair? Accurate?
I think the black community might argue you are injecting white bias into the sample.
Perhaps it is "fair"..
But it is interesting to know they consistently WEIGHT the samples by SIX POINTS toward Obama, isn't it?
Just something to keep in mind when reading the polls..
Sara.
===
New Rasmussen Reports Party Weighting Targets: 39.0% Democrat 33.5% Republican
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large. Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process (see methodology).
During the final two months of the election season, we are updating these targets on a weekly basis to stay current with the public mood. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. The intensity of a campaign season may cause subtle changes in the partisan landscape as Election Day draws near.
The targets are not set arbitrarily. Rather, they are established based upon survey interviews with a separate sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding six weeks. A total of 500 nightly interviews are conducted for a total of 21,000 interviews over the six week period.
This week’s adjustment shows a very slight increase in the number of Democrats, primarily offset by a decrease in the number of unaffiliated voters.
Results from this past week showed that the number of people considering themselves to Democrats spiked early in the week as the economic problems on Wall Street became visible. Overall, it was the best week for the Democrats since July. It remains to be seen whether this might lead to a lasting adjustment or be more of a bounce like that resulting from a party’s nominating convention.
For polling data released during the week of September 21-27, 2008, the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.0% Democratic, 33.5% Republican, and 27.5% unaffiliated. For the preceding week, September 14-20, 2008, the targets were 38.7% Democratic, 33.6% Republican, and 27.7% unaffiliated.
This week’s adjustment will have little impact on the daily Presidential Tracking Poll. However, if the partisan trends continue shifting, it could have a significant impact....
During Election 2006, there was a notable shift in partisan identification favoring Democrats as Election Day approached. During Election 2004, there was a notable shift in the opposite direction. It is impossible to know which direction this will flow during 2008 (see month-by-month results). These shifts correctly foretold the election outcome in both years.
Outside of the election season, our baseline targets are established based upon survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets have been updated monthly.
Thanks so much for the posts on the Iraqis and UN looking into minority rights and protecting them. Without protection of minority rights, this "thin edge of the wedge" will balloon into outright persecution of minorities, starting with the smallest religious minorities and moving to the larger ones (such as the Sunni Awakening Council members.) And that would not end up well.
timbitts - an excellent post, thank you. :)
I liked your horse illustration, about using the bit in its mouth only as necessary to keep it on the road. If you have ever ridden a horse on a road or pathway, you know they tend to keeep on the path without much intervention by you anyway. It is rare they decide to go into uncharted territory. They are easily startled by dead branches which look a lot like snakes. So they like to keep to the main artery and generally they are not looking to do a lot of off-road exploring.
The illustration works well, with the free market doing what it does best, and only being reined in by the government if criminal laws are being broken or they threaten to head into the brier patch. This was a bad brier patch and I also believe the rider (government) saw it coming and did nothing to prevent it. Though the Republicans appeared to have tried to do so.. but they were blocked.
Apparently, the Republicans tried to privatize Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.. but it went nowhere, of course. Changing riders (to the private sector running Fannie/Freddie) would have meant a real change of course away from the brier patch, now, wouldn't it?
===
CBO Studied Privatizing Fannie/Freddie
Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, October 1st, 2008.
Believe it or not, the Congressional Budget Office was tasked during the GHW Bush administration in 1992 with studying the feasibility of privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Four years later, in May of 1996 — during the Clinton administration, they finally published their findings in this CBO Study: (see image)
Surprisingly, in chapter three of their study, the CBO found that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were not so indispensable for low-income home ownership, after all: (see image of chapter)
In chapter four of this study the CBO even notes that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would fight tooth and nail against any possibility of privatization — and have in fact been doing so for years. (see image)
These 25 “Partnership Offices” were (and still are) working hand in glove with ACORN, La Raza and the National Urban League to agitate for the continuation and of course expansion of their programs.
Shockingly, the fifth and final chapter of the CBO Study says that, yes indeed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be readily privatized. (see image)
So it would seem the CBO thought it was possible to privatize these two institutions. Indeed, technically, it would just be a matter of removing the taxpayer subsidy.
But they anticipated quite a howl from the two GSEs.
The Student Loan Marketing Association did not have 25 community-based Partnership Offices.
The SLMA had not put so many politicians and political groups like ACORN on their payroll — to guarantee their jobs and outlandish profits in perpetuity.
Terror threat no damper on Iraqi celebrations
By Basil Adas
Baghdad, 02 October 2008 (Gulf News)
Hundreds of Iraqi families continue to throng the Games City and Al Zawra Park, one of the most prominent entertainment sites in the capital, to enjoy Eid Al Fitr, despite increased security concerns over the bombings in Al Karrada district just two days before Eid.
"I came to the Games City here on Canal Street, east of Baghdad, and the one objective I have is to enjoy the holiday and spend a good time with my friends, playing the ship game and flying saucers," 14-year-old Riad Hamid told Gulf News.
This is the first time in five years that the Zawra Park near the Al Mansour district of Baghdad has hosted weddings, with families crowding and participating in the song-and-dance routine.
Faten Al Barak, an officer with the municipality, told Gulf News:
"Frankly, my enjoyment of Eid is more than ever before. I think all these families around me have come to Zawra Park with the same determination. We celebrate to defy the recent bombings in the Al Karrada neighbourhood, aimed at terrorising us and keeping us confined within our houses."
In the New Baghdad district, which has been exposed in the last few months to terrorist attacks, the scene has exceeded everyone's expectations. Hordes of people went out into the streets, with the children having a gala time at the playgrounds.
"Me and my friends are more enthusiastic about enjoying the Eid holidays for the simple reason that we are not afraid of terrorists," 27-year-old Jamal Sattee, who runs a clothing store for men in the neighbourhood, told Gulf News.
Baghdad seeks to buy arms from Europe
By Sylvia Pfeifer and Demetri Sevastopulo
London and Washington, 02 October 2008 (Financial Times)
The Iraqi government has begun talks with European allies about arms purchases as it rebuilds its military in a drive towards independence from US forces.
Iraqi representatives have visited UK defence officials in recent months as part of a series of “fact-finding” missions in Europe, according to people close to UK Trade & Investment, the agency charged with attracting investment into Britain.
“It is a concerted effort to see what is available in the marketplace,” said one official familiar with the talks. The Iraqis were interested in a range of equipment, from secure communication systems to border protection technology.
The talks underscore Iraq’s ambition to strengthen the capabilities of its security forces as they increasingly take over operational control from the US military. The US has also pushed to arm Iraq for the same reason.
Iraq has spent about $3bn (€2bn, £1.7bn) – money from its own resources – mostly on US-made military equipment, including rifles, pistols, ammunition, mortars, various aircraft, and a range of transport vehicles, through the US foreign military sales (FMS) programme since January 2007.
Some of the larger items include 140 Abrams tanks, made by General Dynamics, six Lockheed Martin C-130J military cargo aircraft, and 24 Russian-made Mi-17 armed reconnaissance helicopters.
US companies have already supplied roughly half the ordered equipment, while the remaining $1.5bn is under contract. Iraq has about $300m remaining in its FMS account, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.
Future equipment sales are expected to be financed by Iraq’s rising oil revenues.
“They [the Baghdad government] are fighting for today and fighting for an independent military,” said Richard Aboulafia, defence expert at the Teal Group.
“The important thing is they are buying from western powers which implies, if not alignment, at least some co-operation moving forward. You buy Russian or Chinese arms when you don’t want to be dependent on western manufacturers.”
Michael O’Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution, described Iraq as “a big opportunity” for contractors. “Mideast oil producers are typically among the world’s biggest arms customers, and in this case, Iraq is starting almost from scratch,” he said.
“Now that Iraq’s army and police are well on the way to winning the internal fight against insurgents and militias, their natural tendency to worry about their neighbours is re-surfacing.”
Mr Aboulafia said the Iraqis would be looking to buy not just equipment, but also training and support.
Iraq to be influenced by credit crunch- expert
01 October 2008
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Co-CEO of the world's largest asset management company PIMCO Mohamed al-Erian said that Iraq will be affected by the global financial crisis.
Companies seeking to invest in Iraq, which he described as a poor country, will find it difficult to borrow money to achieve its plans, Erian said in an interview with NRC, a regional cross-border newspaper for the Dutch-German border.
According to Erian, the financial Tsunami has not reached emerging economies thus far, adding that if that happens, social consequences will be great.
The U.S. bailout plan is "a necessary step because the situation had to be stabilized," he noted.
Expressing his doubts about the adequacy of the measure, Erian said: "My sense is you need to do more. We are going to look back and 700 billion will not be the final number."
Commenting on the authorities' handling of the situation, Erian said: "The U.S. is not used to crisis management, particularly in what is seen as the most sophisticated financial system in the world. There is not enough information about the crisis. And when the authorities do have information, they realize their instruments are blunt."
Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO) is a leading investment management firm and provider of retirement solutions.
I am not sure a revaluation is necessarily the method the CBI will use to affect a change in the exchange rate. I do not believe these articles about a zero lop. Using the lop is simply to discourage speculation in the currency. This proposed lop would also have a negative impact on the amount of shares those in the Iraqi Stock Market have. It seems many on this forum believe since the are in the ISX they are immune from the effects of a lop. This is not true.
Fiat currency in and of itself is not an effective mode of currency. It is used as a matter of convenience. An effective monetary policy in any country is to achieve the "real rate" of a currency. Iraq is no different. In Iraq's case a lop cannot achieve the "real rate" of the Dinar. On the other hand, an arbitrary revaluation or reversion without fiscal support is a recipie for hyper inflation leading to economic chaos.
Only through a free float backed by their monetized oil (petro dinars), cash reserves ($70 Billion), and gold reserves can Iraq achieve the Dinar's "real rate". Using this method not only achieves the "real rate" but communicates a stable currency that can be used in international exchanges. In this scenario, there is no logical reason for a lop or a logical reason for a reversion to some unrealistic number. Iraq can proceed with its introduction of the small denominations and phase out the larger notes.
In my view, this makes more sense than the constent bickering back and forth between those believing the CBI will lop and those believing they will magically revalue.
Just a thought, holding the new Iraqi Dinar may proove to be the best hedge against the current financial crisis. This may be especially true if the CBI implements a more flexible monetary policy by allowing the Dinar to free float.
I also believe the Dinar may be a very good hedge against the currency crisis.
I believe they will pass the measure in Congress but I don't think we are out of the woods yet.
Again, intrinsic worth or value to the Iraqi Dinar makes it a good hedge.
Remember Iraq holds the third richest proven resources of oil in the world -
and they may be the richest if the unproven reserves show even more.
Palin, Biden trade barbs over economy, Iraq in spirited VP debate
October 2, 2008
Lee-Anne Goodman, THE CANADIAN PRESS
WASHINGTON - The confident Sarah Palin - the one who wooed Republicans soon after John McCain chose her as his running mate in August - re-emerged Thursday in a hotly anticipated vice-presidential debate that saw her hold her own against a razor-sharp Joe Biden.
Palin, spoke clearly and forcefully in short question-and-answer segments during the showdown in St. Louis.
Peppering her remarks with folksy phrases like "darn it," "doggone it," "Joe Six-Pack" and dropping her Gs as always, the Alaska governor repeatedly lauded McCain as a "man of reform" who's always tried to protect the American taxpayer.
"I may not answer the questions the way you or the moderator may want me to but I am going to talk straight to the American people," Palin, looking directly at the camera, said in the midst of a verbal clash with Biden over her insistence that her Democratic rivals were tax-happy.
Biden, known for being gaffe-prone himself and occasionally hot-headed, was eloquent, feisty at times, and even became briefly tearful recalling how his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident years ago and his two sons gravely injured.
But he was always polite toward Palin, who started out the debate harkening back to her Working Mom persona as she told of talking to other parents about Wall Street's financial meltdown.
"Go to a kids' soccer game on Saturday and turn to any parent on the sideline, and I betcha you're going to hear fear in that parent's voice," she said when asked about the economic crisis.
Biden, a longtime Democratic senator considered one of the most seasoned foreign policy experts on Capitol Hill, became spirited when the debate turned to the war in Iraq, fiercely disputing Palin's insistence that Obama has voted against funding U.S. troops while McCain has always voted in favour.
"John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops," Biden said. "He voted against it because he said the amendment had a timeline in it to end the war and he didn't like that."
Biden and Palin also clashed over energy, global warming, taxes and government spending in their only debate.
All in all, the vice-presidential showdown was far more compelling, energetic and entertaining - and even moving when Biden became emotional - than the presidential debate last week in Mississippi.
While Palin misstated a couple of names, her onstage performance was peppered with the kind of modest, down-home language and demeanour that so charmed Republicans at the party's convention in Minnesota five weeks ago.
"Can I call you Joe?" she asked Biden, beaming as they shook hands, before the debate kicked off.
Toward the end of the debate she made a point of telling Biden how happy she was to have met him as the Delaware senator smiled widely and moments later returned the compliment.
Political junkies and everyday citizens alike had waited with bated breath for the faceoff, eager to see if Palin would defy her critics with a solid performance.
Instead, she far exceeded expectations, but many pundits said Biden's performance was the best of his career.
Palin caused a bounce in the polls to McCain in the first two weeks after his surprise pick of the self-described "hockey mom," especially among women.
In the days following the Republican National Convention and Palin's spirited speech at the event, the party claimed it had snagged one in five disgruntled Hillary Clinton backers who were furious at the way they felt the Obama campaign had treated their candidate during the Democratic primaries.
The Republicans reported Thursday that the party raised nearly US$66 million in September, breaking its all-time record.
The haul was credited to the strength of McCain and Palin and served as a reminder that she's brought money and energy to the Republican party.
This seems to prove that Rasmussen saying ALL the polls overweight with Democrats is true.
===
WaPo Ignores Its Own Poll Showing McCain Gain
By Tom Blumer
October 2, 2008
If Old Media can cook their numbers to make their favored candidate look good, they will.
Earlier today, I covered two cooked AP-GfK polls (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog). The pollster dramatically changed the party-ID makeup of the second poll to include a much higher percentage of Democrats, and watered down the strong-GOP component of the Republicans sampled. As a result, the two poll results, taken together, fabricated an illusion of Barack Obama momentum, and John McCain decline. The results couldn't be more bogus; holding the mix constant from one poll to the next would have caused John McCain's lead from three weeks ago to shrink by about 1%.
Its also seems that if Old Media can't use a poll to fabricate its way to the result it wants, it simply ignores it. Two examples from the same poll will demonstrate this.
On Wednesday, NewsBusters' Scott Whitlock noted that ABC ignored its own national poll conducted with the Washington Post that showed a 4% national edge for Barack Obama -- down from 9% the previous week.
Yesterday, the Washington Post's Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta didn't totally ignore the poll (full results are here). Like ABC, they ignored the topside result just mentioned, which is below:
QUOTE:
3. (ASKED OF REGISTERED VOTERS) If the 2008 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were (Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the Democrats) and (John McCain and Sarah Palin, the Republicans), for whom would you vote?
Instead, the two reporters focused on questions that emphasized potential negatives relating to McCain's vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, stating, "A month ago, voters rated Palin as highly as they did McCain or his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, but after weeks of intensive coverage and several perceived missteps, the shine has diminished."
Cohen and Agiesta wrote over 1,100 words, yet never named a single "perceived misstep," let alone "several." That also seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that the Alaska Governor has committed no real missteps. Naming the ones that are "perceived" would be embarrassing -- not to Ms. Palin, but to the reporters and the Old Media establishment they represent. Just take your pick from Charles Martin's accumulated list of myths and rumors, now up to 97 (the first 85 are here; scroll through his content or search on each relevant number to find the rest), and you'll see what I mean.
Here's an obvious question: If Palin's alleged negatives on experience and readiness are such a "drag," why did Obama's lead over McCain get cut by over half in one week in that very same poll? The crosstabs, which are fairly consistent between the two polls, don't appear to explain McCain's improvement. Logically, whatever caused McCain to gain has to be a more important factor than the negative items relating to Palin that the WaPo reporters chose to dwell on.
No wonder Mr. Cohen and Ms. Agiesta ignored their own poll's overall result.
Comments:
1) Reason enough to ignore the by Smartypants
Reason enough to ignore the polls being pushed by the msm. Conservatives need to get out in force and be sure to vote on Nov 4. Do not allow yourselves to be demoralized by these loons. They try this tactic every election, claiming it's over before it's over. When McCain has a 4 point lead it means nothing to them. When Obama has one, the race is over. Right.
Get your friends, neighbors, co-workers out to vote on Nov. 4. I want to wake up on Nov. 5 and hear all of the stories of how the Republicans stole another election; it will be music to my ears.
2) Media in panic mode by 10ksnooker
They realize that no one is going to vote for a Communist, even if he is black.
Riddle me this:
How is an associate of David Duke different from an associate of Rev Wright?
Optional question: Would you vote for an associate of David Duke?
3) »→ Answer by Cool Arrow
An associate of David Duke wouldn't make it past the filing stage for either major party.
4) That's what gets to me about by Seashell
That's what gets to me about the Rev. Wright situation. If McCain had had a character like this as a part of his life AND as a part of his campaign, (even if he hired the guy to pick up the trash on the bus at the end of the day), McCain would never have survived-he'd be gone, finished, Don Imused!
5) You could pick just one, by Smartypants
You could pick just one, any one, of Obama's gaffes or past and present relationships, and that would be sufficient to eliminate any Republican candidate for office. If McCain had described anyone as a "typical black person" as Obama said about his own grandmother ("typical white person"), it would be over. If McCain associated even loosely with the likes of William Ayers, Anthony Rezko, Reverend Wright, etc. it would be over for him. It is unfathomable that Obama has all of this baggage on him and it does not matter. Obama could be photographed committing murder tomorrow and it would not matter to the press.
6) I was on a flight back home by ThisnThat
I was on a flight back home today, and overheard a conversation on tonight's debate. One of the passengers was very adament. He said "I'm a life-long democrat, but there's no way I am voting Democrat this year. I want someone in office that won't take my money away. I'm 58 and have lost $70,000 in my 401K this year".
That's only a poll of 1, but it's typical of other conversations I have overheard this past month.
7) TnT... I had a similar by Clear thinker
TnT... I had a similar experience today but the subject was guns. A few hardcore Dems I was talking with this morning.. and I said to them "I wonder why Obama is against people owning guns" . They all went "HUH?", and I said that Obama has wanted to change guns laws for quite awhile, and basically take them from citizens just like them. After alot of swearing they said they won't vote for (him).
I find myself in disagreement with you two that the USA should bailout these banks that gave out mortgages to people who could not afford them; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's business practices (bonuses for CEO based on amount of mortgage loans given out); and sub-prime loans to people who could not afford the mortgages in the first place. Then there are the business practices of greed and corruption on Wall Street leading to bad risk decisions that lead to financial loses.
I for one am mad as hell. I want an investigation and I want some people to go to jail. Having said this, this investigation needs to be an independent council and not congress policing themselves as they are the ones I want investigated. I want to clear out all the congressional offices (both House and Senate) and I think the american public feels the same way.
Now onto the economics of this bailout. This bill rewards the very people who ripped off the american taxpayer. I am not in favor of this. I also note that congress (senate) thinks the american people are stupid. The senate tacked all types of earmarks on this more recent bill that was passed in the senate and now to be heard in the House. I am hoping the House has the sense to defeat this bill. They will do the american people a great favor.
There is another reason I am against this passing of a bailout. There are major economists MIT and others that are telling the congress to let the free market work on these losses. One economist is in my backyard. According to Weiss Research economists, they predicted this crash as early as 2004.
Martin Weiss, Ph.D. (in economics from Columbia University) and Michael D. Larson wrote a paper entitled "$700 Billion Bailout Is Too Little, Too Late to End the Debt Crisis; Too Much, Too Soon for the U.S. Bond Market." I have read this paper. According to this paper, the USA debt in mortgages alone is estimated to be 3.2 trillon dollars.
They give details on how they derive these figures and tell the reader that the USA government does not want the public to know how bad the situation really is. They conclude the above statement by the government's representatives silence and reassurances given by our government officials that passing this bailout will solve the financial uncertainities.
Given that 3.2 trillon and 700 billion dollars are not even close in numbers... one would have to conclude that it will not be long before the government comes for another 700 billion dollars and then another. This is a really slippery slope. 700 billion is just a drop in the bucket from 3.2 trillon dollars. The Government is lying to us that this bailout is going to stop banks and other businesses from going under as government does not have enough money to rescue Wall Street. According to Weiss, business and bank failures are going to happen anyway, despite this bailout.
Martin Weiss and Michael Larson advise congress to leave the market to wall street to adjust for these losses and for government to not buy the paper on these mortgages or take on bad business losses from wall street due to brokers/banks taking undue risks. They instead advise congress to use this $700 billion to protect the little guy (small businesses and the credit market) and taxpayers of middle and lower income people. They advise congress to invest money to protect us only from these failing banks.
Despite whether the bailout happens or not, bank and business failures are going to happen and they predict a black October financially for our nation. The bailout is a bailout for the rich companies who have already made off with huge profits due to greed and corruption. As to which ones, again this needs to be investigated.
