Resistant Rumsfeld to testify on Iraq

[Steve Savicki]

<center>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq</center>

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is trying to convince lawmakers that the war in Iraq is not breaking the Army and that extending the tours of some troops is necessary to quell increasing violence in the region.


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top military officers are to testify Thursday before Congress, already bitterly divided over the war. In addition, fresh reports have said that up to two-thirds of the Army's combat units are unprepared for wartime missions because of the strain of operations in Iraq.

Rumsfeld said Wednesday he essentially was too busy to testify before the
Senate Armed Services Committee and would instead attend a private briefing with the entire Senate on Thursday. He changed his mind after hours of criticism and pressure from Senate Democrats, including Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who said the Pentagon chief should be accountable to the public by answering questions on the war.

The Pentagon offered no reason for Rumsfeld's change of plans. Earlier, it had said the defense secretary has made an aggressive effort to meet with lawmakers regularly, including testimony at an appropriations hearing earlier this year and at other classified briefings.

Rumsfeld's relations with Congress have been testy at times and he occasionally has resisted testifying publicly on contentious subjects, including the debate over whether high-level officials should be held accountable for the
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

The Pentagon this week announced its decision to extend the tours of an Alaskan Army brigade to bolster security around a volatile Baghdad and push troop levels to roughly 135,000 — dashing the Bush administration's hopes of dropping the figure by tens of thousands by the fall congressional campaigns.

Yet Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, said Thursday in Baghdad that his government is "highly optimistic that we will terminate terrorism this year. The Iraqi forces will take over security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of this year gradually, and if God's will, we will take the lead." After the comments, his staff sought to explain that Talabani was referring to the beginning of a "process" for Iraqis to assume control, not the final step.

Democrats in Washington have highlighted the Army readiness issue as an example of the administration's mishandling of the war. They urged the president this week to begin by the end of the year pulling troops out of Iraq.

Bush consistently has said there will be no such pullout until the fledgling Iraqi government can secure its position and Iraq's security forces can defend the country. Republicans have backed their GOP president on the issue, but have acknowledged their frustration with the length of the war and the delayed homecomings.

"That's a very difficult thing for us," said Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, of the Pentagon's decision to keep in Iraq some 3,500 members of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Wainwright in Alaska.

In a letter to Bush released Monday, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate said they believed the war was overtaxing the military and failing to calm the sectarian violence.

<center>
Why so resistant, Rummy? Are you afraid the truth's going to come out?</center>

[binnie]

I hope we get footage of that over here, it will be interesting.

[Nickdfresh]

http://static.flickr.com/9/11466164_ec08aa1357_m.jpg

"Who are you to question me whilst I cunningly combat the treacherous enemies of freedom?"

[Hardrock69]

Of course he would have NEVER missed a Senate Appropriations hearing!

Got to keep the CASH FLOWING or else his overlords in the Military Industrial Complex will start to get kinda pissed off......we can't fail to take advantage of billions of dollars that this war generates, now can we?

:rolleyes:

Human life does not even enter into the equation.

To Rumsfeld, Chimpy, Cheney, and all the other goons in the current administration, human life means nothiong.

If there were trillions of dollars to be made by waging PEACE, then any WAR would be put down immediately.

But the reality is that peace makes no money for the powers that be.

Therefore they will stop at nothing to keep the war going.

If peace breaks out in Iraq (god forbid), then they can skip on over to Iran and keep the war going. Or they can jump over and start assisting Israel as it stomps around it's neck of the woods.

It is more likely than not that many of the car bombs in Iraq are provided by forces who answer to the US intelligence community.
By ensuring the continued destabilization of Iraq, they ensure the extension of the deployment of US forces, thus ensuring the continual flow of dollars into the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex.

They will do ANYTHING to keep the flood of cash alive.

Even kill Presidents who try to stop it.

The above is just another reason why Rumsfeld does not want to be held accountable for his actions.

If he is called upon to justify the continued deployment of armed forces in the Middle Eastern Theater of Operations, the political pressure to withdraw would jeapordize the budget for Defense appropriations, and he CANNOT allow that to happen.

Not only that, by keeping the Middle East in a constant state of destabilization, it will ensure that oil prices will be extremely (and artificially) high, and Chimpy and his family (including the Saudis) will continue to reap billions of petro-dollars, and they too will stop at nothing to keep the cash flooding into their already bloated bank accounts.

This is also why the oil companies and auto manufacturers only pay lip service to "alternative fuels" and other new technology that could end our dependence on oil forever.

Who wants to help the human race?

