"Let me also say that the last four years have been riddled with bad predictions and broken promises in Iraq - and I understand that."
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) lets a little truth slip out on MPR
Norm went to Iraq for his very own "dog and pony" show over Labor Day weekend. He went looking for any possible signs of progress. Then he came back to Washington, DC to carry water for President Bush's failed war.
Coleman strongly endorsed the current U.S. strategy in Iraq and the current military-diplomatic leadership team of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. He said the U.S. Congress, that will hear their report next week, will find them very credible. He called Petraeus "the best we’ve got," and raved about Crocker’s fluent Arabic and ability to connect with the locals.
(Eric Black Ink
Back on Capitol Hill, U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting Tuesday afternoon about the forthcoming GAO Report. The report does not paint the rosy picture of Iraq that Norm would like. As usual, Norm attempted to defend the indefensible.
It was striking how uniform the senators were in their pessimism. Only Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, challenged Walker on his findings. Coleman, who had just returned from Baghdad after spending the weekend with General Petraeus, said that the general had shown him numbers suggesting that the number of enemy attacks was in decline during the month of August. Kerry interrupted, pointing out that, historically, the month of August is usually quiet. Coleman responded that the numbers he had seen in Baghdad were undeniable and compensated for any seasonal fluctuation in insurgent activity. Walker admitted that he had not seen the numbers for August, but that anecdotal information suggested that there was no noticeable downturn in the number of attacks.
(Mother Jones, MoJoBlog)
Ha! Norm sure showed him! Norm attempts to entrap Walker with some mysterious, contrary numbers produced by Gen. Patreaus. However, Patreaus' numbers are more likely than not false, his methods are designed to mislead and the Pentagon is not cooperating with the GAO which I'm sure nobody will find surprising.
The GAO’s statistics, which extend through the end of July, demonstrate that the number of daily attacks against Iraqis remains unchanged. Walker said the Pentagon has refused to provide him with the latest statistics. "We asked for but did not receive the information through the end of August." he said. "They haven’t given us the data."
...
Ilan Goldenberg writes that one explanation for the contrary reports is because the military is not counting deaths from car bombs. The National Security Network notes that Petraeus has made a number of statements about the results of escalation that have been contradicted by Iraqi government data, independent media reports, and other U.S. agencies.
NSN writes, "The numbers have raised such alarm bells that a member of the Iraq Study Group, former ambassadors and leading academics have written to Congress asking them to look into the validity of U.S. government claims."
(Think Progress)
So much for Norm's gotcha moment. He keeps carrying water for people who lie and mislead. I want to now return to Norm's conference call so that he can attempt to paint himself as a realist concerning Iraq. If only what he was saying was even close to reality.
"I think the unmistakable message has to be sent to the Shia leadership that there is no blank check for Iraq," Coleman said. "That we have made gains at great cost -- cost in human lives, cost in dollars from United States taxpayers. We've made tremendous gains, but they need to be matched by the same kind of unyielding commitment to success that our troops have reflected and produced."
(MPR)
Eric Black has the whole call available here. It's about 45 minutes long.
Great cost? A tiny percentage of the population even knows someone serving in Iraq let alone have had their lives directly affected by the war. Cost in lives? Most Americans probably have no idea how many American soldiers have died. Our insulation from the toll of this war by the Bush Administration as well as the media-lapdogs is unpardonable. Cost in dollars? For the first time in our history, a President provided tax cuts to the wealthy instead of raising taxes on everyone. Republicans claim that America has paid a penny for this war is false, we've borrowed money to pay for it -- China is buying treasury bonds financing this war. The cost for this war will be paid for by future generations who will have to deal with China's large stake in our debtload.
Tremendous gains? Reported Iraqi deaths have risen steadily during the escalation. The Bush Administration finally figured out what New Yorkers have known for decades, if the numbers aren't getting better, just play with the statistics. The Bush Administration no longer counts bombing deaths in their statistics. The escalation was supposed to provide the Maliki government breathing room in which they could pass innumerable laws to get Iraq moving toward a stable government. It. Has. Not. Happened.