Given what Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D. and Michael D. Larson are saying (and other economists that have written to congress) they all agree that the free market needs to take care of these losses. Even some of our top business people believe the same...I listened to a hotel giant (very rich man) say exactly the same thing.
Therefore, I am hoping the House of Respresentatives fails this bill tommorrow. May God help them.
The International Trade Exhibition for Construction Technology, Building Materials and Equipment.
Erbil International Fair Ground, Kurdistan, Iraq.
Iraq Construction Drive Offers Billions of Dollars in Business Development Prospects
Iraq is in need of a full range of infrastructure related products, services and systems, including: hospital equipment and supplies, security products, road and rail machinery, oil production equipment and finance and telecom systems. Work on hundreds of major projects worth $43.5 billion - pledged by the interim Iraqi government with funds from Iraq's own oil revenues - is moving ahead.
Reconstruction contracts are no longer restricted to a number of countries. They are now being awarded and supervised by Iraqi ministries, a development that has encouraged suppliers and contractors from around the world to come forward and grab a share of the multi billion-dollar redevelopment process. It is estimated that over the next four years, Iraq's new government will be spending more than $150 billion on reconstruction of key sectors.
Construction industry players eying Iraq's huge reconstruction process and the billions of business dollars it is generating will be able to display their products at the Project Iraq 2008 exhibition. Project Iraq 2008 will highlight the vast scale of reconstruction needs in Iraq: power facilities and electrical grids have to be restored, oil and gas supplies nurtured, airports, roads and schools rebuilt and seaports transformed.
Rebuilding of Iraq’s Main Sectors & Infrastructure To Cost Over $35 Billion
A joint United Nations/World Bank assessment of funding needs for reconstruction in Iraq during the period 2004-2008 identified 14 sectors and associated funding needs, worth US$36 billion, as shown in the table below. In addition, the Coalition Provisional Authority estimated an additional US$20 billion in needs, including US$5 billion for security and police, and US$8 billion for oil industry infrastructure.
Needs (US$ billion)
Government Institutions 0.39
Education 4.81
Health 1.60
Employment Creation 0.79
Transport and Telecommunications 3.41
Water, Sanitation, Solid Waste 6.84
Electricity 12.12
Urban Management 0.41
Housing and Land Management 1.42
Agriculture and Water Resources 3.03
State-Owned Enterprises 0.36
Financial Sector 0.081
Investment Climate 0.34
Mine Action 0.23
Total 35.82
Iraq Seeks $33 billion in Foreign Direct Investment; US paying out $200 million a week to Contractors
Iraq's government believes it can attract $33 billion in Foreign Direct Investment, adding to the $33 billion in aid pledged by foreign donors. Meanwhile, US officials overseeing Iraq's reconstructions confirm that projects are moving ahead. They say that the US is paying out about $200 million a week to contractors and that $5.3 billion out of $18.4 billion appropriated by the US Congress in 2003 has already been disbursed. A further $12.9 billion has been 'obligated' - or placed under contract. The overall reconstruction process is progressing rapidly.
Investment in Kurdistan Region Bolstered by One of the of the Most Liberal Laws in the Middle East
A new investment law for the Kurdistan region, offering generous incentives to foreign investors, is being cited as one of the most investor-friendly laws in the Middle East.
The legislation includes tax and customs breaks for up to 10 years from the start of operations. Subject to import licenses, equipment will be customs free and customs relief will be available for spare parts and raw materials.
Under the new law, 100% foreign ownership is permitted, as is the freedom to repatriate profits and capital. In addition, subject to approval from the regional Investment Board, the law allows controlled foreign ownership of land [unless it contains oil, gas, or heavy mineral resources]. Additional discretionary incentives will be available for projects with local participation and projects in disadvantaged areas or for disadvantaged communities.
Be a Key Player in the World's Greatest Reconstruction Effort
Project Iraq 2008, the International Trade Exhibition for Construction Technology, Building Materials and Equipment, will highlight the most ambitious reconstruction project of our time. It will be one of the largest and most comprehensive Iraq reconstruction trade events ever held in Iraq. Jointly organized by the International Fairs and Promotions Group (IFP Group) and IFP Iraq - two leading exhibition organizers with a successful record of more than 360 internationally-accredited trade shows in the Middle East over the past 28 years - the show will be a model of professionalism.
Project Iraq 2008 will offer exhibitors an exceptional opportunity to meet buyers and decision-makers from Iraq, Jordan and across the Middle East. Participants will enjoy direct access to Iraqi and international officials and contractors involved hands-on with reconstruction projects throughout Iraq. Material supply and technical cooperation contracts worth millions of dollars will be signed.
Russia companies must sooner join in Iraq oil-gas sector development
Problems of Russian companies inclusion in the development of the oil-ad-gas sector of Iraq's economy must be resolved as soon as possible, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov said during a conversation with Iraq's ambassador to Moscow Abdulkarim Hashim Mostafa on Thursday.
(www.noozz.com)
Parliament to discuss appendix to election law, says Bayati 03/10/2008 13:38:00
Baghdad (NINA)- MP Abbas al-Bayati has reveled the parliament's intention to include discussing an addition of an appendix to the provincial elections law over minorities' representation in the forthcoming elections in next Tuesday's parliamentary session.
(www.ninanews.com)
Baghdad (NINA)- The ministry of interior has announced killing two gunmen and detaining four others during clashes that took place in Diyala province last Thursday in relation to an attempt to assassinate a tribal chieftain in the province.
(www.ninanews.com)
Maliki sacks a top military commander for security breaches
Military and Security 10/3/2008 12:53:00 AM
BAGHDAD, Oct 2 (KUNA) -- Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sacked on Thursday a senior military commander and referred him for investigation after security breaches occurred in the region he was entrusted to oversee.
Iraqi State television said al-Maliki as commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces ordered the dismissal of commander of the Third Battalion which is part of the First Brigade Group in charge of the national police. The commander was asked to retire.
The Third Battalion in the First Brigade currently oversees policing in the area of Karrada, one of the most important areas of central and eastern Baghdad. Karrada has seen recently numerous security breaches in the way of attacks by car bombs and improvised explosive devices that killed dozens of Iraqi civilians. It was not possible to contact the Iraqi Interior Ministry to know the name of the commander or whether the areas of Zaafaraniya and New Baghdad, which have witnessed suicide attacks today, are within the responsibility of the commander or not. It should be noted that the areas of Zaafaraniya and New Baghdad are close to the district of Karrada in Baghdad and have seen today suicide bombings that caused the deaths of two suicide bombers and the wounding of about 71 people in attacks described by the Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi as an attempt to incite sedition in the country. (end) ahh.ajs KUNA 030053 Oct 08NNNN
(www.kuna.net.kw)
Awakening Ends in Iraq
The US military is disengaging from the Awakening program - the league of Sunni forces who defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq - and the program is now turned over to the Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. And now the Sunnis look to ally with Russia, says Robert Dreyfuss.
03 October 2008 (Middle East Online)
Print article Send to friend
In an exclusive interview with The Nation, the commander of the Sunni-led Awakening movement in Baghdad says that attacks by the Iraqi government and government-allied militiamen against Awakening leaders and rank-and-file members are likely to spark a new Sunni resistance movement. That resistance force will conduct attacks against American troops and Iraqi army and police forces, he says. "Look around," he says. "It has already come back. It is getting stronger. Look at what is happening in Baghdad."
The commander, Abu Azzam, spoke to The Nation by telephone from Amman, Jordan, last week, before returning to Baghdad.
He laid out a scenario for a new explosion in Iraq, one that would shatter the complacent American notion that the 2007-08 "surge" of American troops in Iraq has stabilized that war-torn country. Although the greater US force succeeded in putting down some of the most violent sectarian clashes, it was the emergence of the Awakening movement in 2006 that crushed Al Qaeda in Iraq and brought order to Anbar and Baghdad.
Beginning October 1, the Iraqi government is responsible for the Awakening movement, which includes about 100,000 mostly Sunni fighters in the provinces of Anbar, Salahuddin and Diyala and in the mostly Sunni western suburbs of Baghdad. Made up of many former Baathists, ex-military officers from the Saddam Hussein era and other assorted secular nationalists, the Awakening (in Arabic, sahwa, also referred to by the US military as the Sons of Iraq) involves thousands of former guerrillas from the 2003-07 Iraqi resistance.
The sectarian Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki views the Awakening movement with extreme suspicion, and the feeling is mutual. According to several Iraqi sources interviewed for this article, there is a grave possibility that the relative calm that has prevailed in Iraq over the past year will be shattered if the Shiite-led government and its allied militia, the Badr Brigade of the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), engage in an armed power struggle with the Awakening forces for control of western Baghdad.
So far, the United States is trying to cajole Maliki into supporting the Awakening, offering $300 to $500 per month for each member of the Sunni militia. At the same time, US military officers in Iraq have promised to guarantee the payments to the Sunni forces and to shield the Awakening from attacks or reprisals by the regime. But among Sunnis, including those interviewed for this story, there is widespread concern that they are on their own and that the United States will not abandon the government in Baghdad despite its sectarian, pro-Iran leanings.
In that case, said a former top Iraqi official, many Sunnis may turn to an unlikely source for support: Russia. "The Russians are very active," he said. "They are talking with many Iraqis, including resistance leaders and Awakening members, in Damascus, Syria. They are in discussions with big Baathists." According to this official, former Baathists, army officers and Awakening members in Damascus, Amman and inside Iraq are looking to Russia for support, especially since Russia seems intent on reasserting itself in the Middle East. "The Russians intend to come out strongly to play with the Sunnis," he said. "I heard this from sahwa members in Damascus and Amman. 'If the Americans abandon us, we will go to the Russians.'"
Abu Azzam, who helped found the Awakening in the Baghdad area, is based in the Abu Ghraib suburb of the capital, and he is the commander for the region. Over the past several months, he said, "hundreds" of his fighters have been assassinated by the Badr militia or killed in battles with Iraqi police forces controlled by ISCI's Badr Brigade. Last month, the police issued a warrant for Abu Azzam's arrest, but Maliki quashed it after a brief period of confusion. "The Ministry of Justice and the police in Iraq are controlled by the religious parties," Abu Azzam said. "It wasn't a real arrest warrant." Still, it was unsettling to the movement, and it was widely taken as a sign of things to come.
According to the New York Times, Maliki's government has ordered the arrest of 650 Awakening leaders in the Baghdad area and hundreds more north of the capital, in Diyala province. The Times quoted Jalaladeen al-Saghir, a top official of ISCI's Badr Brigade, saying, "The state cannot accept the Awakening. Their days are numbered."
The Iraqi government has pledged to enroll 20 percent of the Awakening force in the army and police. But that pledge is seen by most Sunnis as an action by Maliki to keep the Americans happy -- even though Maliki has no intention of keeping his promise.
"Maliki tells the Americans what he thinks they want to hear," an Awakening leader tells The Nation. "I tell the Americans all the time that it is a trick, but they don't understand. The Americans are so naïve. They assume good will on the part of Maliki. We don't understand. The Americans know that Maliki is working closely with the Iranians, so why do they believe him? Why do they listen to him?"
According to Abu Azzam, the fact that 80 percent of the Awakening forces will be kept out of the security services means that they won't have work, and they will be angry. "The government's plan is to take the 20 percent, bring them into the security forces, but move them out of the neighborhoods where they are based," he says. That's foolish, he adds, because those militia forces know the neighborhoods, and they know a lot about pro-Al Qaeda and pro-Sunni Islamist radicals, house by house. "If you move them, you lose all that knowledge," he says. "And then they replace them with Iraqi army units that are mostly made up of sectarian Shiite forces." It is a formula for disaster, and a new civil war.
Last week, the Iraqi Parliament passed a flawed but workable law to govern provincial elections, which are expected to be held early in 2009. Abu Azzam is forming his own political party, the Iraqi Dignity Front, to compete mostly in the Baghdad suburbs. In other provinces, there are other parties emerging out of the Awakening, including the Anbar-based National Front for the Salvation of Iraq. Most of the Awakening-linked parties are expected to sweep the Sunni vote in Anbar, Salahuddin, Diyala and the western suburbs of Baghdad, delivering a knockout blow to the Iraqi Islamic Party, the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Sunni religious bloc that at times has been part of Maliki's coalition. The Iraqi Islamic Party was elected with only 2 percent of the Sunni vote, when nearly all Sunnis boycotted the rigged 2005 elections.
Sheikh Ali Hatim, leader of the National Front for the Salvation of Iraq, told an Arabic-language newspaper: “We are waging a battle of destiny against the Islamic Party. Al Qaeda does not pose any danger to Iraq anymore, and it is finished. The real danger are those that fight us in the name of legitimacy and religion -- I mean the Islamic Party. Had it not been for the intervention of the government and the US forces, this party would not have lasted for two days in Al-Anbar.”
But the pro-Awakening parties are far more concerned about the threat from Maliki and the ISCI-Badr forces than they are with the Iraqi Islamic Party, which does not have a militia of any consequence. And there is no guarantee that they will be satisfied with participation in a political process that restricts them to elections in Anbar and a few other Sunni strongholds yet keeps them out of power in Baghdad and in the central government -- especially if the campaign of violence and assassination continues against their fighters.
According to Iraqi sources, the assassinations of key Sunni leaders are being carried out by death squads associated with the Badr Brigade, often supported directly by units from Iran's intelligence service, which works closely with Badr forces. Since 2003, the Badr Brigade and Iran's intelligence service have assassinated thousands of former Baathists, army and air force officers; Sunni intellectuals and professionals; and others opposed to Iran's influence in Iraq.
Many Iraq experts in Washington discount the possibility that the Russians would lend their support to a new resistance force in Iraq, but they do not entirely rule it out.
Earlier this month, a former top Baathist official openly called on Moscow for help. Salah Mukhtar, who was an aide to Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi foreign minister under Saddam, and who was Iraq's ambassador to India and Vietnam, said that Russia's "pre-emptive step in Georgia is a formidable act from the strategic point of view in its timing, aims and tactics," and he called on Russia to direct its attention to Iraq:
The United States' Achilles' heel is Iraq.... The US colonialist project to have absolute control over our planet can be buried in Iraq.
Only through backing the patriotic Iraqi resistance and strengthening its military capabilities can we accelerate the end of US colonialism all over the world.... The key to defeat the United States in the world and to corner it into isolation is Russia providing support to the Iraqi resistance directly or indirectly.
The key to freeing the world by muzzling the United States requires Russian involvement in the Iraq battle.
Despite the bravado in that statement, it's not impossible that Russia might be toying with the idea of engaging the United States in the Middle East more directly. In all likelihood, it would depend on a significant further deterioration of US-Russian relations over Georgia, Iran, and other points of contention. In the meantime, though, it is likely that Russian intelligence agents are quietly connecting with Iraqis.
The bottom line is that despite the deceptive calm in Iraq, the country remains poised to explode. Not only it is possible that the Sunni-Shiite war could reignite but another flashpoint is developing in the north and northeast of Iraq, involving Kurds' aspirations to aggrandize their territory. Both Sunni and Shiite Arabs in Iraq would oppose any further Kurdish expansionism, especially the Kurds' desire to take control of oil-rich Kirkuk and Tamim province. And there is still the possibility that the forces of rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr night reassert themselves, with Iranian backing, if Maliki were to cave in to US demands for a status-of-forces agreement and a US-Iraq treaty that cedes too much of Iraq's sovereignty to the American occupation forces.
Robert Dreyfuss is a contributing editor of The Nation magazine, and the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Metropolitan).
(www.iraqupdates.com)
The article I just posted I think justifies the continued necessity for our presence in Iraq. A precipitous is not the answer for the long term stablization of the country.
More importantly, I read today where the elections law passed and the next step is in the publication of the gazzette. Our presence there will ensure a relatively peaceful election process.
The provincial elections are very important. The future of the country depends upon the election of a prime minister who has Iraq as his focus. I hope to see a different prime minister who separates himself from the influence of Iran.
Rob, I think you're absolutely right, that America must stay in Iraq. My position for a long time has been to stay, try to stabilize the country, then after doing as much as common sense says you should, retreat to military bases, for a long term stay, and let Iraqis sort out their problems.
I think that has been the plan all along. They just haven't told the public.
I don't think America can solve every problem, or force a solution, or accomadation, but American presense in Iraq helps promote stability. And if, in the end, after being helped, Iraqis can't sort out their differences, and a bloodbath occurs, I'd say America should let it happen. In my opinion, in about a year and a half, I think America has done all it could. After that, it's up to the Iraqis. Whatever will be, will be.
But whatever the timeline is, I'm convinced commanders on the ground will know exactly how long to fight, and when to quit fighting, and let them sort it out themselves.
And if that backfires, and America has to deal with a bloody dictator running Iraq, because Iraqis blew the chance to have a peaceful democracy, I'd say let it happen. The oil will still flow under a new Saddam, even as the blood flows also.
And if that occurs, and the Iraqi people suffer, they have only themselves to blame for their incompetance. America is giving them a once-in-a-thousand-years opportunity, to leave their bloody past behind, turn their country around and have a peaceful, tolerant, democratic and rich country. They should be grateful for that. If they are too stupid and disagreeable with each other to see that, and turn it around, that's their problem.
In any case, the oil will flow, and the Dinar will soar in value.
Here is the article I was looking for.
__________________________________________________________
Iraq presidency approves provincial election law
SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq, Oct 3, 2008 (AFP) - Iraq's three-member presidency council on Friday approved a long-delayed provincial election law, clearing the final hurdle for polls to go head early next year, an official present at the meeting told AFP.
"The presidency council has adopted the provincial election law," said the official, who is a member of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) party.
Talabani and Vice Presidents Adel Abdel Mahdi and Tareq al-Hashemi were all present at the meeting, which was also attended by Massud Barzani, president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region.
The council's stamp of approval means Iraq can now finally go ahead with the polls which had originally been scheduled for October 1.
Iraq's 275-member parliament finally passed the law on September 24 but, in a move that has drawn UN criticism, MPs scrapped a key clause that would have reserved seats on provincial councils for Christians and other minorities.
The presidency council called on MPs to reinstate the clause, the official said.
Elections will be held early next year in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. The new law excludes the disputed northern oil province of Kirkuk and the three Kurdish provinces of Arbil, Dohuk and Sulaimaniyah.
(www.zawya.com)
Very interesting. Yes, the market could sort it out. There's no doubt about it. And I think the bailout has a chance to stabilize things. It all depends on what you want.
I think the bailout is designed to keep the current financial and power arrangements as they are. Don't rock the boat, I think is the message of the bailout. Don't rock the boat, because the truth probably is, I'm guessing, the Democrats and Republicans and Wall Street are all in on it, or responsible, in some way, for this mess.
My guess is the entire political and economic elite in America is corrupt, to some degree. Whether through negligence, or bad economic philosophy, or greed, they all share in the blame. Now, if that is so, where does the average American turn to?
Because I'm basically talking about most of the current leadership class, in America. As I said in a previous post, I don't believe for a second, that Wall Street and Democratic and Republican leadership didn't see this coming. If they did see it coming, they didn't stop it and are corrupt, and should be replaced. If they didn't see it coming, they are incompetant, and should be replaced.
And at the core of what I am saying, is trust and morality. Capitalism will eventually breakdown without an elite that is competant, and can be trusted. That is at the heart of what has made America great, in the past, in my opinion. The people who founded America, and many American Presidents from the past were, truly great men, some of the greatest in history, by anyone's estimation. That's why America became a great nation: Great leaders, with good morals. Without decent public morals, including morals involved in economic management, like basic honesty, the whole thing eventually breaks down.
So, besides the huge amount of money involved, that is so big it will have a significant effect on each and every American, and their standard of living, there is the issue of: can ordinary Americans trust their elites? If they can't trust their elites to lead them, America could be in very, very big trouble. Corrupt, untrustworthy elites are the reason banana republics are what they are.
I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other day. I don't agree with him on many things, but I thought he had an astute observation. He said that as he was watching President Bush talk about the financial crisis, President Bush seemed to him, as just another media pundit, commenting on the situation.
That's a very sad and telling commentary, when an American President is compared in stature and influence, with a dime-a-dozen media hack, commenting on the news. Media pundits are not held in very high esteem. I've heard a lot of people, for many years now, including Jon Stewart, take cheap shots and President Bush. Now, I've always believed in free speech, including the right to ridicule leaders, but I've noticed a change over the years. High elected officials, right up to the President, are not given the kind of respect they used to, in the past.
And I tolerate ridicule only if I know that behind that ridicule, is a basic underlying social respect, that is an accepted norm. It's a bit like swearing. Swear words are only effective if there is a strong social taboo against them. Take away that social taboo, and what you are left with is only vulgarity. Take away trust, and ridicule becomes just vulgar chaos, and social anarchy. Not good.
Now, some people would say this sort of thing, about trust, is all about President Bush, since he is unpopular with Democrats. I disagree. I think it's deeper than that. I think there is a breakdown in public trust, in the United States, of their elites. Only 9% of Americans thing Congress is doing a good job.
And President Bush did not even have enough clout to change the minds of Republicans, on the bailout. Now, whether the bailout is a good, or bad idea, think about that: A sitting American president tried to rally people in his own party, to support a particular measure, in a time of grave national peril, to follow him, and he wasn't able to lead, and wasn't listened to. Is that good? I don't think so. Without basic trust, how can a leader lead?
