Changing the Course in Iraq

[Human]

Cut, and Run. Great Idea there. Because of your politics, the middle east WILL go nuclear, and so WILL Latin America.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I voted for him. Now its time for Barack Obama to get his out of Iraq.

 

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/DebateSC

[Luke_Wilbur]

I agree with Human. Right or wrong we have committed our nation to the war in Iraq. We owe it to the soldiers and citizens of Iraq who gave their lives for this cause. But, we need to somehow get the government of Iraq moving a little faster in securing hostile areas. We also need to give Iraqis more jobs and basic utilities before they lose faith in us. Finally, as long as US armed forces are in Iraq their governemtn should pay our country's military expenses with their oil revenue.

[Guest Senator Chris Dodd]

America doesn't start wars -- we end them. We don't turn away from the world -- we lead it. And we don't commit torture -- we condemn it.

 

If you share these ideals for our nation and want to drive change forward, you must have the courage to act now. We cannot wait -- America's future is at stake.

[Guest salparadyse]

America doesn't start wars -- we end them. We don't turn away from the world -- we lead it. And we don't commit torture -- we condemn it.

 

If you share these ideals for our nation and want to drive change forward, you must have the courage to act now. We cannot wait -- America's future is at stake.

 

 

Iraq happened for two reasons - oil and domination.

 

Iraq is a message to the world just as Nagasaki was.

 

The message says "do as you are told or this is what will happen to you".

 

Bush can easily stand there in the spotlight and say "Iraq has been a success" because the plan was to destroy Iraq as a country and to plunder its resources and as such the plan has indeed been a success. Regime change does not involve the deliberate and systematic destruction of a nations food manufacturing, storage and distribution infrastructure. It does not involve the destruction of hospitals and water purification plants. These are the acts of criminals, of destroyers, of people who want nothing more than the total destruction of a nation

[Guest Gupta]

Iraq happened for two reasons - oil and domination.

 

Talking at an Air Force base in Ohio about the fighting in Iraq, Bush warned that a defeat for the U.S. and its allies “would endanger Iraq’s oil resources and could serve as a severe disruption to the world’s economy,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

 

This isn’t the first time Bush has warned of global economic doom if “we” lost in Iraq. Right before the 2006 midterm elections, during a series of campaign stops, he said:

 

“You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources. And then you can imagine them saying, ‘We’re going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, ‘Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.’ ”

Bush said extremists controlling Iraq “would use energy as economic blackmail” and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be “able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel.”

 

Even the Washington Post noted the absurdity of Bush’s prediction. While oil markets have tightened in recent years – due mainly chaos in Iraq and Nigeria and U.S. efforts to destabilize oil-producing governments like Iran, Venezuela and Sudan – the notion that Iraq pulling its then 1.6 million barrels a day of exports off the international markets would send prices into the stratosphere was without foundation. Smaller but not insignificant disruptions in Nigeria and Venezuela have fed into higher oil prices, but nothing on the scale Bush predicted.

[Guest LAW_*]

The international energy market has always rested on the possibility that major market participants might be required to use force to defend or manage its operation. The prospect was made plain even before the end of the Second World War, when Franklin Roosevelt took it upon himself to guarantee the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia, by way of securing its cooperation in the orderly production of oil in line with American requirements.

 

Yesterday, one of Iraq's two main oil export pipelines Basra (Iraq's second largest city) was blown up. Saboteurs attacked Iraq's southern pipeline system on the third day of a military operation against fighters loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the oil port of Basra. U.S. crude settled up $1.68 to $107.58 a barrel.

 

Southern Oil Company (SOC) stated at a press conference. "The pipeline has not been blown up, but has suffered considerable structural damage which will block oil supply via it for three to four days, thats after a fire there is brought under control. It is thought that saboteurs damaged the underside of the pipeline by placing some kind of explosives beneath it and then detonated them."

 

The Iraqi government launched a major military operation in Basra Mar. 25, targeting districts of the city where the militiamen loyal to al-Sadr have a strong presence. The violence has killed more than 130 people and sparked angry protests and violence in Baghdad, as well as Basra.

 

In a brief statement released in this holy Shi'ite city south of Baghdad, Sadr said he wants "everyone to pursue political solutions and peaceful protests and a stop to the shedding of Iraqi blood."