There are so many tremendous gains, that I have a hard remembering them all. We've decreased the availability of electricity in Baghdad. It used to be 12-15 hours a day right around the time His Shrubness declared 'Mission Accomplished', now its just a couple of hours per day. Millions of Iraqis are refugees in surrounding countries. Our brave troops have built hospitals and schools. No ... check that Halliburton and the other war profiteers have built them. And they haven't done a good job. The war profiteers repaired the power plants, oil pipelines and refineries, but nobody is maintaining them. Billions of barrels of oil are going missing. The roads and highways are a disaster. We're now cooperating and arming all sides of this four-way civil war. 180,000 rifles and pistols have disappeared under Gen. Patreaus -- they were given away and nobody kept track.
Those sure are some tremendous gains, Norm.
There is one specific 'tremendous gain' I will specifically address, sectarian violence. Norm and his fellow Republican war supporters will claim that it's down. They will cite Patreaus' statistics. The only way that sectarian violence has reduced is that so many people have either been killed or fled their homes to safer areas that the death squads have fewer and fewer to kill. That is clearly not 'tremendous progress' but the inevitable outcome of ethnic cleansing.
Now Norm will point to a few anecdotes and statistical anomalies as proof the escalation is working all the while hiding behind withdrawing a mere 3% of the soldiers as proof of progress. He will fail to mention that these troops must be rotated out anyway and that there are no troops ready to replace them.
Just a rough guess, but I suspect there have been at least 100 stories in the MSM since January, and 10-15 or so in the last month explaining that the extra 30,000 troops Bush sent over for the "surge" could not stay there beyond next April because we’d have to rotate them out. Secretary Gates and others promised they would not extend the length of the Army’s 15-month Iraq tours, and there were no additional troops we could rotate in to replace those we have to take out to keep that promise. We’ve had story after story explaining that we’re already breaking the Army and being cruel to their families, and we have to end this.
So no matter what, the US is going to reduce by about 30,000 the number of troops in Iraq starting in the next 6-8 months. No matter what, we’re going to bring them home. We’re going to do it whether the "surge" is a "success" or a "failure," whether we’ve achieved the latest version of our objective or we haven’t, whether al Maliki gets an oil law passed or sells all the oil to China, or whether he rehires all the ex-Baathists Bremer fired or deports them to Tom Tancredo’s District with fake Social Security cards.
General Casey and the Joint Chiefs have told us repeatedly we can’t sustain the extra 30,000 soldiers in Iraq; they’ve told Bush that in face-to-face meetings. The New York Times and the Washington Post just reported the meetings in which these messages were delivered. In fact, the Times story reported that one of the issues discussed in the meetings was whether it was wiser to start the draw down earlier and more slowly, to give us a strategic cushion we currently don’t have, or to wait until April, when the withdrawal would need to occur more rapidly and inflexibly to meet the inexorable rotation requirements.
(firedoglake)
However, don't forget that Norm has always and still opposes establishing timelines for withdrawal of American troops.
Nevertheless, Coleman said he returned from Iraq firmly opposed to congressionally mandated deadlines for withdrawal. Rather, he said, deployment decisions should be set by military commanders based on conditions on the ground, which he said have improved sufficiently to permit a modest troop withdrawal without undermining recent military gains.
(Minneapolis Star Tribune)
Next I should consider the Iraqi government. They have failed to meet so many benchmarks that it's comical. They. Are not. Ready. Except maybe to collapse if we don't prop them up.
But Norm has an answer to that. The Senator who has been opposed to any benchmarks now wants commitments (but probably no benchmarks) from the Iraqi government that they'll begin holding up their end of the bargain.
"We should expect from the Iraqis the same type of committment that we're getting from our men and women. And so I think the signal has to be sent, and I think this is a clear way to send a signal."
(MPR)
The GAO report, now softened by complaints from the Bush Administration, still says that the Iraqi government has failed 11 of 18 Congressional benchmarks. It was originally 15 out of 18 failing. Then there's this from the WaPo which shines light in a new way on how much we prop up the Iraqi government.
The United States turned over sovereignty to an Iraqi government in June 2004 after a 14-month occupation. But for many Iraqis, the United States remains the only source of basic services, protection and infrastructure — functions the new government was supposed to perform. The result is a dilemma for U.S. officials and particularly the reconstruction teams that are the cornerstone of the rebuilding effort. When Americans step in to provide services that the government does not, they foster dependence and undermine the institutions they want to strengthen.