So all of this is obviously related to the financial crises. Much of the public feels that the powers that be, both parties and Wall Street, are irresponsible, and can't be trusted to lead the country. I hope what I am saying is absolute baloney, because if what I'm saying is right, America is headed for really big problems down the road.
Trust is at the heart of all relationships, including citizenship, and capitalism. Break that down, and you endanger the validity of the whole system.
I don't know if Americans should pray, or take to the streets with pitchforks and torches.
So, Laura, if the bailout fails, I have no doubt it will sort itself out eventually, in the markets. But in the meantime, there will be economic chaos, people will lose homes and jobs, and there will be a political earthquake in America. So, bailout or no bailout? I don't know. A bailout will keep the corrupt system in place, with the hope that political leaders reform things. Or no bailout would bring chaos for a few years, as the whole political and economic system is given a good shake.
Americans will have to decide which option they want, and live with the consequences, good and bad, and unexpected.
I am glad you are mad about this.
Hopefully some light will be shed on who is responsible.
In the youtube below, yesterday, O'Reilly tore into Barney Frank over the crisis he has presided over.
I think you can appreciate his expressing frustration at those who will not take responsibility.
Certainly, Sarah Palin's remarks in the VP debate about needing to go after corruption have marks to hit...
in spite of such denials of any responsibility while holding the majority in Congress.
I agree with Noel's comments below:
.. if the American people actually were told the truth about the real foundation of today's financial industry meltdown we'd likely be looking at a Republican landslide at the polls next month. Instead, our press have complicity added to the misinformation campaign of the Democrats, and shamefully hid the truth from the public.
Sara.
===
O'Reilly Tears Barney Frank Apart Over Fannie and Freddie
By Noel Sheppard
October 3, 2008
Finally, someone in the media accurately accused and challenged a member of Congress over his involvement and complicity in the current financial crisis.
As press member after press member has allowed Democrats to shamefully and erroneously blame the current crisis on George W. Bush, virtually nobody other than folks at Fox News has been willing to examine the role elected officials on the left side of the aisle have been playing for more than a decade in blocking tighter regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
That changed Thursday when Fox's Bill O'Reilly absolutely tore Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) apart concerning his involvement in the current fiasco,
QUOTE:
O'REILLY: "Personal story" segment tonight, the financial chaos in this country is largely the fault of the citizens who cannot pay their obligations, banks who lent money to unqualified people, and the federal government which failed to provide oversight. Both political parties are to blame as I've stated.
Now "The Factor" has called on SEC Chairman Christopher Cox to resign, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd to quit, and House Finance Chief Barney Frank to step down from his position. That's because for the past two years, Frank and his committee oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored lending agencies which pretty much are bankrupt. Congressman Frank was asked about Freddie and Fannie on July 14, 2008.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Well, obviously, that statement turned out not to be true. Joining us now from Washington is Congressman Frank. And we appreciate you coming in, being a standup guy, but shouldn't everybody in the country be angry with you right now?
FRANK: No. You've misrepresented this consistently. I became chairman of the committee on January 31st, 2007. Less than two months later, I did what the Republicans hadn't been able to do in 12 years -- get through the committee a very tough regulatory bill. And it passed the House in May.
I've always felt two things about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that they had an important role to play, but that the regulations should be improved.
Now from 1995 to 2006, when the Republicans controlled Congress, and we were in the minority, we couldn't get that done. Although in 2005, Mike Oxley, of Sarbanes-Oxley fame, a pretty tough guy on regulation, did try to put a bill through to regulate Fannie Mae. I worked with him on it. As he told "The Financial Times," he thought ideological rigidity in the Bush administration stopped that. But the basic point is that the first time I had any real authority over this was January of 2007. And within two months, we had passed the bill that regulated.
O'REILLY: OK. And that's true, all of that is true.
FRANK: And then also, one other point. The Senate was dragging its feet, as often happens. And in January of 2008, I asked Secretary Paulson to put in the stimulus bill. So the earliest chance I got to put tough regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we did it.
O'REILLY: All right, that's swell. But you still went out in July and said everything was great. And off that, a lot of people bought stock and lost everything they had.
FRANK: Oh, no.
O'REILLY: And -- yes, oh yes. Oh, yes.
FRANK: I said it wasn't a good investment.
O'REILLY: Don't give me any of that, we just heard the words. What are you.
FRANK: That's wrong.
O'REILLY: .that you didn't say that? You want me to play it again for you?
FRANK: You didn't listen to it.
O'REILLY: No, I listened to every word you said. And I have the transcript right here.
FRANK: No, and I said it wasn't a good investment.
O'REILLY: Yes, you said going forward, we're going to be swell. For look.
FRANK: No, I didn't say swell. Excuse me, Bill.
O'REILLY: .from August `07 to August '08.
FRANK: Excuse me, Bill.
O'REILLY: Don't - look, stop the B.S. here. Stop the crap! From August '07 to August '08.
FRANK: You know, here's the problem going on your show.
O'REILLY: .under your tutelage, this industry.
FRANK: Here is the problem going on your show.
O'REILLY: .declined 90 percent. 90 percent.
FRANK: Yes, but.
O'REILLY: Oh, none of this was your fault! Oh, no. People lost millions of dollars. It wasn't your fault. Come on, you coward! Say the truth.
FRANK: What do you mean coward?
O'REILLY: You're a coward. You blame everybody else. You're a coward.
FRANK: Bill, here's the problem with going on your show. You start ranting. And the only way to respond is almost to look as boorish as you. But here's the facts. I specifically said in the quote you just played that I didn't think it was a good investment. I wasn't telling anybody to buy stock. I said it wasn't a good investment.
Secondly, I wasn't presiding idly over this. I was trying to get the regulations adopted.
O'REILLY: Look.
FRANK: We got them adopted in May.
O'REILLY: Bottom line is you're there two years. Bottom line is stock drops 90 percent.
FRANK: Yes.
O'REILLY: In any private industry, you're out.
FRANK: No.
O'REILLY: In any private concern, you're out on your butt.
FRANK: No.
O'REILLY: But not here in the federal government.
FRANK: No.
O'REILLY: You can come in and make every excuse in the world.
FRANK: I'm not making excuses.
O'REILLY: .blame everybody else in the world and then call me boorish.
FRANK: I'm not going to be bullied by your ranting. You can rant all you want, you're not going to shut me up! The problem was that we passed in 1994, in fact.
O'REILLY: Now we're back to 1994. This is bull.
FRANK: Yes.
O'REILLY: This is why Americans don't trust the government.
FRANK: No, this is why your stupidity gets in the way of rational discussion.
O'REILLY: All right.
FRANK: The fact is it was 1994 that we passed a bill to tell the Fed to stop the subprime lending. We tried to get them to do it. The first time we were in power again in 2007, we passed the bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
O'REILLY: Look, Congressman.
FRANK: So during the two years I was there.
O'REILLY: .you tried to put a happy face on this in July.
FRANK: I'm not putting a happy face.
O'REILLY: You tried to - and now you won't take the.
FRANK: No.
O'REILLY: Look, at least Cox is man enough.
FRANK: I said.
O'REILLY: .to say he screwed up.
FRANK: Hey, Bill.
O'REILLY: You're not.
FRANK: This manliness stuff is very unbecoming from you. I don't see any.
O'REILLY: Cox is man enough to say he screwed up. You're not.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: You think toughness is yelling and ranting and trying to bully. It's not going to work with me. The fact is in the very quote you played, I said it's not a good investment. I tried to get the regulations adopted.
O'REILLY: You said going forward, it's going to be swell. And people under that bought stock in that, thought it was a good investment.
FRANK: I didn't say swell. I didn't say swell. No, I said in fact in that quote that you played and didn't listen to because you're busy ranting that it's not a good investment. I said that at the time. I did think we were going to improve things going forward. Yes, we had some things that needed improvement.
O'REILLY: All right, you want to - here, let me read you your quote here. OK? OK? "I do think the prospects going forward are very solid."
FRANK: But that's not the part about it not being a good investment.
O'REILLY: Now, people bought stock when you said that.
FRANK: You are distorting it. Bill, you're lying by your words.
O'REILLY: This is what you said.
FRANK: What about the part where.
O'REILLY: Not lying. And I played it and I read it.
FRANK: What about the part where I said it wasn't a good investment?
O'REILLY: You said it's not the best right now, but going forward this is going to be solid.
FRANK: Right..
O'REILLY: People lost millions.
FRANK: .(INAUDIBLE) right now. I didn't say solid, I didn't say swell. You distort consistently. And you think ranting and raving.
O'REILLY: All right.
FRANK: .you don't want to talk about 1994, like no history is relevant. The fact is that you had a problem with an administration - conservative.
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: I know, it's all the conservatives, it's all the Republicans and not you.
FRANK: Oh, come on.
O'REILLY: None on you. That's a joke.
FRANK: You won't have a rational discussion.
O'REILLY: That's a joke.
FRANK: The joke is to think I could have a rational discussion with you.
O'REILLY: No, the joke is.
FRANK: You're ranting.
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: Both parties are at fault, as I stated. But one guy Cox says yes, I screwed up.
FRANK: That's a totally different issue.
O'REILLY: And one guy Frank says it's everybody else's fault.
FRANK: No, I didn't say it was everybody else's fault.
O'REILLY: It's your fault.
FRANK: You are the most -- you don't listen at all, or maybe you are listening or you're too dumb to understand.
O'REILLY: I am too dumb, Congressman.
FRANK: The fact is that in - yes.
O'REILLY: No, you hit it, I'm too dumb. You're the brilliant guy.
FRANK: In 2007.
O'REILLY: You're the brilliant guy who presided over the biggest financial collapse in federal history.
FRANK: Oh, no, no, no.
O'REILLY: So you're the -- I'm the dumb guy. You're the brilliant guy.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: And the fact is.
O'REILLY: Congressman, thanks very much. We got to run.
==end quote==
Bravo, Bill. Outstanding!
The reality is that for the last three weeks, Americans have been lied to by folks on the left both in Washington and in the media. Since this crisis hit a head, the citizenry has been shamefully led to believe that this entire matter was precipitated by the Bush administration, and that Democrats were innocent of all wrongdoing.
Those of us in the know have been wondering when someone was going to finally challenge these folks. We can only hope that this is just the beginning, because the American people have a right to know that for many years, any attempt to reform or add tighter regulations to Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac was thwarted by Democrats.
In fact, this is so much so that if the American people actually were told the truth about the real foundation of today's financial industry meltdown we'd likely be looking at a Republican landslide at the polls next month.
Instead, our press have complicity added to the misinformation campaign of the Democrats, and shamefully hid the truth from the public.
Let's hope this is the beginning of light finally being shed on the disgraceful behavior of Democrats going back several administrations.
From this point forward, I would like to see press members specifically ask any Democrat blaming this problem on President Bush to name the piece of legislation signed into law since he was first inaugurated which led to this crisis.
Anything less is journalistic malpractice, and I imagine I speak for most Americans when I say enough is enough.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments:
1) Perfect... by Gat New York
O'Reilly's full throated exchange with the deplorable Barney Frank was perfect.
It made me realize that this is the tenor McCain's campaign should be operating on. How dare you allow Democrats to lie to the american public about who caused this economic problem.
This was NOT a problem of too little regulation - it was a problem of just too much government interference with business. And Barney Frank was front and center for years.
2) Other Quotes?? by GOPG8R
That clip was impossible for me to watch. Barney Frank deserves to be questioned about his comments regarding Freddie and Fannie ... but not like that. Frank came off sounding like the reasonable one. And, to me, the quote that O'Reilly was using wasn't the most effective one to use against Franks. What about all the quotes from Frank and other ranking Democrats from 2004? The quotes where they are going on and on about there not being any problems with Frannie and Freddie? And that they didn't need any more regulations?
Those are the quotes that need to be thrown in Frank's face, IMO.
3) BOR is not my favorite ... by Meandering
when it comes to his practices of yelling and all that, but Barney deserved it. Our economy is in the toliet because the democrats. Once they regained the power in congress our economy got flushed down the crapper and NO ONE is holding their feet to the flames. So while I'm not for hit tactics, I still say GOOD JOB BILL!
4) At least Bill makes an by TruthMonger
At least Bill makes an effort - but he left out tons of much more juicy material - and so this meek point along with the ranting will get virtually no traction
is this the best conservative TV can do? sad...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
5) Agree with you about the by BuffNBone
Agree with you about the quote not being the best one available. The 2004 comments are powerful, but dated. The tradeoff was the currency of what he went with. Those words happened on the dems' watch--when they had control of the House and could set the agenda.
BOR's too sold on himself. I much prefer the earlier version. He's milking his verbal intercourse with Obama more than it is worth. Those things have a half-life and there isn't enough radient energy to light a wrist-watch. Don't care for Frank at all but he came close to a tie as BOR seemed to lose it. If you've got the goods, let them speak for themselves.
6) GOPG8R, by Indiana Joe
You make some good points, but maybe a little hard on BOR. I'm not a huge fan, but in this case, I'd say he wasn't really prepared for Frank to just weasel like he did. He probably should have been, but that's my take. If so, he could have been prepared with the data you suggest.
All BOR wanted was for Frank to just say, "yeah, I kind of misstated that," or "I can see how that was misunderstood," even. But to flat deny he claimed it was a "good investement going forward" caught Bill by surprise, I think. And O'Reilly wasn't going to let him get away with that. Good for him.
It is a little painful to watch, because Barney seems to keep his cool. But, for myself, I was glad to see someone finally call him on this to his face. We know he's been lying and playing the blame game, and I actually wish BOR had kept hitting him even harder. You see how Barney objected to the "being a man" thing? I was expecting him to accuse O'Reilly of "gay-bashing" or some such BS. I think he almost went there.
Barney is a consummate politician, so he wasn't going to get as vehement as BOR. BOR seemed more like "everyman," not interested in excuses or finger-pointing, just "mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!"
When I said I was glad you were mad, I was referring to your statement:
I for one am mad as hell. I want an investigation and I want some people to go to jail. Having said this, this investigation needs to be an independent council and not congress policing themselves as they are the ones I want investigated. I want to clear out all the congressional offices (both House and Senate) and I think the american public feels the same way.
To summarize the financial news of the past few weeks: "In our lead story, American taxpayers are out $700 billion, and despite all the tall forheads in Washington and Wall Street, it turns out no one is to blame, and no one did anything wrong. In other news......"
House Passes Rescue Plan Second Time Around
Friday, October 03, 2008
WASHINGTON — In a nail-biter, the House Friday approved the Bush administration's historic $700 billion financial markets rescue package, a measure promoted as a means to prevent a U.S. economic collapse.
Lawmakers voted 263-171 to pass the bill, a comfortable margin that was 58 more votes than the measure garnered in Monday's stunning defeat.
Of the 263 supporters, 172 were Democrats and 91 were Republicans. On Monday, 133 House Republicans joined 95 Democrats in rejecting the measure.
"We have acted boldly to prevent the crisis on Wall Street from becoming a crisis in communities across our country," President Bush said before quickly signing the bill into law.
Via Ace. Gut reaction: One of the best ads I’ve seen this year, although part of that feeling admittedly is due to the intensity of my bitterness at the Democrats over this. I want to see them punished for it, this ad punishes them, ergo it starts off already halfway to being a “great” ad. Biases aside, though, try getting and holding a viewer’s attention for 90 seconds on a subject as dry and complicated as mortgage policy. Does this do it? Thanks to the arresting music and graphics, you’d better believe it. More, please. (But leave Bush out of the next one.)
The War Won’t End in Afghanistan
Michael J. Totten
09.29.2008
Senator Barack Obama said something at the presidential debate last week that almost perfectly encapsulates the difference between his foreign policy and his opponent’s: “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there.” I don’t know if Obama paraphrased Gates correctly, but if so, they’re both wrong.
If Afghanistan were miraculously transformed into the Switzerland of Central Asia, every last one of the Middle East’s rogues gallery of terrorist groups would still exist. The ideology that spawned them would endure. Their grievances, such as they are, would not be salved. The political culture that produced them, and continues to produce more just like them, would hardly be scathed. Al Qaedism is the most radical wing of an extreme movement which was born in the Middle East and exists now in many parts of the world. Afghanistan is not the root or the source.
Naturally the war against them began in Afghanistan. Plans for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were hatched in Afghanistan. But the temporary location of the plotters of that strike means little in the wide view of a long struggle. Osama bin Laden and his leadership just as easily could have planned the attacks from Saudi Arabia before they were exiled, or from their refuge in Sudan in the mid 1990s. Theoretically they could have even planned the attacks from an off-the-radar “safe house” in a place like France or even Nebraska had they managed to sneak themselves in. The physical location of the planning headquarters wasn’t irrelevant, but in the long run the ideology that motivates them is what must be defeated. Perhaps the point would be more obvious if the attacks were in fact planned in a place like France instead of a failed state like Afghanistan.
Hardly anyone wants to think about the monumental size of this task or how long it will take.
The illusion that the United States just needs to win in Afghanistan and everything will be fine is comforting, to be sure, but it is an illusion. Winning the war in Iraq won’t be enough either, nor will permanently preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. The war may end somewhere with American troops on the ground, or, like the Cold War, it might not. No one can possibly foresee what event will actually put a stop to this war in the end. It is distant and unknowable. The world will change before we can even imagine what the final chapter might look like.
Most of the September 11 hijackers were Saudis. All were Arabs. None hailed from Afghanistan. This is not coincidental. Al Qaeda’s politics are a product of the Arab world, specifically of the radical and totalitarian Wahhabi sect of Islam founded in the 18th Century in Saudi Arabia by the fanatical Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. He thought the medieval interpretations of Islam even on the backward Arabian peninsula were too liberal and lenient. His most extreme followers cannot even peacefully coexist with mainstream Sunni Muslims, let alone Shia Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, secularists, feminists, gays, or anyone else. Their global jihad is a war against the entire human race in all its diversity and plurality.
Wahhabism has spread outward from Saudi Arabia by proselytizers funded by petrodollars who have set up mosques, madrassas, and indoctrination centers nearly everywhere from Indonesia to the United States. In the Balkans, for instance, Wahhabis are actually replacing traditional moderate Ottoman mosques destroyed by the Yugoslav Army and Serbian paramilitary units with their own extremist knockoffs. They’re staking out new ground in the West where they deliberately gin up virulent hatred among immigrants from Muslim countries. They tried to car-bomb their way into power in parts of Iraq, and in the cities of Baqubah, Fallujah, and Ramadi they even succeeded for a while.
In some places the ideology flourishes more than in others. It was effectively transplanted to Afghanistan with the assistance of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. In thoroughly secular Muslim countries like Azerbaijan and Albania, bin Ladenism remains thinner on the ground than in Western Europe. Its adherents are unevenly distributed, but it began in the Middle East and has since metastasized.
Al Qaeda leaders did not spring up from the ground in Afghanistan, nor are they chained there. They move around. Any country where they are located becomes crucial whether American soldiers are present or not. Like the Cold War, this conflict is not exclusively military, but the theaters of armed conflict have already been widened well beyond Afghanistan. And the war isn’t America-centric. It is not all about us. Fighting between violent Islamists and their enemies broke out in Arab countries like Algeria and Lebanon, and even in countries without a Muslim majority like Russia and the Philippines. Many of these conflicts started before the attacks on September 11, before anyone could even imagine that American troops would fight a hot war in Afghanistan.
And let’s not forget the radical Shias. While Sunni Wahhabis export their fundamentalist creed from the Arabian Peninsula, the Khomeinists in the Islamic Republic of Iran are busy exporting their own revolutionary and totalitarian brand of Shia Islam to countries like Lebanon and Iraq. So far the Iranians and their proxies have been less violent and extreme than Al Qaeda, but Iran remains the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. While the leaders are Shias, that has not – contrary to mistaken conventional wisdom – stopped them from forming tactical alliances with radical Sunnis from Hamas in Gaza to Ansar Al Islam.
Before the U.S. demolished the regime of Saddam Hussein, Ansar Al Islam was based in and around the town of Biara in Northern Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq founder Abu Musab al Zarqawi was one of its members. American Special Forces and Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighters pushed Ansar into the Northern Iranian city of Mariwan where they remain today and receive support from the government of Iran. They have since changed their name to Al Qaeda in Kurdistan.
On some level even Senator Obama himself understands that Afghanistan is unlikely be the beginning and the end of this war. He correctly argues that more needs to be done to shut down the safe havens bin Laden and company have established in Pakistan. He likely doesn’t believe some of his own rhetoric about Afghanistan even though it’s a standard staple of his campaign. Obama's dovish liberal base seems sometimes desperate to believe that Afghanistan was the beginning and will be the end of a war they have little stomach to wage.
Wishing will not make it so. Afghanistan, indeed all of Central Asia, is on the periphery. The violent ideologies that animate the most dangerous terrorist movements in the world are Arabic and, to a lesser extent, Persian. The Middle East is central. It is not a distraction. It is where the war truly began because it is where most of the combatants, ideological leaders, and supporters were born and raised. While there’s a chance it won’t end there, most of it will be fought there.