Not Chimpy....not his administration, not big business, not the Military Industrial Complex. Their sole interest in any welfare of the Human Race is to forward their agenda for reaping profits, and staying in total control of Earth.


So yes, our presence in Iraq IS failing to calm sectarian violence. The Pentagon and the Chimpy Administration have no interest whatsoever in calming sectarian violence, as it would ruin their plans.

[Nickdfresh]

Sen. McCain just asked him about the endemic corruption in Iraq.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Not only that, by keeping the Middle East in a constant state of destabilization, it will ensure that oil prices will be extremely (and artificially) high, and Chimpy and his family (including the Saudis) will continue to reap billions of petro-dollars, and they too will stop at nothing to keep the cash flooding into their already bloated bank accounts.



LMAO!

I really shouldn't be laughing, as there are many people with a similar twisted view...

You need to stay far away from those crack-pot conspiracy websites...


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
LMAO!

I really shouldn't be laughing, as there are many people with a similar twisted view...

You need to stay far away from those crack-pot conspiracy websites...


:elvis:

Um, like your views on Global Warming? And H69's views are confirmed every time I fill up my cars...

[Nickdfresh]

Generals Raise Fears of Iraq Civil War
Thursday, August 3, 2006 12:40 PM EDT
The Associated (http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=1017&id=12989822&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCL2_UNEWS) Press
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two of the Pentagon's most senior generals conceded to Congress on Thursday that the surge in sectarian violence in Baghdad in recent weeks means Iraq may descend into civil war.

"Iraq could move toward civil war" if the violence is not contained, Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," he said, adding that the top priority in Iraq is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war." He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

"Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other," Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome. "The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government."

President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have steadfastly refused to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, although Rumsfeld at a news conference on Wednesday acknowledged that the violence is increasing.

The commanders' remarks about the threat of a civil war came just three months before congressional elections in which Bush administration policy in Iraq looms as a defining issue. Many voters have tired of the 3-year-old war, which has cost more than 2,500 U.S. lives and more than a quarter trillion taxpayer dollars.

They also come at a time when thanks to the high level of violence in Baghdad, administration hopes have diminished of significantly reducing the U.S. force in Iraq, which Rumsfeld said currently totals 133,000. Last year, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed hopes of significant troop cuts this year, comments that Abizaid seemed to temper on Thursday.

"Since the time that General Casey made that statement, it's clear that the operational and the tactical situation in Baghdad is such that it requires additional security forces, both U.S. and Iraqi," Abizaid told Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee.

"It's possible to imagine some reductions in forces, but I think the most important thing to imagine is Baghdad coming under the control of the Iraqi government," Abizaid said.

Later in the hearing, the general expressed confidence that the Iraqi government is moving in the right direction.

"Am I optimistic whether or not Iraqi forces, with our support, with the backing of the Iraqi government, can prevent the slide to civil war? My answer is yes, I'm optimistic that that slide can be prevented," Abizaid said.

Later in the hearing Pace told the committee that his comment about the possibility of civil war did not mean he expects one. "Speaking for myself, I do not believe it is probable," he said, because the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military are not breaking apart.

Asked whether the United States would continue to have a military mission in Iraq in the event that civil war did break out, Rumseld declined to respond directly, saying that it could give the impression that he presumes there will be a civil war. "Our role is to support the government. The government is holding together. The armed forces are holding together," he said.

Bush last week approved an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad as part of a new effort to help Iraqi security forces get a grip on the sectarian tensions.

Abizaid also said under questioning that it was possible that U.S. casualties could rise as a result of the battle to contain sectarian violence in the capital.

"I think it's possible that in the period ahead of us in Baghdad that we'll take increased casualties — that's possible," he said.

Rumsfeld, who testified alongside Abizaid and Pace, did not comment directly on the prospect of civil war but said Iraq's future lay in the hands of Iraqis, beginning with a reconciliation process that has yet to get under way.

"Ultimately the sectarian violence is going to be dealt with by Iraqis," Rumsfeld said.

And under tough questioning by Sen. Hillary Clinton about previous appearances before the committee, he denied that he had ever "painted a rosy picture" of the situation in Iraq.

Pace said he did not anticipate one year ago that Iraq would now be in danger of plummeting into civil war. Abizaid said it was obvious a year ago that sectarian violence was on the rise, and that Iraq's police forces did not develop as well as U.S. officials had expected.

"It's vital that we turn this around," the general said.

Pressed about the prospect of reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq, Rumsfeld stuck to his usual assertion that it depends on conditions and on the ability of the Iraqi government to suppress sectarian tensions. He said the Pentagon is seeking a careful balance between having too few troops and having too many.

"That's a fair tension there," Rumsfeld said.