U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 27, 2009 04:27 PM UTC
14 Comments
.
The top commander of US ground forces in Iraq says that the Iraqi Security forces are not yet able to secure key cities,
so US troops cannot leave, even though the SOFA says we will pull out of cities by June 2009.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/…
He hints that the Iraqi government will ask the US to stay longer. I’ll be back later to relate how the Iraqi public responds to this development.
.
The SOFA premises that June 30th deadline for some troop withdrawal on
Do you object to the Government, the representative of the people, determining whether or not certain cities and areas are secure enough to allow US troops to leave? That’s the Government’s job, is it not?
.
From my jaded, cynical point of view,
I interpreted the SOFA as the “Iraqi government” negotiating with the US occupation army to pull out.
I use quotation marks, because I don’t believe a native “government” is sovereign as long as there is a foreign army in the capital, holding the final say over all decisions. Such is the case in Baghdad today, I believe.
I thought that Bush was negotiating to get the Iraqis to agree to let us stay as long as possible,
and the Iraqis were negotiating to get us to leave as soon as possible.
The June 2009 and December 2011 dates were compromises between those competing objectives.
This belief was reinforced in the recent provincial elections, with the main issue being which party could get the Americans out the quickest.
But now Dabee suggests that the Iraqis want us to stay, if I understand you correctly.
It is as if the Iraqis believe what the occupation spokesmen say about them needing us there to maintain stability.
That is a very interesting perspective, and we can read about Iraqis spouting such nonsense in the US press, but not so much in the Iraqi press. The sources for such views are articles written by the Lincoln Group, under contract to MNF-I, which are then printed in the Iraqi newspapers funded covertly by the occupation. Then the Washington Times and NYT pick up those stories and run with them.
I don’t know enough Arabic to read those newspapers and websites in the original Arabic, but sites like Informed Comment and IraqSlogger provide credible translations.
Bottom line: unless they live in the Green Zone, or work for the occupation, or are Kurd, all Iraqis want us out yesterday.
The idea that Sunnis want us to stay to protect them from the Iraqi Shi’a or the Persians is a meme from the Neocons.
In every Iraqi jurisdiction, there is at least one Iraqi authority ready to take over today. In some places there is more than one, and they will sort that out.
Another Neocon meme is that the Iraqis cannot provide their own logistics or intel or aviation needs. Well, guess what ? Neither can the MNF-I.
The US contracts for all of those support activities today. What’s to keep the Iraqis from taking over those contracts ?
Once again demonstrating my mental slowness, I am not sure which government this refers to.
The Government that consists of US bureaucrats and US military officers ?
That is the de facto government of Iraq today. They hold the power, and they make the decisions.
I don’t think you mean that the occupation should decide when the occupation should end. If it were up to the US generals, the war would never end. Generals don’t go into combat, and generals don’t go weeks without a shower. A wartime general, like a wartime President, enjoys power and perks that they miss in peacetime.
I think you mean the “government” of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the guy we handpicked in May 2006 when the Iraqis chose the wrong guy (al-Jaafri) in the December 2005 election.
While they cannot legitimately be called “representative” of the Iraqi people until they win a free and fair election,
the first of which might be conducted later this year (December 2009,)
this Quisling “government” is more representative than the US Commanding General and his staff.
OK.
Let’s hear from them.
But, as of today, they have NOT asked us to stay in any cities past June. That would sink their chances in the upcoming election.
No, this is the US ground commander saying he is not ready to abide by the SOFA.
.
I generally don’t jump into Iraq issues on blogs…
If you’re not going to accept the Iraqi Government’s position (and legitimacy to take that position) that certain areas are not ready to “assume full responsibility,” a condition of the SOFA, then there’s not much for us to talk about. There’s only one Iraqi government, “handpicked” as it is, and their position on meeting or not meeting a withdrawal date, that they compromised on with us, is the only position we can work with.