Note Obama saying, "the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there." and also note his saying (in the first debate as he pounded on the podium) that he will end the war in Iraq (precipitously, using his timetable over conditions on the ground, as Biden reminded on the timetable repeatedly in the second debate.) These statements are playing to a desperate need by the Liberal dovish base to believe that Afghanistan was the beginning of the Global War On Terror and their naive idea that Obama will be able to end the war completely.
But the megapolitical factors listed above prove.. we are in this conflict for the long haul and the terrorists are not based in any one location - Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else. This means these foolish doves are just asking to be lied to because they want a fantasy of peace.. but there is no peace which Obama or anyone else can obtain or give to the world. If Obama were to gain the Whitehouse, he could end a battle by calling for a defeat/forfeiture in Iraq or following peacenik policies in Afghanistan, but he would not be able to bring about world peace, as he seems to promise. Those who believe he CAN, are merely deceived or deceiving themselves.
McCain ad: Lies and Sighs
October 3, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
It didn’t take the McCain campaign long to generate a new ad from last night’s debate. Titled “Lies and Sighs”, the ad mostly hits Joe Biden for his flat-out untruths:
As for the last part, I’m less concerned about Biden’s exhalations, and even then, in this case, it sounds more like an inhalation. The ad was more effective when it focused on Biden’s fabrications, and it isn’t as though that was a limited resource. According to the list at the McCain Report, the campaign’s official blog, they had 14 to use:
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy whereas John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
Stick to the fabrications. Fortunately, Biden has given Team McCain plenty of ammunition in the days ahead.
Why in the forseeable future Iraq remains very important.
===
Analysis: Stable Iraq could influence Mideast
By ROBERT H. REID/AP
Posted on Fri, Oct. 03, 2008
BAGHDAD -- As violence in Iraq recedes, neighboring states are pondering how to deal with an unwieldy country that could re-emerge as a key player along with Saudi Arabia and Iran in one of the world's most strategic regions.
The role of regional power broker may seem far-fetched for Iraq - a devastated land best known for car bombs, death squads and suicide attackers.
Still, countries of the Middle East cannot ignore the potential role of a resurgent Iraq, a nation of 28 million people, bordering Iran to the east, Syria and Jordan to the west and sitting on one of the world's major pools of oil.
For those reasons, the United States cannot afford to lose focus on Iraq, which will remain a strategic and important country even after the last of the 140,000 American soldiers have gone home.
Clearly Iraq is a long way from re-establishing itself as a major force in the region. In a first step, however, representatives of 35 international oil companies are to meet this month with Iraq's oil minister in London to discuss improving Iraqi gas and oil fields. Fellow Arab countries are talking about upgrading their relations with Iraq.
Iraq is likely to play a significant role in America's Middle East policy for decades - even as the Pentagon scales down military operations here and ramps them up in Afghanistan.
However unlikely it may seem today, a relatively stable Iraq would have all the cards necessary to emerge as a major player in the Persian Gulf, where Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing for leadership.
Those three countries account for most of the population and most of the oil in the Gulf, which has about 60 percent of the world's proven reserves.
How the three deal with one another will shape the Middle East for decades.
Iraq's vast oil reserves alone should guarantee the country a major regional role.
Current estimates put Iraq's proven oil reserves at 115 billion barrels. But many experts believe that figure could rise by another 70 billion to 80 billion barrels once better security allows for renewed exploration.
If those estimates prove accurate, Iraq would have the world's second-largest proven oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia and ahead of Iran.
As Iran and Saudi Arabia compete for influence in the region, each has a strong interest in using Iraq as leverage against the other.
Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia can afford to have Iraq throw itself solidly behind the other. Each wants a stable Iraq - but not one strong enough to threaten its neighbors as when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.
In competing for influence in Iraq, Iran would seem to have the advantage. Most of Iran's nearly 70 million people are Shiites, the Muslim sect that includes about 60 percent of Iraq's population.
Iran offered asylum to thousands of Iraqi Shiites who fled Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime. Many of them returned home to assume positions of power after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003.
Iran has also cultivated close ties with the Kurds, who along with the Shiites have dominated political life in Iraq since the fall of Saddam.
Despite those advantages, Iran faces major obstacles in building influence in a country with bitter memories of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and a legacy of centuries of rivalry between Arabs and Persian Iran.
U.S. and Iraqi officials remain convinced Iran is financing and training Shiite extremists, although Tehran denies the allegation. Many Iraqis - both Shiites and Sunnis - view their Iranian neighbor with deep suspicion.
At the same time, Iran sees Washington's ties to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and others in the Shiite religious parties as a potential threat.
Other Arab countries fear that Iraq will fall under Iranian domination once the Americans have gone.
Arab pessimists see a dark vision of a Middle East with Iranian clients ruling Iraq, Iranian-backed Hezbollah as the dominant political force in Lebanon and Tehran's Hamas clients running the Palestinian entity.
Nowhere are those fears stronger than in Saudi Arabia, whose geriatric leadership has faced problems in responding to the political changes in Iraq, its northern neighbor.
The Saudis and other Sunni-dominated Arab governments maintain close ties to the United States. But their natural allies in Iraq - minority Sunnis - were fighting the Americans for most of the U.S. occupation.
Other Arab governments found it difficult to support the Shiite leadership in Baghdad while Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites were slaughtering each other in the streets.
Sectarian fighting has eased, and thousands of Sunni insurgents turned against al-Qaida and joined forces with the Americans.
Still, Arab governments have been slow to develop full diplomatic relations with Iraq, despite intense American pressure. Iraqis face enormous problems in seeking refuge elsewhere in the Arab world.
Many Iraqis resent the Arab attitude and fear that shunning them only enhances the influence of Iran, which embraced the new Iraqi government.
All these uncertainties will probably encourage Washington to pay close attention to Iraq for years.
"All Americans should be and are proud of the achievements in Iraq and the American role in bringing about the change," U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said recently.
Losing interest in Iraq, he warned, risks paying "a major long-term price."
If you really want accountability for this financial fiasco..
It will take someone not afraid to take on corruption WHEREVER they find it..
including special interest groups and darlings of the left and MSM.
Someone who would be willing to stop special treatment for gays..
Here, below, no accountability when it is a gay Congressmen.
Who would take on those who belong to such a privileged, pampered and favored group?
Who has the track record for taking on corrupt politicians - McCain or Obama?
Which is more likely to bring true REFORM to this area, regardless of special interests?
As they say below:
"... everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."
===
Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest
Friday, October 03, 2008
By Bill Sammon
WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.
Frank’s partner benefitted, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.
Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.
Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.
"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?
"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."
A top GOP House aide agreed.
"C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?" the aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws."
Frank’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.
"I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover."
The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."
Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.
Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.
Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.
"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.
Crescent, Dana start gas supply in Iraq's Kurdistan
Sat Oct 4, 2008 8:02am BST
By Simon Webb
DUBAI, Oct 4 (Reuters) - The UAE's Crescent Petroleum and affiliate Dana Gas DANA.AD have begun supplying gas in Iraq's Kurdistan region after completing the first stage of a $650 million project, the companies said in a statement on Saturday.
Gas was flowing at 75 million cubic feet per day (cfd) from the revamped Khor Mor field and supply will rise to 300 million cfd in the first half of 2009, the companies said.
The first gas will supply a power plant in Arbil, the capital of the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region. Supplies coming on stream later will go to another power plant in Sulaimaniya. The two plants will have total electricity generation capacity of 1,250 megawatts.
Supply was initially planned to begin in mid-2008, but was held up as construction of the power plants took longer than expected.
"We are very proud of this historical milestone as the first companies from the Middle East to invest in Iraq's oil and gas sector," said Ahmed Al-Arbeed, upstream executive director for Dana Gas in the statement.
Dana and Crescent signed the service contract in April 2007 with the Kurdistan regional government (KRG) to redevelop the Khor Mor and Chemchemal fields. The Khor Mor field was shut after the first Gulf War in 1991.
The KRG has angered Baghdad by moving ahead with plans to develop its energy sector while political wrangling has delayed a federal oil and gas law from going before parliament.
The deal with Dana and Crescent is a service contract, rather than a production sharing agreement (PSA). The Kurdistan government's PSAs have attracted criticism from some politicians in Baghdad, including the oil minister. The KRG says its deals are in line with the constitution.
Crescent says it has no doubts over the legality of its deal and that other regions of Iraq have shown interest in contracting the companies for similar projects.
"We are absolutely certain of the moral, legal and economic correctness of our contract with the KRG and the work we are doing," Majid Jafar, Crescent executive director, told Reuters.
"This benefits the Kurdistan Region and all of Iraq... we have already been asked by local officials to replicate similar projects in other regions of Iraq."
The plants will save Iraq over $2 billion annually in fuel costs -- cash the government currently spends on oil products for small power generators.
The project was the largest private-sector investment in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, the companies said. Aside from redeveloping Khor Mor, appraising Chemchemal and building gas processing facilities, the companies constructed a 180 kilometre pipeline that required clearance of some minefields.
Crescent and Dana each have a 50 percent stake in the project. Crescent is based in the emirate of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates.
GAS CITY
The two companies also signed up last year to evaluate the region's gas reserves and to build a large gas-fed industrial complex called Kurdistan Gas City.
Initial investment in the basic infrastructure for the complex would be $3 billion. Dana and Crescent are leading the development and looking to attract partner companies.
Eventually, they hope the complex will attract more than $40 billion in foreign direct investment and will house at least 20 large petrochemical and heavy manufacturing plants with output that will mostly be consumed in Iraq.
Iraq needs billions in investment to rebuild its economy after years of sanctions and war. The Kurdistan region largely escaped the sectarian violence suffered in the rest of Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003 and is already undergoing rapid economic development. (Editing by Lincoln Feast)
Not Dinar related...but interesting regarding the recent U.S 700 BILLION DOLLAR bailout plan.
Finland says Paris summit "very bad idea"
Sat Oct 4, 2008 10:09am BST
HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland strongly criticised a financial summit hosted by France on Saturday, saying all European countries should have a say on how to resolve the crisis rather than just the bigger nations.
"In my opinion it's a very bad idea," Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen told national Finnish broadcaster YLE, noting that the monthly meeting of EU Economics and Finance Ministers will happen on Monday and Tuesday.
"If big countries and representatives of EU institutions like the head of the ECB and maybe someone from the Commission meet today and discuss amongst themselves... it's not a good way to work. We're all in the same boat," Katainen said.
"Finland, Sweden and all EU countries should be in the same position as the decision makers ... Is the message from the meeting going to be: 'We have agreed on this and you have to accept it'? Let's hope not," he said.
European leaders meet on Saturday for a summit French President Nicolas Sarkozy hopes will limit the damage caused by the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
Sarkozy has invited leaders from fellow European G8 members -- Germany's Angela Merkel, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi and Britain's Gordon Brown.
Policymakers including European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet and Jean-Claude Juncker, chairman and chief spokesman for the finance ministers of the euro currency zone, are also expected to attend.
The meeting follows approval by the U.S. Congress of a $700-billion (396 billion pound) bank bailout plan.
US-led forces in Iraq say they killed Qaeda leader
Fri Oct 3, 2008 10:22pm BST
LONDON, Oct 3 (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces said they shot dead a leader of al Qaeda in Iraq on Friday who was the mastermind behind a series of deadly recent bombings in Baghdad.
A spokesman for coalition forces said Mahir Ahmad Mahmud Judu' al-Zubaydi, also known as Abu Assad or Abu Rami, had been al Qaeda in Iraq's "emir" of the Rusafa neighbourhood of the capital.
Troops surrounded a building in the Adhamiya area of Baghdad after intelligence reports that Abu Rami was inside, and called on the occupants to surrender, the spokesman said.
Coalition forces were shot at from the building and returned fire, killing Abu Rami and a female, spokesman Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll said in a statement.
A cell in Abu Rami's network was believed to be responsible for attacks on Thursday which killed eight people and wounded more than 30, the statement said.
Suicide bombers struck Shi'ite worshippers as they gathered for prayers at two mosques in Baghdad to celebrate the Muslim Eid al-Fitr feast on Thursday, killing a total of 16 people and wounding nearly 60, officials said.
Abu Rami was also suspected of car bombings and mortar attacks in 2006 and 2007, one of which killed more than 200 people, the coalition forces statement said.
He was believed to be a planner of kidnappings and executions and a 2006 video recording showed him shooting a Russian diplomat, it added.
Abu Rami joined al Qaeda in Iraq from the Ansar al-Islam group in 2004, the statement said.
"His removal from the AQI (al Qaeda in Iraq) network will send shockwaves through Baghdad's terrorist bombing networks," Driscoll said.
"Its ability to conduct grisly attacks against Iraqi civilians and Coalition and Iraqi forces has been severely crippled by this precision operation."
Violence overall in Iraq is at four-year lows and al Qaeda militants no longer control large numbers of villages and city districts as they did until 2007. (Writing by Andrew Roche)
PARIS (AP) — Leaders of France, Britain, Germany and Italy will seek at a summit in Paris Saturday to reassure investors and markets jittery about a growing financial and economic crisis.
But European governments differ on how far they should intervene, and their differences could drive them apart.
France has mooted — and backed off — a multibillion euro EU-wide government bailout plan, Germany says banks need to find their own way out of the turmoil, and Britain is suggesting a new fund to boost small businesses likely to be hit hard by the downturn.
The talks, hurriedly organized by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, come amid mounting signs that the financial crisis that devastated Wall Street is spilling into the real economy and amplifying a slowdown across Europe.
More worrying is that Europe hasn't pulled together on dealing with the crisis this week. Both Ireland and Greece have acted independently, angering EU neighbors by offering their banks government guarantees to protect all savings.
This goes far beyond the standard EU guarantee for the first euro20,000 ($27,668) in a bank account — and could see worried savers elsewhere in Europe move money where they believe it will be safe. Britain and others complain that the plan may break EU rules on a level playing field for businesses.
The summit comes a day after the U.S. Congress approved a $700 billion government plan to buy up bad debt from banks and help unfreeze lending, which President Bush quickly signed into law.
Speaking Saturday before the summit and after talks with Sarkozy, the head of the International Monetary Fund said the crisis is a "trial by fire" for the euro, Europe's 10-year-old common currency, that requires a quick, coordinated European response. "We have to make sure Europe takes its responsibilities like the United States," said Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Fears that banks would not be able find credit to cover their debt saw banking shares plunge and forced European governments to step in and save several major banks, including Britain's Bradford & Bingley, Belgian-Dutch Fortis, Belgium's Dexia, and Germany's Hypo Real Estate.
Sarkozy set the stage for Saturday's summit by calling for "an intense effort to coordinate" Europe's response.
But a senior Sarkozy aide sought to dampen expectations, saying the French leader, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi are not "going to save the world."
The talks will try to set out what Europe wants the rest of the world to do to shore up the banking system, ahead of next week's Group of Eight meeting on the economy involving the four EU nations, the United States, Japan, Russia and Canada.
Sarkozy wants Europe to discuss how to strengthen its banking system and free up credit. But it is unclear what France believes it can achieve. The hasty summit preparations were muddied by a French proposal, voiced by Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, to create an emergency EU fund for struggling banks.
After a swift rejection from Germany, Sarkozy distanced France from the idea. The confusion boded ill for the chances of any strong European response to the crisis being agreed to at the summit.
German Economy Minister Michael Glos told Bild am Sonntag newspaper that any emergency bailout would distract from efforts that banks themselves must make to restore confidence.
"Banks don't trust each other anymore. That's the core of the financial market crisis," he said. "In this situation, I don't think it's defensible to demand the state restore the trust that has been gambled away with large-scale debt write-offs using tax money."
The head of French bank Societe Generale, Frederic Oudea, insisted that some action to shore up confidence and liquidity are vital.
"We are in the eye of the storm," he told Le Parisien newspaper. "Intervention from states and central banks is essential to avoid a domino effect."
Britain's Gordon Brown told reporters that he wanted the summit to focus more on the wider economy, seeking support for a 12 billion pound (US$21 billion; euro15.18 billion) fund to help small businesses survive.
Britain, like France, is forecast to slip into recession this year.
IMO our dinar is in good shape because it's backed by a huge amount of black gold and stands a good chance of going futher up in value.
Even our good ole US$ is going up in value when compared to other major currencies. The US$ index chart indicates a good upward surge. The world is having some huge problems with their money right now but compared to the other countries, the US is looking pretty good. The downside is that it's like winning an ugly contest.
Wow! Great articles, mattuk.
Thanks. :)
I am very glad to hear they got a leader of grisly attacks against the troops, coalition and Iraqi people.
As for the sobering news on the financial crisis, we haven't seen this fully play out yet,
but it does appear that the worst has been avoided.
Here, monied people such as Mr. Buffet stepping up will help calm jangled nerves leftover from the crisis.
I don't think Warren Buffet is into giving BILLIONS into failing ventures.
Though the government has been forced to tinker in the mechanism of the economy...
the free market is really self-correcting as a mechanism.
The government just managed to avoid a catastrophic bottom.
The intervention has been made.. I think the market must adjust now, and will.
Basically, Mr. Buffet sees a good buy while it is low now, and expects a recovery.
And I think he has proven that he has very, very good instincts...
and acts in keeping with them to make money.
Though calling him, "a mid-western vulture fund who is eating off the debris of the financial chaos" -
seems a trifle, errr, unkind.
Sara.
===
Buffett gives GE $3bn vote of confidence
Andrew Clark in New York
The Guardian, Thursday October 2 2008
Warren Buffett, the world's richest man, is pumping $3bn into General Electric as part of a $15bn fundraising by the US industrial conglomerate, which is anxious to calm nerves about the health of its financial services arm.
In a resounding vote of confidence, Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway investment empire is buying preferred stock in GE. The deal is similar to the billionaire's $5bn leg-up to the Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs last week.
"GE is the symbol of American business to the world," said Buffett. "General Electric is the backbone of American industry, They have strong global brands and businesses with which I am quite familiar. They're going to be around in five or 10 or 100 years from now and, if you buy at the right time, you'll probably make some money."
At the same time as issuing shares to Buffett, the company is offering $12bn of common stock to the public. GE's chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, said the proceeds would help to protect the company's triple-A credit rating and could potentially fund acquisitions.
"First, it enhances our flexibility and allows us to execute on our liquidity plan even faster," said Immelt. "Second, it gives us the opportunity to play offence in this market."
GE is keen to reassure investors over the prospects for its finance division, GE Capital, which generated 45% of group profits last year. The size of the operation has raised questions about GE's exposure to the credit crunch, prompting a slide in the firm's shares in the market's recent sell-off of anything financial.
GE Capital provides credit services to 130m customers including retailers, consumers, mortgage lenders and car dealers. Immelt described its activities last week as "boring stuff" with little connection to the exotic derivatives which have crippled the banking industry.
But concern about the company sparked a 9% sell-off in GE's shares early yesterday. After the company announced its fundraising early in the afternoon, the stock recovered some ground, but closed down 3.9% at $24.50.
The presence of Buffett on GE's share register is likely to provide encouragement for investors. The 78-year-old Nebraskan is among America's best respected stock pickers and his words carry weight among millions of savers. Buffett warned for years of the dangers building elsewhere in the financial industry, describing derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction".
"He is the only major financial institution that has ready cash to buy cheap assets," said Tom Sowanick, chief investment officer at fund management firm Clearbrook Financial. "You could actually call Buffett a mid-western vulture fund who is eating off the debris of the financial chaos."
OK, I know I posted on this once before, but this commentary is so RIGHT ON.. and it is all about Iraq.. and so completely about the future of Iraq and our Dinar investment.
A must read, including among the five excellent comments this gem (which bodes well for Iraq AND the Dinar investment):
Since when was the potential for democracy in Iraq “discredited?” Iraq has only been liberated from Saddam for 5 years. Their first free elections were held only 3 1/2 years ago, and that was to set up their interim government. It’s only been a year since the insurgency was neutralized enough to put Iraq into a state of stability. Let’s inject a little realism here. In just five years they have moved from from a brutal dictatorship to a stable democracy, certainly not a perfect one, but still far better than most people imagined could exist in the region. That is amazing progress, and certainly proves that the potential for democracy in the middle east is far from “discredited.”
AND (from the main article):
Think about it. Astraddle the Middle East, in a position to play Saudi Arabia and Iran, if deftly enough even to dominate them: A democratic Arab nation that has rejected terrorism. Sounds like a beacon to me. Sounds like a neo-con’s dream. And it’s approaching, at long bloody last, reality.
==end quote==
As we know from previous posts, the government of Iraq is no longer threatened by the terrorists, as Michael Yon wrote:
I will be very clear what I mean when I say we have won the war. A counterinsurgency is won when the government's legitimacy is no longer threatened by the insurgents, the government is able to protect its own people and the people are participating in the government. In Iraq, all three conditions apply.
It can be a very bright and free future indeed for Iraq, if they play their cards right.
And a win for freedom loving countries like America, whose efforts to bring this about should not go unnoticed.
Sara.
===
AP Goes Neo-Con
OK, al-P and reasonable people might dispute that.