"It’s always a dilemma. Should we do it? Or should we let the government do it? We are the government for them," said Tatem, of Reston, Va. "But what happens after we leave? Does it all fall apart for them? And will this allow the insurgents to gain control by giving them what they need?"
Since April, scores of reconstruction teams have been dispatched across Baghdad and other volatile areas to help stabilize Iraq. Made up of aid workers, diplomats and military officers, they include experts in agriculture, economics, engineering and other fields. They help create small businesses, generate jobs, support agricultural unions and work with local and provincial governments to provide essential services in areas where the dominant power is the U.S. military.
"We can fire the police chief, we can get the mayor removed if we want. Iraq is a sovereign country, don’t get me wrong, but I wonder how much they would get their act together if our presence was reduced," said Maj. Craig Whiteside of the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment.
"It’s impossible to put the American military somewhere and not have everybody, when they have to make a decision, ask, ‘Is this okay, boss?’ "
In this region, where Sunnis and Shiite groups are battling for power, U.S. reconstruction efforts are largely focused on Sunni areas ignored by the Shiite-led government. U.S. officers say the Iraqi government is unwilling to spend money on Sunni areas because the United States is doing so.
(Washington Post)
How is it even possible for anyone to expect the Iraqi government to hold up their end of the bargain? A desperate Senator like Norm facing a voting public increasingly unhappy with his stance on the war, that's who. He will continue to try and sell Minnesotans this: 'Don't look at the facts, look at these shiny objects over here ... aren't they pretty?'
Another strategy to distract Minnesotans is his desire to sound like he's critical of the Bush Administration's policies. During the upcoming campaign he will want to claim that he's not been a lapdog of the Bush Administration. Here's what a bit from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Coleman also signaled frustration with the Bush administration's recent diplomatic efforts, saying, "It's not enough just to send Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice into the region for a couple of days."
Though a frequent critic of the United Nations, he called for a greater degree of involvement by the world body, and echoed Democrats' calls for a stronger diplomatic initiative in the Mideast.
"We need a diplomatic surge," Coleman said.
(Star Tribune)
Its important in this context to recall the last time Norm was critical of the Bush Administration's Iraq policies: he was initially opposed to the surge, then he was opposed to surging in Baghdad but for it in Al Anbar province, then he was opposed to the opposition to the surge and in the end he continued to vote in lock-step with his fellow Republicans.
I've detailed the chronology of it on the Iraq War page of the Norm Coleman Weasel Meter. Five years into the war and Norm wants more UN involvement? Now we need a diplomatic surge? It is comical how Norm never mentioned this when getting UN involvement would have made a difference. Like in 2003. Now Norm would like the organization that he has villified on many occasions to bail out or at least assume the disaster that Iraq has become.
Norm criticism of the Bush Administration now is simply passing the buck onto someone more unpopular than him. It is craven and it is irresponsible. He has been a cheerleader for this war until the 2006 elections scared him. His recent criticism is empty.
I'll end with this snippet from MPR so that this post begins and ends with a smidgeon of truth from the lips of Norm:
While Coleman's comments on bringing home troops will put some distance between himself and the White House, he made another comment that might narrow that gap.
Coleman had opposed President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, a plan known as "the surge," especially as it related to Baghdad (although he wasn't opposed to sending more troops to Anbar Province).
"I questioned the surge in the beginning," he said. "I was wrong in my assessment of what the surge could accomplish. I was wrong."
He said the surge has been a success, including in areas around Baghdad.
In Coleman's trip, he visited with both Petraeus and Crocker, as well as U.S. military officials and Iraqi government officials.
"What I saw and what I heard was as optimistic as I have heard the four times I've been in Iraq," Coleman said, noting he was able to visit Ramadi, once an insurgency stronghold but now relatively peaceful.
In a trip to Iraq last December, members of Congress weren't allowed to visit the city.
"Al-Qaida is on the run," Coleman said, which he credited to U.S. military efforts as well as support from the local community.
But he added: "Let me also say that the last four years have been riddled with bad predictions and broken promises in Iraq - and I understand that.."
[emphasis mine]
(MPR)