You make the argument that most of the Iraqi people don’t “want” our military occupying their country. Well, of course, that’s not really the question. We know that. It’s not about whether they “want” us there, it’s about where our forces are needed for a time beyond the June 30th deadline. Regardless of that being a “neocon meme,” it’s a meme that some Iraqi officials are agreeing with.
If these “officials” are part of the Government and get to decide the SOFA can be ignored…well…then that’s the deal. That’s the Iraqi Government’s position. Who else are we supposed to negotiate with? Do you want to hold a referendum or something? That’s not how governing works…you know that.
If you want to make the argument this is nothing more than a power-grab by power hungry America military officials, go right ahead. But don’t use the article you linked to do it.
.
I’ll be back to post an acknowledgment and a concession.
If it truly was the Iraqi Government’s position that they are not ready to “assume full responsibility” in certain areas, then individual members of that administration would say so publicly, I should think.
But if General Austin cannot publicly name an Iraqi official that agrees with him,
because they don’t want to be thrown out of office, or killed,
or because they only say that to him privately because they know its what he wants to hear, consistent with the Arab manner,
he will be extending his stay in those cities in violation of the SOFA.
We will know which it is soon enough (94 days.)
.
.
Every time my assertions about the Iraqi “government” being dominated and controlled by the US military are undermined or disproven,
it is a good thing.
This is something I want to be wrong about. I wish it wasn’t so. Gradually, it is changing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
Favorite quotes:
and
The first quote indicates that Iraqis think they are ready to take charge of their own country, despite US warnings that they aren’t ready yet.
The second quote helps illustrate the kind of cult President Bush depended on for intel on the “Iranian Bomb.”
.
have to give the OK to stay? I believe that’s the case, but am not completely sure.
Without getting into the politics of our side, weren’t members of their Parliament threatening as the SOFA was signed that if we missed the deadlines, for any reason, they would start treating our troops as violent invaders?
I guess my point is, what could be so out of control that it’s worth losing soldiers to what previously would’ve been considered friendly fire? For that reason, I predict that the agreement will stand unless the Iraqi gov’t is on hands and knees, pleading for us to stay. As you’ve pointed out, probably not going to happen.
Yeah, right:
Obviously this never would have happened if the government didn’t mandate loans for low-income people. Right, Laughing Boy?
More can be read at link at the top. HT to SLOG.
money to buy sports cars as collector’s items. Now, not so much. The sports cars turned out to be a better investment than my diversified mutual fund investments.
The wrong is in the way the money is acquired, not in how it is spent.
Make yr money ethically and legally (and the ethical part is very important) and you can spend it how you see fit. But it’s funny how crooks often do this with their stolen money.
http://www.fortmorgantimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/dome-range—state-supremes-get-it-wrong/
We keep hearing that insolvent banks, insurance companies, car companies, etc. are too big to fail. So why isn’t anyone questioning why they were allowed to get so big in the first place and amass such economic power that their failure results in holding a gun to the taxpayers’ collective heads and ordering them to hand over their wallets?
Interesting story in Time or Newsweek about three brand new banks in Florida. All are taking in new accounts and making loans beyond their business plans by several years and orders of magnitude. I guess the public likes the idea of small, conservative, local, banks.
I used to be with the CU credit union but they became just another bank. I wasn’t a shareholder so much as someone to suck fees out of. I opened an account with itty bitty Liberty Savings Bank; they have a branch in Englewood and oddly, here in Sarasota. (Others in a handful of states, too.) Talk about personal service, I won’t bore you with several examples.
Now, your question about how did those other banks get so big. In part, they became more than banks, taking deposits and making loans. They became investment houses, mortgage lenders (this used to be the exclusive domain of the S&L’s.) Also, the Sherman Antitrust Act has pretty much been ignored for decades.
FDR and the New Dealers distrusted concentration of power. Now we know why.
from breitbart.com h/t Dave Barry.