But try as it might to discuss where we are five years on without giving Bush any props, the Associated Press has to admit that we have some leverage, and a substantial national interest, at stake in that nascent democracy won with the blood of many thousands of Iraqis and Americans, wedged between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I give you … “Stable Iraq could influence the Middle East.” AP analysis:
QUOTE:
BAGHDAD (AP) — As violence in Iraq recedes, neighboring states are pondering how to deal with an unwieldy country that could re-emerge as a key player along with Saudi Arabia and Iran in one of the world’s most strategic regions.
The role of regional power broker may seem far-fetched for Iraq — a devastated land best known for car bombs, death squads and suicide attackers.
Still, countries of the Middle East cannot ignore the potential role of a resurgent Iraq, a nation of 28 million people, bordering Iran to the east, Syria and Jordan to the west and sitting on one of the world’s major pools of oil.
For those reasons, the United States cannot afford to lose focus on Iraq, which will remain a strategic and important country even after the last of the 140,000 American soldiers have gone home.
==end quote==
Just as it was before they got there. I’d excerpt the whole damned thing, but you know how pissy AP’s been lately about that kind of thing. These excerpts are strictly for purposes of media criticism. I could criticize the AP all day, and have, but I agree with that part above absolutely, and that’s no mean critique. Except maybe the “far-fetched” part.
OK, here’s another place where we part, if only briefly:
QUOTE:
The Middle East has long confounded forecasters, and the rosy predictions from the Bush administration that Iraq would emerge as a beacon of Western-style democracy in the Arab world have been long discredited.
However unlikely it may seem today, a relatively stable Iraq would have all the cards necessary to emerge as a major player in the Persian Gulf, where Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing for leadership.
==end quote==
You can’t begrudge the AP a little boilerplate Bush-bash, even at this late surge date, but I wouldn’t be so quick to discredit. A couple of cards AP neglects to mention:
Iraq is a democracy. Just yesterday, the democratically elected government of Iraq approved regional elections, in a deal that made important concessions to its minority populations. That’s more of the political progress Obama doesn’t think has been happening. It couldn’t have happened without the most important political progress of all. I don’t mean some agreement between pols. I’m talking about the decision of the Iraqi people to reject the terrorists in their midst. To recognize their own interest and try to work past fear and hatred to advance it. Think about it. Astraddle the Middle East, in a position to play Saudi Arabia and Iran, if deftly enough even to dominate them: A democratic Arab nation that has rejected terrorism. Sounds like a beacon to me. Sounds like a neo-con’s dream. And it’s approaching, at long bloody last, reality.
You will want to read the whole thing.
The news agency that more terrorists prefer you’ll recall was rather late to the surge table, if not nearly as fashionably late as Obama. The Associated Press and the scribbler of this particular analysis, Robert H. Reid, were still neck deep in body counts and failure-mongering when al-Qaeda was out of Anbar and on the run in Diyala in mid-2007. AP’s Baghdad bureauistas were asiduously scribbling everything they could to avoid or obscure the terrible truth of the surge’s growing success. But despite its shortcomings, Reid’s latest analysis does a relatively good job of laying out our vital interests in Iraq. And I’ll risk one of those shitty lawyer letters from the free-speech advocates at the AP to give you one more little bit, uncritically:
QUOTE:
All these uncertainties will probably encourage Washington to pay close attention to Iraq for years.
“All Americans should be and are proud of the achievements in Iraq and the American role in bringing about the change,” U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said recently.
Losing interest in Iraq, he warned, risks paying “a major long-term price.”
==end quote==
Posted by Jules Crittenden on Saturday, October 4, 2008
Comments:
1) RebeccaH Says:
Well, you can only hit a stubborn mule between the eyes with a two-by-four so many times before it finally decides it had better get with the program.
2) tim maguire Says:
Maybe you can’t begrudge the AP a little Bush bashing in an article that basically backs the Bush doctrine, though I would think they maybe got it out of their system in the thousands of other Bush bashing articles they’ve published. At least they had the decency to be utterly incoherent about it–the second paragraph directly and completely contradicts the first.
3) Fatty Bolger Says:
“the rosy predictions from the Bush administration that Iraq would emerge as a beacon of Western-style democracy in the Arab world have been long discredited.”
Bullshit on two counts.
First, I’m quite sure that Bush never said that Iraq would be a beacon of *Western-style” democracy. In fact, I’m not even sure he said “beacon of democracy” at all, though certainly the sentiment was there. If somebody knows the original source for this supposed quote, that can be found all over the place, I would love to see it, because I can’t find it.
But what about those “rosy” predictions of instant democracy? It was all going to be so easy, according to Bush, right? Um, no:
“It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.”- President Bush, February 26, 2003
“The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.” - President Bush, March 17, 2003
But wait! I sense a clash of narratives here! Didn’t we invade Iraq purely because of WMD? That’s what we used to be told. Later, we were told that Bush turned to the democracy in Iraq argument because the WMD’s weren’t found. Yet here he is, talking about democracy and freedom as a major goal, right in the two most important speeches before the war. So strange!
Second, since when was the potential for democracy in Iraq “discredited?” Iraq has only been liberated from Saddam for 5 years. Their first free elections were held only 3 1/2 years ago, and that was to set up their interim government. It’s only been a year since the insurgency was neutralized enough to put Iraq into a state of stability. Let’s inject a little realism here. In just five years they have moved from from a brutal dictatorship to a stable democracy, certainly not a perfect one, but still far better than most people imagined could exist in the region. That is amazing progress, and certainly proves that the potential for democracy in the middle east is far from “discredited.”
4) Bart Says:
Thank God for President George W. Bush. One of our Great Presidents. I am so happy for the Iraqi people.
5) Americaneocon Says:
Trackback: “As a rule, I don’t use sources from the Associated Press (for obvious reasons), but their article on Iraq’s role in stabilizing American power in the Middle East is noteworthy…
I like whats mentioned in the forth paragraph..."Sarkozy said the four had agreed to punish failing bank executives"...has this been mentioned stateside?
Europe fights financial storm as bank deal collapses
3 hours ago
PARIS (AFP) — The leaders of Europe's four main economic powers vowed to protect fragile banks in their fight against the global credit crisis as the biggest rescue in German financial history collapsed.
France, Germany, Britain and Italy put on a united front, promising a more coordinated approach to the credit crunch, although Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted states would mainly act individually.
President Nicolas Sarkozy, who hosted Merkel and prime ministers Gordon Brown of Britain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, did not dispute this point, but said a new "doctrine" had been agreed.
Sarkozy said the four had agreed to punish failing bank executives and to call for a rapid meeting of the Group of Eight world industrialised powers to marshall a global response to the financial crisis.
"We have agreed to make a solemn engagement as heads of state and government to support banking and financial institutions faced with the crisis," Sarkozy said at a joint news conference following the three-hour meeting.
"Each government will operate with its own methods and means, but in a coordinated manner. In a way, we have devised a doctrine," he added.
Brown agreed: "Where action has to be taken we will continue to do whatever is necessary to preserve the stability of the financial system."
"The message to families and businesses is that, as our central banks are already doing, liquidity will be assured in order to preserve confidence and stability," he promised.
There was no public disagreement between the leaders, after a week in which officials in Paris and Berlin sparred in anonymous press briefings, but in Merkel emphasised countries' individual reponsibilities.
"Each country must take its responsibilities at a national level," she said.
Brown said after the meeting that leaders had agreed to ask for the early release of 32 billion euros in European funds to help small businesses weather the global finance crisis.
"This crisis that has come from America has affected all businesses, so we agreed to ask the European Investment Bank to frontload 25 billion pounds (44 billion dollars) of finance for small business loans," Brown said.
Despite efforts to present a united front amid differences emerged over just how much public finance rules, enshrined in the Stability and Growth Pact, could be eased.
"The application of the Stability and Growth Pact should reflect the exceptional circumstances that we find ourselves in," Sarkozy said.
The French leader has long sought more leeway on the European Union's public finance rules, with France struggling to keep its deficit to less than three percent of output as required by the pact.
However, Germany, which is counting on wiping out its deficit entirely this year, has consistently resisted French calls for more wiggle room on public finances.
Luxembourg premier Jean-Claude Juncker, the chairman of eurozone finance ministers, insisted that leaders had agreed in Paris that the pact had to be respected "in its entirety" despite the financial crisis.
"We're not going to let the deficits run up, that would be a bad policy," Juncker said.
With tax revenues falling amid sharply slowing economic activity, public finances are coming under growing strain and raising fears that the three-percent deficit level will be increasingly difficult to respect.
Despite cracks in their unity over deficit rules, leaders agreed that the European Commission should show flexibility when it considers state aid decisions in the crisis-struck banking sector.
"In the current circumstances, we stress the need for the commission to continue to act quickly and apply flexibility in state aid decisions, continuing to uphold the principles of the single market," they said.
The scale of the financial storm was brought home when, during the summit, the German bank Hypo Real Estate (HRE) announced that a planned 35-billion-euro (48-billion-dollar) buy-out had collapsed.
A consortium of banks was to have led the biggest rescue in German history and its failure could wreak havoc when financial markets reopen on Monday.
Germany's Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has warned that the financial crisis could have political repercussions, noting how Adolf Hitler rose to power after the 1929 Wall Street crash.
"The consequences of that depression was Adolf Hitler and, indirectly, World War II and Auschwitz," the minister was quoted as saying in Der Spiegel's latest edition to appear Monday.
HRE said in a statement that it was "determining the consequences" after its suitors had "refused to provide liquidity lines".
It was problems like those at HRE, the British banks Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, Dutch-Belgian giant Fortis and the Franco-Belgian Dexia that forced Sarkozy to call the mini summit in Paris.
The Belgian government was said to be considering totally nationalising the Belgian part of Fortis or selling assets to BNP Paribas of France. The Dutch government has nationalised Fortis' Dutch assets.
French officials had this week floated the idea of a joint 300 billion euro (480 billion dollar) fund to bail out failing European banks, on the model of the 700 billion dollar package approved Friday by US President George W. Bush.
Germany and Britain shot this down, however, and there was no talk of such an idea at the Paris summit.
There was no disagreement, however, over the need for careless bankers to take their share of the blame for the credit crunch.
"In the case of a public support to a bank in distress, each member state present here has decided that those executives who failed will be sanctioned and the shareholders bear the weight of the intervention," Sarkozy said.
Sarkozy also said bonus structures for top executives should be "revisited".
Oil prices fall sharpest in four years
Rakteem Katakey / New Delhi October 05, 2008, 0:29 IST
Fears of an economic slowdown in the US, and a consequent spread of the crisis to Europe and other parts of the world, resulted in oil prices falling over 12 per cent since Monday, the largest weekly fall since early 2004.
Industry watchers and government officials expect prices to dip below $90 per barrel and stay weaker in the week beginning October 6 as a financial crisis grips the US, the world’s largest consumer of oil products.
Investment bank Merrill Lynch has projected that global crude oil prices will fall to $50 per barrel by end-2009 as a result of lower demand for fossil fuels. Prices were last at $50 per barrel three years ago.
Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America after the investment bank reported huge losses as a result of the sub-prime credit crisis.
“It’s difficult to say where oil prices will be in the near future. It’s just very volatile. But there seems to be consensus that prices will fall in the near future because weakening economies cannot afford to buy oil at higher prices,” said a Mumbai-based analyst with a global advisory firm.
Oil futures for November delivery on the New York Merchantile Exchange fell 12 per cent this week to $93.88 per barrel on Friday.
The lower oil prices are a boost to the Indian economy, like all other oil importing economies, as their import bill will fall. However, for India, the depreciating value of the rupee against the dollar has negated the positive impact of the lower oil prices.
The fall in oil prices has been accentuated by a data from the US showing employment falling to five year lows and the International Monetary Fund saying on Thursday that the US may fall into recession.
Data released by the US Energy Department also showed that fuel use in the country averaged 19 million barrels a day in the last four weeks, the lowest consumption since October 2001, Bloomberg News reported.
“Global demand is down, but supply is not yet a worry. This despite the Opec asking Saudi Arabia to cut down oil production by 500,000 barrels a day a month ago,” said a senior official in India’s petroleum ministry. He, however, said he would not hazard a forecast “as oil prices are influenced by more than just demand-supply economics”.
Analysts also project oil prices will fall in the long-term as US Presidential hopefuls Democrat Barrack Obama and Republican John McCain are promising measures to bring down prices.
While Obama advocates bringing down prices by higher use of biofuels and opening up US strategic oil reserves to bring down imports, McCain wants the US, which consumes around 23 per cent of the total crude oil produced in the world, to allow drilling offshore oil basins to increase supply.
However, the world’s oil largest companies —ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum — are re-entering Iraq’s oil fields. The country has also short-listed 41 companies to begin developing proven oil fields. India’s flagship oil company ONGC Videsh, along with China’s Sinopec and Chinese National Petroleum Corporation are also among the short-listed companies.
Obama had said in a speech in March this year that the price of oil is four times what it was before the US invaded Iraq. “You’re paying a price for this war,” The Wall Street Journal had quoted the president hopeful as saying on March 20, 2008.
Iraq's Kurdish area witnesses first gas production
BAGHDAD (AP): Two United Arab Emirates-based energy companies announced on Saturday that they have begun producing natural gas in Iraq's self-ruled Kurdish area.
Crescent Petroleum and its partner Dana Gas DANA.AD said initial gas production stood at 75 million cubic feet per day after completing the first phase of the US$650-million project.
Within the first half of 2009, production will rise to 300 million cubic feet per day, the companies said in an e-mailed statement to The Associated Press.
``We are very proud of this historical milestone, as the first companies from the Middle East to invest in Iraq's oil and gas sector,'' Dana Gas upstream executive director, Ahmed al-Arbeed, said in the statement.
``This is the first project of its kind in Iraq, and it will provide important economic and social benefits for the Kurdistan region and all of Iraq,'' added Majid Jafar, executive director of Crescent Petroleum.
Kurdish officials were not available to comment.
In April 2007, Iraq's Kurds and the two companies signed the service deal to develop the Khor More gas field and to appraise the Chemchemal field.
The gas will be used to supply new power plants in Irbil and Sulaimaniyah provinces, two of three provinces that make up the regional government. The two plants are to provide a total of 1,250 megawatts of electricity.
According to Iraqi Oil Ministry figures, the Khor More field was discovered in the 1950s and has estimated gas reserves of 1.4 trillion cubic feet. But it has never been fully developed and was shut down after the first Gulf War in 1991
The Chemchemal gas field, which has never been appraised or developed, has estimated reserves of 2.2 trillion cubic feet.
The statement said initial production will supply the power plant in Irbil, the capital of the semiautonomous Kurdish region. Later production will go to the plant in Sulaimaniyah.
The companies praised the project, saying it would help supply electricity to 4 million Iraqis in the region and save some US$2.5 billion the Kurds pay each year to import diesel for power plants. It would also provide more than 2,000 jobs for local people, it said.
The project also includes the construction of a 180-kilometer (112-mile) pipeline to transport the gas to the two power plants. The pipeline will have spare capacity to accommodate additional production from nearby fields.
Both companies are also working with the Kurdish regional government on plans to set up Kurdistan Gas City, which will include petrochemical, steel and other heavy industry plants.
The Iraqi government has criticized the more than 20 oil and gas contracts the Kurds have signed, saying they are illegal since the parliament has not yet passed a national hydrocarbon law. The law has been held up over disagreements between Kurdish and Arab leaders about who has the final say in managing oil and gas fields.
The Iraqi government has threatened to blacklist companies that sign deals with the Kurds to prevent them from participating in opportunities in other parts of Iraq.
Mattuk posted an article which says, "Sarkozy said the four had agreed to punish failing bank executives and to call for a rapid meeting of the Group of Eight world industrialised powers to marshall a global response to the financial crisis."
I believe this global response will be successful.
CARL and Board - As for the fact that this crisis has made the American people look away from the issues of true concern - safety and world war - to the financial market and their own pocketbooks - would it be in the best interests of millions of earth's citizens to have an inexperienced peacenik whelp at the helm of the country of America as the Global War On Terror continues? One who sympathizes with the terrorists as mere "folk"? (As in the first debate with "The FOLKS who brought you 9-11.")
From a non-earthly perspective, the true Commander-in-Chief would have to weight the questions of millions of lives being lost if that negotiator were to obtain power. There is a time for everything, but there is no time for dangerous foolishness. Therefore, I ask you, as a military man, Carl.. is it likely the heavenly C-in-C will allow the US to vote with her own pocketbook first when millions will die for it? There is no doubt that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons within the next President's tenure. Is it not wiser (from the eternal perspective) to allow a few thousand more Americans to die (in Iraq, as a result of invasion) that millions more on earth may be saved the anguish of a nuclear armed Iranian force? If ANY Americans truly believe that God is not over the circumstances of life, this will be an instructional lesson.
The American pendulum may be in the direction of selfishly thinking only of their own pocketbooks, but circumstances will not stay that way. America will not be allowed to think only of themselves when so many lives are at stake. It is true that America is totally unwilling to make a move themselves to bring about war since it is not in their best interests. HOWEVER, that does not mean peace will prevail. From a world tactical point of view, Carl and Board - is it rational to allow Iran to go nuclear under an Obama Administration - and what would happen then? If one thing resounded in the VP discussion, it was that Sarah Palin was pleased to report that Israel will be defended by a McCain Administration and totally AMAZED that Biden would agree with her. The reason is.. the Obama ticket has been incredibly anti-Israel for quite some time. This latest flip-flop must be noted by those in Israel whose lives are at stake. This Obamic weathervane which now points in the opposite direction (or does it??) can easily flip back to hostility toward Israel and allowing them to die as a "distration" to the real war (Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, remember?) Will they let their continued existence be in the hands of a 'man of peace' with their enemies?
For those who don't understand the issues, because they are veiled in words they are unfamiliar with, this analysis of the VP debate and Biden's comments on Israel are worthy of note:
==
Biden Now Actively Channeling Rabid Anti-Israel Partisans, Adopting Their Barely-Veiled Anti-Israel Euphemisms
Charming:
QUOTE:
The Vice Presidential nominee vowed that the U.S. will "always stand by Israel, without telling Israelis what they can and cannot do."... Biden dismissed the prominent role played by the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, saying the group "doesn't speak for the entire Jewish community," and it "doesn't speak for the state of Israel, no matter what it insists on any occasion." The Delaware senator also attacked critics who have questioned his support of Israel saying, "I will take a back seat to no one, and again, no one in AIPAC or any other organization, in terms of questioning my support of the State of Israel."
===end quote==
(1) As a matter of widely recognized reality - which I know is important to the reality-based community - of course AIPAC "speaks for the state of Israel" more than any other domestic US lobby. That's the official position of the Israeli government and it's the official position of AIPAC. So much is this the case that when AIPAC tried pushing back against Rabin's peace initiatives, the PM slapped them back into line by threatening to tell DC policymakers that AIPAC no longer reflected the views of the Israeli government. That doesn't mean that it promotes Israel's agenda at the expense of the US - its members believe that a strong US-Israel relationship is in the interests of Americans and Westerners. That's a debatable proposition, but let's be clear that AIPAC is on one side of that debate.
(2) So why would a Washington veteran like Biden - who has undoubtedly been told personally by Israeli officials that AIPAC's official position reflects Israel's official position - unblinkingly trot out such obvious nonsense?Because he's not actually talking about AIPAC. And - for what it's worth - he's not really pretending to. Calls for "reigning in AIPAC" are broader, barely-veiled assaults on a certain sinister and shadowy Lobby. This is a Lobby about which the left knows two things: it's funded by New York money people and it keeps getting the US into wars. Care to take a guess about who Biden was attacking?
This is the exact. same. trick that Obama pulled when he sneered about how you can be pro-Israel without being a Likudnik. It's not that there's anything objectively offensive in their speech, although maybe their eagerness to scapegoat readily-identifiable Jewish groups flirts with unseemliness. It's that the groups of partisans who speak and think with those labels tend to be anti-Semites. And so the natural question is the naive one: hey, where'd Biden learn to talk that way?
(3) This "give Israel more independence" argument is the standard nudge-wink that anti-Israel partisans use to justify zeroing out aid to Israel. It's a personal favorite of Ron Paul. Joe Biden has been known to threaten to zero out aid to Israel. This, I suggest, may not be a coincidence.
(4) One VP candidate talks to AIPAC and declares herself proud to support the US-Israel alliance. The other VP candidate goes out of his way to attack AIPAC - an organization, if nothing else, that's devoted to supporting the US-Israel alliance. All things being equal, doesn't it seem like the first one is objectively more in favor of the US-Israel alliance than the second one? To the extent that she's not, you know, attacking it?
ANKARA (AFP)--Turkey will return to its old currency, the Turkish Lira, on Jan. 1, after a major money reform four years ago that saw the introduction of the New Turkish Lira, officials said Friday.
Central Bank governor Durmus Yilmaz predicted that inflationist pressure triggered by the global financial crisis would have only a minimal effect on the new currency.
The outgoing New Turkish Lira will remain in circulation to the end of 2009, alongside the new banknotes.
It was introduced in 2005 after Turkey's chronic inflation fell to single digits as a result of a tight IMF-backed program that helped the economy emerge from a severe crisis in 2001 and stabilized the embattled currency.
Under the reform, the Turkish Lira was turned into the New Turkish Lira, minus six zeroes.
Financial woes over the years had eroded the value of the currency to an extent that the smallest coin at the time was worth 50,000 liras, while the biggest banknote was 20 million lira (EUR10.8).
The return to the Turkish Lira will mark the final stage of a reform from which the currency has emerged "revamped and with a strengthened value and credibility," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said at a press conference to present the new banknotes and coins.
"The government is determined to keep up the struggle against inflation," he said. "We continue to keep inflation under control despite some internal and external problems."
Tight monetary policies helped Ankara bring inflation down from 29.7% in 2002 to 7.7% in 2005.
But the government missed its inflation targets in the past two years. In 2006, inflation was 9.65%, compared with a 5.0% target, while 2007 saw inflation hit 8.39%, nearly double the 4.0% target.
The rate stood at 11.77% in August, well above the 4.0% target for 2008, pushed up by global financial jitters and rising oil and food prices.
Yilmaz said the year-end inflation was still likely to be single-digit.
"As long as we maintain tight monetary policies... we can easily weather this (global) turbulence, but not being affected at all is impossible," the central bank governor said. "We do not believe that its effect on the currency will be very abrasive."
Official: Mass. company illegally selling Iraqi dinars
LITTLE ROCK (AP) The state securities commissioner says a Massachusetts company has been selling Iraqi money, over the Internet, without a proper license to Arkansas investors.
Commissioner A. Heath Abshure on Thursday ordered Dartmouth Capital LLC of Boston to explain its currency exchanges that he said the company conducted over www.safedinar.com, although Dartmouth was not licensed to exchange money in Arkansas.
Abshure gave Dartmouth 30 days to explain why he should not ban the company from doing business in the state. The Arkansas Securities Department also set a Nov. 4 hearing on the matter.
In his order, Abshure said that Dartmouth has been selling Iraqi dinars over the Web site and that an unnamed pastor of an El Dorado church has been encouraging Arkansans to make the purchases.
A spokesman for Dartmouth did not immediately return messages left at a company office Thursday evening and with a person who answered the phone number listed on the safedinar Web site.
- Advertisement -
"With the current market volatility and unprecedented turmoil on Wall Street, the Department is concerned that scam artists are using the public's fears to sell fraudulent investments with promises of high returns and no risk," a securities department news release said.
Shannon Underwood, an attorney for the department, warned in the release that foreign currency trading was highly speculative and investors should be wary of any promises of quick profits.
Underwood said the investigation was continuing. The commissioner can levy a maximum penalty against Dartmouth of $1,000 for each day of illegal operation in Arkansas, plus department costs. http://www.thecabin.net/stories/100408/loc_1004080012.shtml
Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terrorists
By JIM KUHNHENN
Oct 4 2008
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Saturday accused Democrat Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of his association with a former 1960s radical.
Palin's reference was to Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the group the Weather Underground. Its members took credit for bombings, including explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, during the tumultuous Vietnam War era four decades ago. Obama served on a charity board with Ayers several years ago and has denounced his radical views and activities.
Palin told a group of donors at a private airport, "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."
The effort dovetails with TV ads by outside groups questioning Obama's ties to Ayers, convicted former Obama fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He and Obama live in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood and served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Obama left the board in December 2002.
Obama was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group of which Ayers was a founder. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.
Palin cited a New York Times story published Saturday that detailed Obama's relationship with Ayers. In an interview with CBS News earlier in the week, Palin didn't name any newspapers or magazines that had shaped her view of the world.
Taking one question from reporters about competing in battleground states, Palin repeated her wish that the campaign had not pulled out of Michigan, a prominent state in presidential elections where Obama leads by double-digit percentage points in recent polls.
"As I said the other day, I would sure love to get to run to Michigan and make sure that Michigan knows that we haven't given up there," she said. "We care much about Michigan and every other state. I wish there were more hours in the day so that we could travel all over this great country and start speaking to more Americans. So, not worried about it but just desiring more time and, you know, to put more effort into each one of these states."
Let's get things straight about what the Obama position is on Israel and the Middle East.
Though this current article is about former adviser Samantha Power, she hinted she would be back (see url in comments) and starkly:
1) Power has said she will be back in an Obama administration once the election is over.
Power would be on the NSA or working in the state department.
Power was the closest advisor to Obama for years and said to be his soulmate as an advisor and on foreign policy.
Power and Obama will always be bashing Israel for human rights abuses.
God help Israel if she is in a conflict with hezbollah, syria or iran during an Obama administration. Obama is an enemy of Israel. - ryandan
Notice the anticipated losses of such an action (comment 16) are very likely to include nuclear destruction and 50 thousand US ground troop casualties.. PLUS.
And folks think their pocketbook is far more important to consider?
CAN Israel ignore what the loss of the Presidency to a hostile Obama (wearing velvet gloves at this point to win the Whitehouse) would mean to their continued existence?
Just in case someone wants to say its all off topic - Would this situation affect the Dinar.. ?? Yes.
===
Video: Former Obama adviser on invading Israel
October 5, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
Samantha Power left the Barack Obama campaign in March of this year, after a somewhat overblown kerfuffle over her reference to Hillary Clinton as a “monster”. Power advised Obama on foreign policy, having spent her career detailing genocides and international responses to them, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the subject. Power had some interesting ideas about how to resolve one particular instance of what she sees as a genocide in this April 2002 interview at Berkeley with Harry Kreisler:
This should give us some insight into the foreign-policy objectives of Barack Obama, who had Power as an adviser from 2005 until the “monster” comment in March of this year. He didn’t bounce her from his team over her views on Israel and … well, let’s recall how she described the pro-Israel lobby:
QUOTE: "Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import." (end quote)
For those who may not catch the reference, Power means the Joooooos. And why would that alienate the Jewishcabalthatsecretlyrunseverything? For one thing, Power wants to spend billions on bolstering Palestinian military strength, instead of spending it on helping the Israelis to defend themselves. Bear in mind that this interview takes place about seven months after 9/11, when people supposedly still knew how dangerous radical Islamist groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda were. Power wanted to send them money and stop funding Israeli efforts to fight them.
Even more ridiculously, Power’s ultimate aim is to send a massive American or Western force into Israel to stop what Power apparently sees as an Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. She specifically states that the force has to be “massive”, not like a Srebrenica- or Bosnia-sized force. Why would it need to be so large? In order to neutralize the Israeli Defense Force, and protect the forces of Fatah and Hamas.
Had Barack Obama kicked her off of his advisory panel (rumored to number 300) after making remarks like this, it could have assuaged fears about his intentions towards Israel. Instead, Obama invited Power to advise him after making these remarks. She resigned only after calling Hillary a monster and after insinuating that Obama may not retreat from Iraq in 16 months if the ground situation changed — which Obama later adopted as his own position after the primaries.
This is the same Barack Obama who served in a board that gave a $75,000 grant to Rashid Khalidi, Yasser Arafat’s toady in the PLO. This is the same Barack Obama who had Robert Malley as another of his advisers on the region — and who conducted meetings with Hamas. Obama’s church used its bulletins to give voice to Palestinian activists. How much more clear can this get?
1) Power has said she will be back in an Obama administration once the election is over.
Power would be on the NSA or working in the state department.
Power was the closest advisor to Obama for years and said to be his soulmate as an advisor and on foreign policy.
Power and Obama will always be bashing Israel for human rights abuses.
God help Israel if she is in a conflict with hezbollah, syria or iran during an Obama administration. Obama is an enemy of Israel. - ryandan
2) The left (yes, broad strokes here) is completely wedded to this notion that any problem in the world is a result of the failure of the West - specifically the US and/or Israel - to reach out to the other side, to assuage their fears and concerns.
This is the mindset of Obama when he says that he will meet with the leaders of the various enemies of the US unconditionally. That is because he views the problems as largely emanating from the failure of the US to offer the right incentives, to say the right words, to make the right initiative, to these adversaries that will end the hostilities. Because, at bottom the problem is with us. Or more accurately, the “neocons” or rightwingers or whatever group is dominating our policies.
The Palestinians (the ones that matter) do not want peace with Israel. Until they do, no amount of carrots and incentives will dissuade them otherwise. - SteveMG
3) Samantha Power Unapologetic About Iraq Remarks, Hints At Return
Here’s a piece from the diva saying she would be back in an Obama administration.
QUOTE: "And, to the delight of many in the crowd, she even hinted that she could be part of that hypothetical cabinet. "Because of the kind of campaign that Senator Obama has run," Power said.." - ryandan
4) General McPeak Obama’s top military advisor blamed the jews in miami and new york for the mess in the middle east.
And yet Obama has morons like ed koch come out and endorse him and his poll numbers are rising in florida. This election is utter madness. - ryandan
5) I feel like I’m watching as God assembles the chess pieces for Armageddon. Is a weak docile America needed to set up the final battle for Jerusalem?
Obama SHOULD scare the crap out of everybody but he doesn’t. We are asleep in the light. -Mojave Mark
6) Is a weak docile America needed to set up the final battle for Jerusalem?
Yes, according to Joel Rosenberg. Read Epicenter.
No one will come to Israel’s aid. - Disturb the Universe
7) Obama’s closest personal friends over the last two decades - when no one was looking - were all anti-Semites and anti-Zionists.
This is who he really is.
Eddie sayeed, rasheed khalidi, wright, and this b**ch in the video.
And Brzezinski and carter and so on.
I’m a Jew.
And a democrat.
But any Jew who votes obama is a fool and a dupe and an ass who endangers Israel and world Jewry. - reliapundit
8) Right now this is just a lot of noise in a very noisy campaign season. Obviously this woman already been thrown under the bus so Obama can claim no association with her. The huge question is: How does Obama’s bubble get pierced in the next four weeks? Every time some horrific association comes to light that person is gone and then that’s the end of the controversy.
A million blogs can point these things out but none of it, NONE of it is getting through to the vast numbers who are supporting Obama or independents that might consider alternatives. - JonPrichard
9) Well, of course this is why he has 300 advisors…Plausible deniability. - tomas
10) It’s not just obama’s advisors (Power and Brzezinski et al) who are anti-israel; it’s his entire network of close friends over the last two decades - they’re all antisemites and antizionists.
Wright, khalidi, sayeed, rezko, etc.
The people obama associated with when no one was looking tells us more than anything else about who he really is and how he would govern. - reliapundit
11) Four weeks. Four weeks of outside factors narrowing this gap, or widening it. Neither camp seems capable of delivering a knockout right now. Providence will deal the final hand. We just have to hope on a good shuffle (unfortunately). - Limerick
12) I find it almost unbelievable that Americans in general can even consider Obama as a reasonable option - but that Jews would support him strikes me as going so far beyond tragedy as to defy understanding.
Paul Murphy on October 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I think the video of the Obama Youth (or whatever they are calling those pseudo-brownshirts) would go a long way towards influencing my fellow Floridians of the Jewish persuasion…. just might remind them of something. - CapedConservative
13) Wipe out our closest ally in that part of the world and help our enemies? Those are quite telling as far as the Whun’s world view. Destroy those who like us, defend those who want to kill us. - thekingtut
14) Pay attention Jewish Voters. This is what the Democrats think of you, “A domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.” Plain english, “We want your votes and your money.”
They care nothing of your ideals or welfare. - The Cat MirCat
15) I feel like I’m watching as God assembles the chess pieces for Armageddon. Is a weak docile America needed to set up the final battle for Jerusalem?
Obama SHOULD scare the crap out of everybody but he doesn’t. We are asleep in the light. - Mojave Mark
I’ve often felt that way in the past month. I really don’t know what to do. There are some really strange forces at work in this election. The problem is, we are all Cassandra’s. None of us will be believed until the end is here. I drink and pray a lot! - JAM
As goes Israel so goes the west. - sven10077
16) Ok, lets look at this.
She wants to put a “Massive” force into Israel. Just how massive are we talking about?
Assume the Obama Administration tells Israel that we are doing with this twit advises. Israel tells Obama and company to go pound sand. What will it take if we face a resisted invasion of Israel and would would the cost be?
To start with,
Half our carrier battlegroups. (6 carriers with their air wings)
The entire USMC with their landing ships.
The 82nd Airborne
2 armored divisions in ships that have been combat loaded.
(Prepared for rapid deploment rather then maximizing capacity)
150,000+ ground troops.
The entire heavy bomber force.
Anticipated loses?
At least 2 carriers and several dozen support ships.
2-400 aircraft.
Infantry casualties rivaling those of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. - (20-50K dead)
Probable use of nuclear weapons by the Israelis on the invasion force.
Certain attacks against US political leaders by the Mossad. Up to and including a possible commando style attack against the White House. Assassinations of political leadership in the house and senate and no doubt this twit would be at the top of the hit list.
It’s pretty obvious that Dimbulb has no idea just how tough the IDF is. It would be the first time the U.S. went up against a well trained and equiped army since Korea and possibly WW2. There is every chance we would lose.
I suspect that if the military would flat out refuse the order to the point of mutiny if these boneheads tried something like this.
The only problem? Obama is a bonehead and surrounds himself with idiots like this. He just might try to do something like this. - evilned
17) The only problem? Obama is a bonehead and surrounds himself with idiots like this. He just might try to do something like this. evilned
Now perhaps you understand why he made the speech calling for a “civillian national security force” he refuses to generate a mission statement for….? - sven10077
18) Obama loves those Jews who are naive enough to give him money.
Until he has the power to turn on them.
And their Gutter Religion.
Farrakhan pal.
Empty suit.
Oy vey? - profitsbeard
19) “Well, isn’t this just special? She backs extreme U.S. military intervention to force Israel to share with regimes that want to wipe them off the face of the map.
I’m guessing that she does NOT support U.S. intervention in Iraq.
Friends don’t let (Jewish) friends vote Obama!! - MochaLite
20) Any Jew dumb enough to vote for Obama deserves to have him as their president.
Obama loves Jews the same way he loves white Americans: they’re just the useful tools he’s using to achieve his ambition to rule over them. - AZCoyote
21) Accusing Israel of “genocide” is a standard calumny of its Arab enemies, they do it all the time on CNN and the BBC, notwithstanding the fact that the Palestinian people keep growing in numbers at a rapid pace. So it’s nonsense, but they like to hear the sound of the word as a way of demonizing Jews in general. This woman is pretty clever in that she doesn’t work the work to death but trots out Rwanda as if the Americans don’t arm the local Arab government, which officially now is Hamas, to the teeth presumably with tanks and fighter planes and heavy artillery, then they will be next Rwanda. The woman is bonkers, in a dangerous way, like Ayers and Wright and everyone surrounding this guy Obama. Harold Lasswell used to talk about the psychopathology of politics, and here it comes, the White House is going to be a Nut House. - ivrydov
22) Israel cannot be at any greater risk than it already is. It is the only major country in the world where the bulk of its own citizenry don’t give it better than a 60% chance of surviving (physically) the next 20 years. Israelis know that another holocaust is on the horizon, as do most other people, even if they’re scared to talk about it. The fact that Bush is pushing “missile defense” pretty much says it all (we all know that a nuke would probably not even come in a missile, and it only takes a couple to do away with the whole state).
But, no matter. All I’m saying is that any more pressure on Israel to kill itself will cause a major change in its internals - good or not.
As to islamic propaganda victories, that’s already been done. I don’t see anything left to lose on that end. The islamic world has been doing whatever it wants, attacking everyone at will, and no one has even intimated that they would be stopped. Bush did a little, but then wimped out. The rest are just in full surrender mode. Very sad stuff. - progressoverpeace
23) What, Barack Obama is not trustworthy with respect to our ally, Israel?
This borders on racism, Ed.
Just kidding, of course, but it is shameful that this appears nowhere in the MSM, which is too busy trying to blunt the impact of Palin’s performance in the debate. - molonlabe28
24) Pretty slick game Obama plays. Associate with radicals/fools on nearly every issue, throw them under the bus at some point, and presto, can’t criticize Obama’s position or judgement on that issue, even if it was yesterday. The only thing that matters is what comes out of his pie hole this moment. Wait, not that moment, this moment. Oops - now it’s this moment….ad nauseum. - aikidoka
25) As an israeli-american i can honestly say that obama scares the crap out of me! - sko17
There is no racial requirement for that one.
He should scare the crap out of anyone who is paying attention (and, presumably, not suicidally leftist). - Count to 10
26) Don’t they realize that Jesus was a Jew? - Crux Australis
I would like to share a (non-Dinar related) story with you.
It's about an incident which happened in my life.
A Little Taste of the Miraculous..
When I was attending college, I had a job in the evenings working at a health food store. It was fall and when the store closed it was dark. I had parked a fair ways away from the store, several blocks into a residential area - a place where the parking was free as they didn't like us to use the parking on the street in front of the store and there weren't any parking lots nearby.
I was carrying my books and purse and had my keys out. As I walked along the sounds from the street became fainter behind me and to the right of the sidewalk were large oak trees and steep lawns mounting upward. Looking up there were mansion-sized homes at the top of the quite steep inclines and sets of steps. Suddenly, a pile of leaves at the bottom of the hill (near the sidewalk and under a big tree) began to move, and a voice began to shout incoherently. I was very startled and it sent a chill of fear into my system. But presently, as the person didn't appear to be an immediate attack threat, I realized it was someone (likely a drunk) maybe having a bad dream or something... or maybe he was hurt. I walked to my car, which was now not far away, opened it and put in my books and purse, then closed and locked it. I put the keys in my hand (keys pointing out between the knuckles) and put my hand in my pocket. Then I walked back to the tree.
I drew close and he was again muttering loudly but incoherently, oblivious to me. "Are you alright?" I asked. He suddenly seemed to come awake or snap out of it, and his eyes slowly focused on me.. "Whaaa.. who are you?" He asked me. "Are you alright?" I asked again (wondering if he were sick or injured.) I was near to a streetlight and he was still in the shadow, but he emerged from the pile of leaves and asked me slowly, "Are you an angel?" I laughed. "No, I am not an angel, I'm a human being," I said. He came out and slowly sat down on the curb and I gingerly sat at a comfortable distance away. "You see," he said and gestured up the road I had just come down, "People come by here all the time, and they never stop or talk to me. That is why I asked if you were an angel." His words were slurred and I realized (along with the smell which now reached my nose) that he was very, very drunk.
"I see," I replied. "Why were you yelling?" (He looked alright and not in pain or anything, I thought to myself.) "I was having a flashback to when I was in Vietnam," he replied. After a time of silence, he continued. "My brother and I were in Vietnam together. We were in a nest waiting for the enemy to attack. (He impressed upon me how very stressful it was.) We heard a noise and suddenly a young boy appeared. He offered us drugs. The tension was very bad and so we took them, both of us took them. We were very high and then the enemy attacked. The boy was a plant of the Vietcong. They shot into the nest and killed my brother.. my very own brother. I tried to fight back, really I did. But I couldn't shoot straight. Then I became angry. I was angry that my brother was dead, angry at the Vietcong and their trick, angry at the boy who had sold us the drugs. With the enemy still firing at me I simply got up and left. I took a blowtorch with me and I went into the village. I torched everything to death in my path - men, women, children.. it didn't matter. When I have the flashbacks, that is what I see.. I was seeing them melt in front of me. Their skin melting off them. Have you ever seen anyone's skin melt off them... That is why I was screaming." (There were more details, but I think that is bad enough to write.)
"Are you a Christian?" I asked him. He looked a bit startled (likely it wasn't the question or reaction he was expecting). "I and my brother went to church, yes," he said. "No," I replied.. "I mean are you born again, not if you attended a church. Have you ever repented of your sins and asked Jesus to come into your heart and be your Lord and Savior? Can you say He is your Lord?" He paused, "Yes, I have done that," he replied. "OK, then pray with me," I said, and I started..
"Lord, we come to You now and we ask You to go back in time to that time when this incident happened. I ask You to walk back into the past to the time of this incident and heal this man's completely. Heal His mind, Lord. I ask Your forgiveness for these sins of murder, pharmaketa (taking drugs), and all the other sins committed at that time. (I turned to him directly and instructed him, "Tell the Lord you repent of all the sins you committed." He did so, and then I resumed..) Lord, I now cover those sins with Your Blood and I take back all the ground that Satan claims against him and command any evil spirits which were given place or came into him to leave now. Lord, please seal this deliverance by Your blood and fill that place with Your Holy Spirit I pray, in Jesus' Name. Amen."
I looked up into the eyes of a man who was dead sober and his eyes were sharp as knives. He no longer slurred his words when he said, "You ARE an angel!" And then leaped forward and tried to grab my hand. I evaded his grasp and stood, taking two steps backward and disclaiming any supernatural origin. "I am NOT an angel, I am flesh and blood, just like you!" I was startled, but not afraid. But I was suddenly aware of how deserted the place was and the fact he would be able (in his now sober state) to overtake me before I reached my car. I filed the thoughts in the back of my mind as I felt in no danger and I could still feel the Presence of the Lord in that place. It was truly miraculous that he was now sober and healed.. and he knew and felt this incredible supernatural change too.
He sat and we talked for a while longer. Then I went to my car, wrote down my name and number and the name and address of the church I was attending, and handed it to him. Then we parted. The next day he called me, a literal ray of sunshine. "I'm SOBER!" he said. "I haven't been sober in so very many years! I have my life back, I'm healed! I wanted to thank you so much..." I couldn't believe the difference between the man in the gutter and the man now speaking on the phone. He told me he had had a bath, put on clean clothes and had breakfast. He was staying with a friend. This was simply not the same person. I disclaimed any credit and told him to thank the Lord who did the healing and invited him to church. He told me he was going to go look up his family (whom he hadn't spoken to in years.) I turned his name and number over to the brothers at church (who informed me that women are not allowed to counsel males, and they would take it from there), and from then on he was healed of his.. post traumatic stress disorder.
When I think of this incident, I am reminded that the key to the incident is dealing with, not stress, but the giving place to the demonic through sin. It was this "presence" which allowed a handhold into his life to allow them to torment him and take him back into that place they held (for tens of years) for him to re-live as a nightmare. Going through reliving it.. over and over again, in living color... did not help. Sometimes.. the only way we can help is prayer. The trauma alone can also be an opening (they don't call it "hell" for nothing, something wicked comes with the trauma, and it must be displaced to win over it.) When I read of the suicides of vets.. I think of this incident. Of how this man went for YEARS going through a living hell, yet did not take his life. And how Jesus managed to find a way to reach down and heal him, eventually. And, when I think of the vets facing similar flashbacks and "stress disorder" (though maybe not with the same degree of sins involved).. I wish Jesus were allowed to be given to them through prayer.. only His help can heal someone's heart, through prayer.
The USD is the heart of the storm and emerging and frontier markets are the counterparties.
We are at the precipise of the largest financial revolution in the history of modern finance.
ALL REVALUATIONS WILL BE UNILATERAL!!!!
G. W. Bush will make the annoucement at the time that markets are closed just before the open of the Asian bell on sunday afternoon or if all markets close down for emergency meetings. If history repeats itself than this time will be similair to the past with a twist; $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ are in the HUNDEREDS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
The future of our country is at stake from a complete dollar devaluation and hence us financial meltdown and global power vaccum, we must insure that demand for the dollar continues by the purchase of large sums of oil be done so in USD, from a region in the world that has alot of it like GCC & IRAQ.
So in summary YES! I read the CBI confirming the renumerating article this is what I understood.
This is only my humble opinion from the statements of Dr. Mohammad Saleh,The Central Bank of Iraq advisory.
The author of the article and report was a Minister of Trade for many years, so he has a long time understanding of Iraq’s Economy past and present. He also is the same person that has been debating the case of LOP vs. REVAL for the last several years.
Its findings have been under consideration for a long time and has been preparing by absorbing the excess IQD cash by tight monetary policy (HIGH INTEREST RATES) as well as dollarizing the market to decrease the IQD money supply.
Its findings include strengthening the value of the currency ($3 USD/$1 IQD) to parallel the eminent economic BOOM in the near term and that a new stage is coming (Within the next month or at the start of next year or in other words 5 to 99 days)
The new stage will start with the introduction of new small denominated notes and slowly withdraw large notes in circulation upon deposit into Iraq Banks. Rules applying to the accounting of loans and other finance agreements will be remunerated into dollars during the transition process to keep the money supply in balance and cure hyperinflation.
Dr. Mohammad Saleh,The Central Bank of Iraq advisory
Muhammad Mahdi Al-Salih
DATE OF BIRTH/PLACE OF BIRTH: 1947 or 1949, al-Anbar Governate
NATIONALITY: Iraq
UNSC RESOLUTION 1483 BASIS:
Minister of Trade, 1987 to 2003;
Chief, Presidential Office, mid-1980s
Named on Page 12 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...06:0023:EN:PDF
Iraq hopes shrine rebuild can reconcile sects
Mon Oct 6, 2008 4:32am BST
By Tim Cocks
SAMARRA, Iraq (Reuters) - A ring of scaffolding around charred bricks is all that now stands in place of the golden dome that adorned one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest shrines.
Militants bombed the al-Askari mosque in the Iraqi city of Samarra in February 2006, destroying the dome and setting off a wave of sectarian bloodshed that killed tens of thousands of people and nearly tipped the country into all-out civil war.
Now, with violence sharply down and Iraq's coffers swollen with oil revenues, officials hope the mosque can be restored to its former majestic glory in a few years.
That could help heal bitter divisions between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunnis, they say.
"It's so important for Iraq," Samarra Mayor Mahmoud Khalaf, who is closely involved in the project, told Reuters. "But it's also a lot of work. We are working 24/7 to get it finished."
The al-Askari Mosque, also called the Golden Mosque, was built in 944 and is one of Iraq's four holiest Shi'ite shrines. The dome of the sanctuary was completed in 1905 and had been covered by 72,000 golden pieces.
Two of the 12 revered Shi'ite imams are buried in the shrine -- Imam Ali al-Hadi, the 10th Imam, who died in 868 and his son, the 11th Imam Hasan al-Askari, who died in 874.
Getting the shrine back to how it was is a huge task -- officials say Iraq expects to spend around $60 million for the project in this mainly Sunni Arab northern city.
A big part of the challenge is that there are no original drawings to work from, said an architect on the site, who declined to be identified for security reasons.
"We're working from old photographs, but there's a lot of guesswork. We're effectively building the design from scratch," the architect said. "But we have to get it right: for the shrine and for the imam -- and for Iraq."
No-one claimed responsibility for the bombing of the mosque, although the government blamed the Sunni Islamist militant group al Qaeda, which regards Shi'ites as heretics.
Al Qaeda had long been accused of trying to spark a sectarian war in Iraq. This time it worked.
Shi'ite militiamen took vengeance on Sunnis within days of the bombing; Sunnis retaliated. In Baghdad, residents were forced out of neighborhoods if they were of the wrong sect.
In June 2007, suspected al Qaeda militants also blew up the mosque's two minarets, which had survived the 2006 bombing.
PAIN OF THE BOMBING
UNESCO, the U.N. agency for education, science and culture, is helping restore the shrine. Disagreements between Shi'ite and Sunni officials over how to carry out the work had previously held reconstruction back.
But in midday heat during the holy month of Ramadan a week ago, a dozen workers mixed concrete and laid bricks on the roof of the mosque where the dome once stood. Most of Samarra was deserted as people fasted and stayed indoors.
"I'm so happy to work here. It's a holy place and I want to do a service to Imam al-Askari," said Hisham Qassim, 26, an electrician, adding he didn't care about being paid.
"I came here before as a pilgrim and it was like paradise. I felt so much pain when it was bombed."
Some of Samarra's Sunni residents feel the Shi'ite-led government held them responsible for the mosque's destruction and hope a restored shrine will heal the mistrust.
"We always felt the government blamed the Sunnis for the bombing, but it wasn't us: it was al Qaeda," said Wasmi Hamed, who leads a Sunni neighborhood patrol that has helped drive al Qaeda militants out of the city.
"I was devastated when it happened. I wanted to find whoever did it and cut his head off. Now we want it to be repaired."
Sunnis, while they don't attach the same religious importance to the shrine, are keen to see a centerpiece of their ancient city -- once a tourist attraction for thousands of Shi'ite pilgrims -- restored.
"We used to get so many visitors from all over Iraq to see the shrine. Samarra was a beautiful, rich city. It can be again," said Sheikh Khalid Hassan, a Sunni tribal leader.
The six oil fields to be awarded in Iraq's first licensing round will put more than 43 billion barrels of oil reserves into the hands of international oil companies (IOC), whose challenge will then be to arrest declining output and ultimately deliver an increase in production to an agreed plateau. A second bidding round envisaged by the Iraqi oil ministry would put another 51 billion bbl of reserves in a dozen more fields out for tender -- so, if everything goes to plan, some 80% of Iraq's total 115 billion bbl of proven oil reserves will feature in the two rounds. With so much at stake, the competition will be fierce, but the controversy within Iraq could be even fiercer. The first round will also include the Akkas and Mansouria gas fields (PIW Jul.28,p1). The 20-year model contract for the rounds doesn't allow for production sharing -- a taboo issue in nationalistic post-Saddam Iraq -- but will allow IOCs to book some reserves. The final list of second round fields is still under discussion, but an initial list includes giants like Majnoon, Nahr bin Umar, West Qurna Phase 2, Nasiriyah and Halfaya; smaller fields such as Gharraf, West Kifl, Qayara and Nur; and the 8 billion bbl East Baghdad heavy oil field, which is considered geologically challenging and in need of further appraisal (PIW Sep.29,p8). The ministry is also considering three small oil fields -- Qamar, Gullabat and Naudoman -- as well as the Khashm al-Ahmar gas field. All four are in northern Diyala province and could provoke a row with the northern Kurdish region, which regards them as border fields that should come under its authority.
Tender protocols for the first round currently being finalized indicate that bidders will be assessed on commercial rather than technical criteria, sources close to the process tell PIW. Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani also said last week that winning bidders will be those "charging Iraq the lowest fees." Companies will also be required to pay a signature bonus, calculated according to a sliding scale based on the field's potential. The IOCs' remuneration will be linked to an internal rate of return, with 18% considered "acceptable" to Baghdad, ministry sources say. Costs will be recouped from output and IOCs will also be expected to pay tax.
According to the current thinking in Iraq's oil ministry, the service contract applicable for the first bid round will be limited to a maximum of 20 years, with the possibility for the IOCs to receive remuneration in kind. Contracts will be split into a rehabilitation phase, focused on arresting output declines in the major producing fields, and a development phase, in which production is raised to a defined target and sustained there for a certain number of years. One tricky issue will be how to calculate a base production level for declining fields, above which output would be considered as incremental for the purposes of calculating IOCs' remuneration. Iraqi sources say a decline profile is likely to be used, reflecting expected production were no new investments to be made. Any output above that profile would be counted as incremental production.
Development of all fields will be carried out by a joint venture between the IOCs and either state North Oil Co. or state South Oil Co., with the state company holding a 51% majority stake. Each field will have a joint-venture operating company and a joint management committee (JMC), which will act as a buffer between the state company and the joint venture operating company, with equal number of members from the IOC and the state entity and decisions taken unanimously. The board of the joint operating company and the JMC will be tasked with approving field development plans.
You are welcome, timbitts and willie.
This is the reality of the situation.. some stats.
===
Suicide hot line got calls from 22,000 veterans
Jul 28, 2008
By KATHARINE EUPHRAT
WASHINGTON (AP) - More than 22,000 veterans have sought help from a special suicide hot line in its first year, and 1,221 suicides have been averted, the government says.
According to a recent RAND Corp. study, roughly one in five soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan displays symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, putting them at a higher risk for suicide. Researchers at Portland State University found that male veterans are twice as likely to commit suicide than men who are not veterans.
This month, a former Army medic, Joseph Dwyer, who was shown in a Military Times photograph running through a battle zone carrying an Iraqi boy, died of an accidental overdose after struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder for almost five years.
Janet Kemp, national suicide prevention coordinator for the Veterans Affairs Department, said the hot line is in place to help prevent deaths such as Dwyer's. "We just want them to know there's other options and people do care about them, and we can help them make a difference in their lives," she said in an interview.
The hot line receives up to 250 calls per day - double the average number calling when it began. Kemp said callers are divided evenly between veterans from the Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam wars. The VA estimates that every year 6,500 veterans take their own lives. The mental health director for the VA, Ira Katz, said in an e-mail last December that of the 18 veterans who commit suicide each day, four to five of them are under VA care, and 12,000 veterans under VA care are attempting suicide each year.
This month, the hot line began an advertising campaign in Washington area subway stations and buses featuring the slogan, "It takes the courage and strength of a warrior to ask for help."
The veterans hot line, which is linked to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, received 55,000 callers in its first year, including both veterans and people who are concerned about them, according to figures being released Monday. One-third of the 40 specially trained counselors are veterans themselves.
"We try to get them (callers) to talk about their situation and what they remember and see if they can identify exactly what their issues are. I think there's a comfort in knowing that they can get some help from people who do understand what combat stress is like," Kemp said.
Identifying the issues.. I think my friend in that last story I told you managed to do that.
One lady I read about said she called home in tears and said, "Mom, I killed a boy today. I can never go back."
She was devastated by what had happened on the battlefield, even if it was an accident.
But as for the statement that she can never go back... back to normal, back to everyday.. back Home.
No.
They can go back. They all most definitely CAN go back.
The reason I shared that story with you is that Jesus can go back.
He is over the space-time continuum and not locked into it like we are.
He can go into the past, forgive, heal and deliver someone from a terrible memory and the pain it inflicts.
Jesus heals memories. He heals lives.
I've seen it. I've been part of it.
It isn't just listening to someone.. it is alleviating the pain that needs to happen.
Jesus can do that. ONLY He can.
But I just wanted to say what I know.. that Jesus saves.. even from this living hell.
I wish more knew.. I wish more would help.
Questions about contract between Shell, South Gas Company
Basra - Voices of Iraq
Sunday , 05 /10 /2008 Time 5:57:19
BASRA / Aswat al-Iraq: The contract signed between the South Gas Company and Shell for the processing and marketing of natural gas produced in the governorate of Basra in southern Iraq has raised many questions and different view points.
There are some analysts who believe that the new contract considered as a plan to give up Iraq’s oil and gas wealth and for foreign companies, while others say it an important step to develop the oil sector which will positively affect the national income and per capita real income.
Aswat al-Iraq brought up these questions and viewpoints to the oil expert Jabar al-Halafi, who answered a question about the reason behind the continuity of signing oil and gas contracts despite the absence of any law that regulates this issue and also the reasons behind the race among the biggest companies in the world, whose operations in Iraq have been nationalized during the period between 1972-1975, to come back to the country.
“Iraq has a huge oil reserve as it ranks the third in the world with 115 billion oil barrels, in addition to the higher demand for oil and gas and the decrease in the production from countries out of OPEC,” al-Halafi said.
“Iraq is an attractive place for big companies which seek to invest oil and gas in the country. The oil ministry has negotiated with more than 30 companies before signing this contract, according to the oil minister,” he added.
He pointed out that Iraq produces less than its production capacity compared to other producing countries; Iran produces 4 million barrels per day, while Iraq produces 2.5 million barrels.
Last September 22, the Iraqi ministry of oil and a wholly owned affiliate of Royal Dutch Shell signed a heads of agreement to establish a joint venture between the South Gas Company and Shell for the processing and marketing of natural gas produced in the governorate of Basra in southern Iraq.
Some 700 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas, which is produced by upstream suppliers in association with oil, is currently being flared in southern Iraq.
By capturing and processing this natural gas, the joint venture (JV) is expected to create an important and reliable supply of domestic energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create significant value for Iraq.
The JV will purchase associated natural gas from upstream operations; own and operate existing gas gathering, treating and processing facilities; and invest in repairing non-functioning assets and develop new facilities. The South Gas Company will be the 51% majority shareholder in the JV, with Shell holding 49%.
The JV will be focused initially on creating reliable sources of domestic energy, including liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas liquids, natural gas supply for power generators, and deliveries to local distribution networks. In the future, the JV could develop a liquefied natural gas facility to export natural gas not needed for local domestic use.
Linda Cook, executive director of Royal Dutch Shell, said: "Shell is an industry leader in the global natural gas sector. Iraq has one of the world's largest natural gas resource bases and I am delighted that the Iraqi government including the ministry of oil has supported Shell as the partner for joint venture with the South Gas Company."
Shell is a global group of energy and petrochemicals companies. With 104,000 employees in more than 110 countries, it plays a key role in helping to meet the world’s growing demand for energy in economically, environmentally and socially responsible ways.
“The government could sign the contract with any suitable company to develop the oil sector in the absence of oil and gas law, in addition to the huge Iraqi reserve of gas which reaches 4 trillion cubic meters as well as the increasing demand for gas, so we know that companies look forward to invest in the country to benefit from the absence of that law,” al-Halafi noted.
Aswat al-Iraq also asked about the reason behind signing the contract through direct negotiations not through a tender? And why did the government choose Shell?
He said that Shell is a leading company and one of the biggest companies in the world and has huge operations in the North Sea, Norway, Britain, Mexico, Australia, Russia, Nigeria and the gulf countries.
“Selecting the company was the right choice as it has a great experience in gas techniques,” noting that the contract between Shell and the South Gas Company is to export the gas not to use it for other purposes.
Basra, 590 km (340 miles) south of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, has an estimated metropolitan population of 2,300,000 in 2008.
Basra, a Shiite province with 20% of the population are Sunnis, is the cradle of the first civilization of Sumer. It has the seven main Iraqi ports. The first built in Islam 14 A.H. (After Hegira), the city played an important role in early Islamic history.
The area surrounding Basra has substantial petroleum resources and many oil wells. The city's oil refinery has a production capacity of about 140,000 barrels per day (bpd).
(www.aswataliraq.info)
Egyptian foreign minister makes surprise visit to Iraq
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit on Sunday arrived in Iraq on an unannounced visit, the first by a high-level Egyptian delegation since the 2003 US invasion.
(www.noozz.com)
Attiya: Parliament has not received from Presidential Council ratified Provincial Councils Election Law 06/10/2008 20:24:00
Baghdad (NINA) – Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Khalid Al-Attiya, said, “Parliament has not received yet the Presidential Council's of the Provincial Councils Election Law.” Speaking at a press conference on Monday, October 6.
(www.ninanews.com)
Al-Hayis: Negroponte, Crocker discuss applying Sahwa experience in volatile areas 06/10/2008 16:32:00
Ramadi, Anbar (NINA) - The US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker discussed during their visit to Anbar province with leaders of Sahwa – anti-Qaeda local councils- and Anbar governor means of sustaining security.
(www.ninanews.com)
Constitution doesn''t allow hostile forces stationed in Iraq - Talabani
Politics 10/6/2008 9:16:00 PM
IRBIL, Oct 6 (KUNA) -- President Jalal Talabani said Monday the constitution of Iraq did not permit forces hostile against neighboring countries to be deployed on Iraqi territories.
"The constitution of Iraq does not allow presence of forces which are hostile to neighboring countries on Iraqi territories," Talabani told a joint news conference with president of Iraq's Kurdistan province Masoud Barzani.
Talabani, meanwhile, condemned the cross-border sabotage actions which took place at the Iraqi borders.
On the US-Iraq long-term framework agreement, Talabani said all of Iraq would benefit from this deal including the province of kurdistan.
The Iraqi president, talking about oil, said the oil revenues should be distributed by the federal government to the provinces.
Baghdad and Kurdistan are at odds over the draft oil and gas bill, disputed areas and the province's share of the federal budget. (end) sbr.bs KUNA 062116 Oct 08NNNN
(www.kuna.net.kw)
Iraq, US agree on troops'' withdrawal timetable before end of 2008
Politics 10/6/2008 11:56:00 AM
BAGHDAD, Oct 6 (KUNA) -- Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi said his country set the end of 2008 as the date for US troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Abdul Mahdi clarified in a statement that the Iraqi leaders agreed with a visiting US delegation for exerting effort to put and end to the US troop presence in the country before the end of 2008, as part of the security agreement.
Iraqi Presidential Council meeting, held at residence of President Jalal Talabani in Al-Sulaimaniya town last Saturday, was attended by US Secretary of State Assistant John Negroponte -- during which topics of a draft agreement with the US on the troops pull out were examined.
The American side during the meeting took the Iraqi demands into consideration, he said.
Saturday's meeting was attended by the deputy premier, Barham Ahmad Salih, and US ambassador to Iraq, Rayan Croker, as well as the officer in charge of Kirkuk and other disputed areas dossiers.
Mandate of the US troops' presence in Iraq will expire on paper by the end of this year. (end) ahh.sab KUNA 061156 Oct 08NNNN
(www.kuna.net.kw)
05 October 2008 (Azzaman)
Print article Send to friend
Iraqi legislators have revoked a paragraph in the constitution that gave a set of seats for Iraqi minorities in provincial councils.
The reason they cited was that there was no “authentic count” on the number of these minorities in the country.
But this is a baseless excuse and pretext to violate the rights of Iraqi Christians, Shebeks, Sabeans and Yazidis for whom land of today’s Iraq has been a habitat from time immemorial.
There must have been other reasons which prompted the parliament to take a decision that has alienated an important and crucial component of the Iraqi society.
Iraqi minorities thought they would be treated much better than under former leader Saddam Hussein whose regime the U.S. toppled in 2003.
But they now find themselves in far worse conditions. At least Saddam Hussein respected their religious rights and their way of worship. His regime is credited with the building of scores of churches and places of worship for all Iraqi minorities.
Today, these minorities have been worst hit by U.S. occupation and the surge in violence it caused.
To say the government lacks credible counts of Iraqi minorities is a big lie. Such counts could have easily been obtained from their religious leaders.
Moreover, conducting such a count is not that difficult given the fact that the remaining numbers of these minorities now predominantly live in northern Iraq.
For the U.S. and its puppet government everything in Iraq now either falls under the category of minority or majority.
And who is a minority or majority depends on which sect, religion or ethnic group you belong to.
If your are a Shiite you see Shiite majority across the country. If you are a Kurd you see Kurdish majority even in traditional Arab heartland and so on and so forth.
There are no credible counts in Iraq for almost everything. No one knows for sure who the majority is and who the minority is.
This applies to Arabs and Kurds. It applies to Shiites and Sunnis.
But only the weakest and powerless in the society had to pay for the lack of authentic counts.
Iraqi minorities, who thought they would be better off under a U.S.-protected government, suddenly find themselves without protection.
(www.iraqupdates.com)
06 October 2008 (USA Today)
Print article Send to friend
Looking for a place to put your money amid the turmoil on Wall Street?
Consider, um, Iraq.
Iraq's fledgling stock exchange has increased 25% this year as improved security fans hope for an economic revival here.
Trading volume is small, often less than $1 million a day compared with more than $100 billion a day in the United States. Few Westerners have dared to invest, but the optimism among locals is palpable.
Investors "see the end of the tunnel," says broker Ali Hassan Ali. "They see Iraq becoming good."
Among the 94 companies listed on the Iraqi Stock Exchange are banks, insurance firms, manufacturers and a movie production firm. Hotel stocks led the latest rally on the belief they will be among the first Iraqi companies to attract foreign investment.
The market bustles with traders, who cradle cellphones on their ears and scribble contracts on white boards. There are plans to automate trading, but for now the manual process is ideal — it's not vulnerable to Baghdad's frequent power outages.
Although the ancient Babylonians were the first to create markets for stocks and bonds, trading is still a novelty in modern Iraq. The current exchange was only opened in 2004, and for a while it was housed in an abandoned hotel restaurant. Even now, the market is almost as popular among idle retirees as serious investors.
Many in the crowd toy with worry beads and watch the action on the floor while dabbling in just a little trade.
"My wife asked me not to go anymore," says Abdul Sattar Jubari, 61, a retired schoolteacher. He ignored her. "It's become a habit, like smoking."
The market is dominated by a handful of wealthy Iraqis, many of whom live outside the country and call in their orders by phone to brokers, says Taha Abdul Salam, the exchange's CEO. Foreign investors account for less than 20% of activity.
U.S. officials hope the market will expand. June Reed, a U.S. economics adviser, says a healthy exchange could serve as one of the mechanisms used ultimately to privatize state-owned companies and help attract foreign investors.
The Iraqi government has taken steps it hopes will create a more vibrant market. It has established an exchange commission that has already fined companies for non-disclosure of financial data and other violations. Iraq's parliament is currently considering a law to regulate the securities industry.
In the meantime, Iraqis are discovering the lesson learned by small investors the world over: It can be difficult to beat the market. Jubari says the few stock purchases he made — a bank and a hotel company — didn't turn out well.
"I'm waiting," he says. "Perhaps the price will go back up."
(www.iraqupdates.com)
OPEC members worried by oil price fall: Iraq
Mon Oct 6, 2008 10:51am EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - OPEC members are worried about the price of oil falling to below $90 a barrel, Iraq's oil minister told Reuters in an interview on Monday.
Hussain al-Shahristani said that the drop in oil prices to an eight-month low was due to the global economic crisis and not a change in supply. Iraq believes the fair price of oil is about $100, he added.
(www.reuters.com)
Bad day on Wall Street; the Dow under 10,000. Some are saying trading may be halted tomorrow to advert a further slide.
It is imperative we continue to hold those Dinars. Iraq is making progress and Ibeleive we are coming to the end of this ride. Yesterday, I read where the Turkish government will exchange their New Turkish Lira for the old currency. The lop is over for them and the restoration of zero's on their currency may bode well for Iraq.
Amidst the pessimism.. some notes worth highlighting.
From Fox News mainpage:
URGENT: Dow pulls back from 800-point loss to end day down 369...
Monday, October 06, 2008
Wall Street posted a dramatic comeback Monday afternoon to avoid record losses, but global credit fears still pushed the Dow below the pivotal 10,000 level for the first time since October 2004.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average slid 328.30 points, or 3.18%, to 9990.47. The broader S&P 500 Index lost 38.24 points, or 3.50%, to 1060.76 while the Nasdaq Composite fell 84.43 points, or 4.34%. to 1862.96. The consumer-friendly FOX 50 dropped 25.65 points, or 3.12%, to 797.02.
While Monday's losses were ugly, the markets were able to bounce back from the steepest intraday point loss in the Dow's history. Even at its worst level, the selloff on a percentage basis was well shy of the 22% loss on Black Monday in October 1987.
On top of the losses in the equities markets, crude oil prices were slammed by recession fears, tumbling below $90 a barrel for the first time in eight months.
Global markets tanked on Monday after European governments were forced to come to the rescue of financial institutions for the second weekend in a row.
London’s FTSE fell 7.9% for its third-worst one-day drop, Germany’s Dax ended down 7.1% and France's CAC 40 suffered its worst plunge ever. Russia halted trading three times before its markets closed down nearly 20% each.
“There seems to be this snowball effect. We’re down because of Europe and they are down because of us," Marc Pado, U.S. market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald.
The European turmoil centered around a pair of financial giants: German’s Hypo Real Estate and financial conglomerate Fortis.
Germany stepped in and offered an emergency 15 billion euro loan to Hypo Real Estate after a private solution collapsed late last week. The Dutch government seized Fortis’s operations in the Netherlands while BNP Paribas acquired the bank operations in Belgium and Luxembourg.
Responding to the financial turmoil, the Federal Reserve unveiled plans to pay interest on commercial banks’ depository reserves. The move allows the central bank to further boost liquidity without cutting key interest rates. The Fed also expanded its loan program to banks on Monday.
Economic worries were reinforced after the National Association for Business Economics said Monday that 69% of economists surveyed believe the U.S. is in or near a recession. "The general view is .... that this recession will be longer than the last two -- lasting roughly one year, but relatively mild," the NABE survey said.
Despite the overwhelming pessimism on Wall Street, some were hopeful stocks will soon find a bottom.
“I think there is a big rally in here," said Weisberg. "I think it’s way overdone on the downside… I don’t know where they bounce but there’s a bounce in there somewhere.”
Israelis dispute pro-Obama video
October 6, 2008
by Ed Morrissey
A pro-Barack Obama video being distributed by the Jewish Council for Education and Research purports to show several high-ranking Israelis as supporting Obama’s policies for Israel. Now at least some of the people featured in the video accuse the JCER of taking their remarks out of context. One of them, retired General Uzi Dayan, says he was deliberately misled as to the nature of the project:
QUOTE:
“It’s not only misleading, it was an interview about what the next president was going to have to deal with,” former deputy chief of staff Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan told The Jerusalem Post. “And to know that they used this interview and took five second, and put me in a list of people praising Barack Obama…
“It wasn’t about the campaign, it was about the political and security issues of the Middle East that the next president should be involved in,” he continued. “Nothing was said about Obama or [Republican presidential candidate John] McCain.”
“I don’t want other people to interfere in my elections, and I must not interfere with the elections in the United States,” he said, adding that to do so would be neither “ethical nor smart.” …
Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who appeared in the video praising the Democratic candidate, also said that he was misled.
“I was interviewed for a documentary dealing with what issues the new American president must deal with regarding the Middle East,” Halevy told the Post. “I was asked about the candidates, and was complimentary to both.”
===end quote==
The Jerusalem Post has the video on its page at the link. It’s obviously designed to get Jewish voters in America to be comfortable with the notion of a President Obama in terms of his policy on Israel. The statements in the video attack George Bush as an unwitting opponent of Israel, even though one of the people saying this also acknowledges that the Bush administration has been the best friend Israel has had in Israeli-American history.
The implication is that John McCain would be four more years of the same Bush policies that have not been sufficient to provide a breakthrough with the Palestinians. However, the truth is that there will not be peace between those two sides until both sides want peace rather than ultimate victory, and America can’t decide that for either. We can do a full-court diplomatic press for two years, as we have done in this administration, and Hamas and Fatah will still want to take back all of Israel, and Israelis will still not want to let them do it. America makes a handy whipping post for those who want to ignore the basic truth of that statement, but we can’t do much to bring peace to people who fundamentally reject it.
Under those circumstances, do Israelis prefer an extension of the friendship of the last eight years under a seasoned foreign-policy expert like John McCain, or a neophyte whose advisers in the area suggest transferring American military aid from Israel to Hamas and Fatah and occupying Israel with a “massive” force, as Samantha Power did? A novice with another apprentice, Robert Malley, who met with Hamas several times over the last few years? I doubt you’ll see those issues raised in the next JCER video.
Bush says rescue plan will take some time to work
By JENNIFER LOVEN
Oct 6 2008
CINCINNATI - President Bush on Monday said the U.S. economy is going to be "just fine" in the long run. But he cautioned that the massive rescue plan will take time to work.
"I believe that in the long run, this economy is going to be just fine," Bush said. In the short term, he said the Treasury Department must go about enacting its plan to buy up troubled assets from financial firms so that credit will start flowing again to consumers.
Recognizing the scope of the government's intervention, Bush to reassure his audiences that taxpayer money will not be wasted.
The president added that the country has been through rough times before, and "we're going to come through just fine."
Earlier, in Texas, Bush emphasized that the program must be effectively designed and not rushed into action.
"It's going to take awhile to restore confidence in the financial system," he said. "But one thing people can be certain of is that the bill I signed is a big step toward solving this problem."
Bush signed the bill into law after Congress approved it last week.
The catalyst for the selling was the growing realization that the Bush administration's $700 billion rescue plan and steps taken by other governments won't work quickly to unfreeze the credit markets. Global banks, hobbled by wrong-way bets on mortgage securities, remain starved for cash as credit has dried up.
The president, after a weekend at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, met with small business owners at an old-fashioned soda shop in San Antonio. He said he understands why so many people are frustrated about why they were suddenly "helping Wall Street."
"The answer is because had we not done anything, people like the folks behind me would be a lot worse off," Bush said as the business owners stood with him. "We'll make sure, as time goes on, this doesn't happen again."
Bush's comments came as his top economic advisers pledged to work with their counterparts around the world to restore confidence and stability to financial markets roiled by tight credit and worries about a global economic slowdown.
To that end, the administration was expected to announce shortly that it had tapped a 35-year-old former Goldman Sachs executive, Neel Kashkari, to head the government's rescue effort on an interim basis, according to an official who asked not to be named.
Hope and change: McCain within three among likely voters in new CBS poll
October 6, 2008
by Allahpundit
Who says I never give you good-ish news, eh?
QUOTE:
In a sign that the race for president has returned to about where it was before the first presidential debate, the Obama-Biden ticket leads the McCain-Palin ticket 47 percent to 43 percent among registered voters in a new CBS News poll.
The Obama-Biden ticket led by a wider margin, nine percentage points, in a CBS News poll released last Wednesday, before Joe Biden and Sarah Palin faced off in the vice presidential debate. Obama-Biden led by five percentage points on Sept. 25.
In the new poll, the Democratic ticket leads by 3 percentage points, 48 percent to 45 percent, among likely voters.
==end quote===
CBS notes that Obama’s numbers on the economy have dipped slightly, although why that would lead to him shedding Obama voters instead of just pushing indies towards McCain, I’m not sure. All theories welcome.
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel economics laureate - professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
===
We're Not Headed for a Depression No, this isn't the crisis that kills global capitalism.
By GARY S. BECKER
OCTOBER 7, 2008
In order to promote a much smoother functioning of the financial system, it is paramount to distinguish between the immediate steps needed to cope with the present crisis and the long-run reforms needed to reduce the likelihood of future crises. Let's start with the short-run fixes.
First of all, the magnitude of this financial disturbance should be placed in perspective. Although it is the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, it is a far smaller crisis, especially in terms of the effects on output and employment. The United States had about 25% unemployment during most of the decade from 1931 until 1941, and sharp falls in GDP. Other countries experienced economic difficulties of a similar magnitude. So far, American GDP has not yet fallen, and unemployment has reached only a little over 6%. Both figures are likely to get quite a bit worse, but they will nowhere approach those of the 1930s.
The Treasury's announced insurance of all money-market funds, and the full insurance of bank deposits, carry considerable moral hazard risks, but they have not aroused much controversy. The main thrust of the new banking law allows the Treasury secretary to purchase bank assets up to $700 billion in order to increase the liquidity of the banking system. These assets are of uncertain worth since there is essentially no market for many of them, and hence they have no market price. The government hopes to create this market partly through using auctions, where banks would offer their assets at particular prices, and the government would decide whether to buy them. I would have preferred starting with a smaller dollar value of purchases, and up the amount if the situation deteriorates further.
Partly because many consumers are repelled by the intention to bail out companies and their executives who made decisions that got the companies into trouble, the new law includes income and severance pay limits for executives whose firms seek government help. Even though one cannot think much of executives who led their banks into such a mess, that is a bad precedent since it involves too much micromanagement of bank operations. Moreover, such salary controls can be evaded by very generous fringe benefits.
The moral-hazard consequences for banks receiving a bailout now is worrisome since they may expect to get rescued again by the government if their future investments turn sour. Yet while I find helping these banks highly distasteful, moral-hazard concerns should be temporarily relaxed when the whole short-term credit system is close to collapse. Still, the bank bill with its huge bailout does suggest that the $29 billion bailout of the bondholders of Bear Stearns in March was a mistake. It seemed to have a moral-hazard effect by encouraging Lehman Brothers and other investment banks to delay in raising more capital because they too might have expected the government to come to their rescue if times got much worse. Although the government was apparently concerned that foreign central banks were major holders of the bonds, it was unwise to give them and other bondholders such full protection.
One troubling provision is that the government can take an equity stake in banks it helps. Some economists have proposed a similar role for government equity in these banks. I believe it is unwise to give governments equity in private companies, even if the government does not have voting rights in company policies. Many examples in recent history, such as the current Alitalia fiasco, show that political interests outweigh economic ones when governments have some ownership of private companies. This is likely to happen in this bailout if some banks that are helped decide to sharply cut employment in the districts of some congressmen, or to transfer many jobs overseas.
Taxpayers may be stuck with hundreds of billions of dollars of losses from the various government insurance provisions and government purchases of assets. Although the media has made much of this possibility through headlines like "$700 Billion Bailout," such large losses are highly unlikely except in the low probability event that the economy falls into a sustained major depression. Indeed, with efficient auctions, the government may well make money on its actions, just as the Resolution Trust Corporation that took over many savings-and-loan banks during the 1980s crisis did not lose much, if any, money. By buying assets when they are depressed and waiting out the crisis, the government may have a profit on these assets when they are finally sold back to the private sector. Making money does not mean the government involvement is wise, but the likely losses to taxpayers are being greatly exaggerated.
The temporary banning of short sales is an example of a perennial approach to difficulties in financial markets and elsewhere; namely, "shoot the messenger." Short sales did not cause the crisis, but reflect beliefs about how long the slide will continue. Trying to prevent these beliefs from being expressed suppresses useful information, and also creates serious problems for many hedge funds that use short sales to hedge other risks. Their ban can also cause greater panic in other markets.
The main problem with the modern financial system based on widespread use of derivatives and securitization is that while financial specialists understand how individual assets function, even they have limited understanding of the aggregate risks created by the system. That is, insufficient appreciation of how the whole incredibly complex financial system operates when exposed to various types of stress. In light of such limitations, it is difficult to propose long-term reforms. Still, a few reforms seem reasonably likely to reduce the probability of future financial crises.
- Increase capital requirements. The capital requirements of banks relative to assets should be increased after the crisis is over in order to prevent the highly leveraged ratios of assets to capital in financial institutions during the past several years. Possibly a minimum ratio of capital to assets should be imposed by the Fed on investment banks and money funds. As much as possible, the measure of capital should not be its book value but its market value, such as the market value of publicly traded shares of banks. Book value measures, for example, apparently badly missed the plight of Japanese banks during their decade-long banking crisis of the 1990s.
- Sell Freddie and Fannie.The government should as quickly as possible sell Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to fully private companies that receive no government insurance or other help. These two giants did not cause the housing mess, but in recent years they surely greatly contributed to it, partly through congressional pressure on them to increase their purchases of subprime loans. They have owned or guaranteed almost half of the $12 trillion in outstanding mortgages while having a small capital base. The housing market already has excessive amounts of government subsidies, such as from the tax exemption of interest on mortgages, and should not have government sponsored enterprises that insure mortgage-backed securities.
- No more bailouts. The "too big to fail" approach to banks and other companies should be abandoned as new long-term financial policies are developed. Such an approach is inconsistent with a free-market economy. It also has caused dubious company bailouts in the past, such as the large government loan years ago to Chrysler, a company that remained weak and should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy. All the American auto companies have asked for and received handouts too since they cannot compete against Japanese, Korean and German car makers, partly because these American companies have been incredibly badly managed. A "too many institutions in trouble to fail principle," as in the present financial crisis, may still be necessary on rare occasions, but failure of badly run large financial and other companies is healthy and indeed necessary for the survival of a robust free-enterprise competitive system.
Is this a final "Crisis of Global Capitalism" -- to borrow the title of a book by George Soros written shortly after the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98? The crisis that kills capitalism has been said to happen during every major recession and financial crisis ever since Karl Marx prophesized the collapse of capitalism in the middle of the 19th century. Although I admit to having greatly underestimated the severity of the current crisis, I am confident that sizable world economic growth will resume before very long under a mainly capitalist world economy.
Consider, for example, that in the decade after various predictions of the collapse of global capitalism following the Asian crisis, both world GDP and world trade experienced unprecedented growth thanks to the power of market competition on a global scale. The South Korean economy, for example, was pummeled during that crisis, but has had significant economic growth since. World economic growth will recover once we are over the present severe financial difficulties.
Knowing this ISN'T a depression in the making... (previous post)
What do you make of the actions of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?
In a recent newsletter I received, Martin D. Weiss noted:
QUOTE:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just announced, “One of the individuals in the caucus today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company — one with a name that everyone knows that's on the verge of going bankrupt.”
Almost immediately, investors slaughtered insurance stocks. Prudential fell 11% ... Met Life plunged 14.9% ... and Hartford plunged 32%.
Reid’s office instantly switched into damage control mode, claiming that the Senator really meant that the entire financial sector is on the verge of mass bankruptcy. That wasn’t exactly reassuring to insurance investors either, and their stocks promptly plunged some more.
==end quote==
What could be the possible reason(s) for causing such a selloff in the marketplace?
Does Obama win more votes as the economy becomes less stable?
Is the MSM helping the perception that the economy is less stable than it is..
for political gain?
Or was it simply more irresponsible behavior we have come to expect from incompetent politicians?
Giving Reid the benefit of the doubt.. Maybe he "didn't know" that the first statement would cause mass selloffs?
So then.. his office then made it more official for the entire sector to get taken down further in the second statement?
They just.. didn't anticipate that happening - is that what you would say?
Hmm.. how come I could see it would happen that way?
Why is it that I could understand and see..
That Reid saying the ENTIRE FINANCIAL SECTOR is on the verge of mass bankruptcy.. might precipitate further selloff?
Could you see that, too?
So, was it totally innocent.. OR calculated?
What do you judge about the "good intentions" during a Presidential race by Democrat elites like Reid?
And with the MSM singing merrily in tune about the damages and playing the crisis up to the skies..
all the while Obama gains in the polls as the public perception favors Obama to "help" with economics..
What do you think of the "good intentions" of Obama and Democrat elites like Reid?
"Scaremongering" ?? For political gain?
Or mere incompetence and inability to act with statesmanship and wisdom?
A fall in the number of attacks across Iraq has emboldened a growing list of companies, including ArcelorMittal, Royal Dutch Shell and Cairn Energy, to explore opportunities in the resources-rich country for the first time since the invasion.
(www.noozz.com)
SIIC adheres to draft new article over minorities, says Taqi 07/10/2008 13:37:00
Baghdad (NINA)- Legislator of the United Iraqi Alliance Ridha Jawad Taqi, also a leader within the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, said that the SIIC intends to draft a new article to ensure minorities’ rights within the provincial elections law.
(www.ninanews.com)
IOM praises Iraqi policies for encouraging returnees
Population 10/7/2008 4:04:00 PM
GENEVA, Oct 7 (KUNA) -- According to IOM's latest Displacement and Return Assessment Report published this week, the Government of Iraq is placing increased emphasis on the return of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and refugees through a variety of legal and practical measures, including an allocation of USD 213 million for all expenditures related to return support.
The spokesperson for the International Organization for Migration (IOM) Jean-Philippe Chauzy told reporters that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Order 101, which took effect on September 1st, requires that all squatters vacate houses they unlawfully occupy in Baghdad or face prosecution. All squatters who accept to leave property will receive USD 255 per month compensation for six months, to help them identify alternative housing options.
"As of 21 September, and based on available information from the Ministry of Displacement and Migration (MoDM) returnee registration, IOM and field visits by MoDM monitors, UNHCR rapid assessments, and other sources, 16,782 families totalling 100,692 individuals have returned to Baghdad," said Chauzy. An additional 11,986 returnee families have been identified in the rest of the country, 8,691 of whom are in Anbar and Diyala governorates. Countrywide, 92% of returns are from internal displacement.
According to Chauzy the estimated number of IDPs since the bombing of the Samarra Al-Askari Mosque in February 2006 is almost 1,596,448 individuals. This figure, combined with the estimated 1,212,108 individuals who were internally displaced before February 2006, means that more than 2,8 million individuals are currently displaced within the country. (end) hn.bz.
KUNA 071604 Oct 08NNNN
(www.kuna.net.kw)
Comments