 

The statement was relayed to he media by Sadr's close aide Hazem al-Aaraji.

 

James Ritterbusch, president of Ritterbusch & Associates oil consultants, said oil prices could reach new record highs should the Iraq war heat up further.

 

When the normally patient politicians like Jawad al-Maliki speak about the operations by American forces as "criminal," we should be alarmed. Iraqi TV showed graphic pictures of dead people whose bodies sustained more than just bullets. Eyewitnesses claim they were tortured before they were killed.

 

This tension may be settled when a new Iraqi Oil law is created to distribute the wealth among the regions and religious groups within the country.

[Guest Ben Lando]

The Iraqi military assault in Basra has seen a huge swing in new violence not only in Iraq’s second largest city and key oil hub, but throughout the south and especially in Baghdad. A special session of Parliament was called but only 54 of 275 members could make it to the Green Zone as the usually safer area was shelled, the BBC reports.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7317935.stm

 

Thousands loyal to cleric Moqtada Sadr rallied in the Baghdad neighborhood Sadr City and called for Prime Minister Maliki to resign, the Voices of Iraq news agency reports. Sources tell Iraq Oil Report that areas of Baghdad controlled by the Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, are on lockdown in protest, halting business in the capital that had seen an increase in stability after the surge.

 

http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php?...p;article=29117

 

In Basra, Iraqi armed forces stunned once again by the strength of militias relied on U.S. backup Erica Goode reports for the International Herald Tribune.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/28/mideast/iraq.php

 

British airstrikes have also started in Basra, the South London Press reports.

 

http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/south...-name_page.html

 

Thousands loyal to cleric Moqtada Sadr rallied in the Baghdad neighborhood Sadr City and called for Prime Minister Maliki to resign, the Voices of Iraq news agency reports. Sources tell Iraq Oil Report that areas of Baghdad controlled by the Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, are on lockdown in protest, halting business in the capital that had seen an increase in stability after the surge.

 

http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php?...p;article=29117

 

Moscow has stepped up its attempts to become Washington’s main rival in the Middle East with an audacious attempt to win a large stake of Iraq’s oil wealth, Adrian Blomfield reports for The Telegraph. Glossing over his opposition to the American-led invasion and a prolonged period of poor relations with Baghdad, President Vladimir Putin wrote to Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, this week setting out the case for Russian investment in the energy sector.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../wrussia128.xml

 

It was announced this week that Lukoil president Vagit Alekperov visited the Middle Eastern country and reached an agreement with its leadership to establish a working group that will work out conditions for implementation of the West Qurna-2 project, Marina Pustilnik also recaps for Moscow News. In addition to this, Lukoil’s subsidiary Lukoil Overseas will take part in tenders for development of new fields in Iraq after the country’s government approves the new Law on Oil.

 

http://mnweeklyspammer/business/20080327/55319287.html

[Guest Sabah Jawad]

Basra Assault Confirms Presence of British forces a Threat to Political and Trade Union Rights in Iraq

 

In a series of telephone calls from Basra over the past 48 hours, Iraqi trade union activists appeal for solidarity and describe how the so-called ‘Security Plan’ started midnight 24 March with intense shelling and fire from all kind of weapons.x

 

The attacking forces now besieging Basra stretched all the way to the city from Dhi Qar province. Two armoured divisions are deployed, in addition to thousands of policemen, backed by US and British planning and air cover. They have cut off electricity supplies, food and water on the city of 1.5 million people. Hundreds have been killed or injured in a savage, premeditated and unprovoked attack, now spreading to much of Iraq as the people protest and show solidarity with Basra’s beleaguered people.

 

They describe the attack as far worse than the invasion of 2003 and begun in the same barbaric manner that the criminal Saddam employed against Basra to crush the March 1991 people’s uprising. They remind us that the present puppet Iraqi government sentenced Saddam’s Defence Minister to death few months ago for similar crimes of waging war on civilians. The assault is

backed by the US and British occupation forces, particularly in providing

air cover. US planes are also bombarding areas in the Basra, several southern cities and Baghdad, where tens of thousands marched yesterday denouncing the “puppet regime”. It is now, along with many other cities, under a strict curfew enforced by regime and occupation forces.

 

Trade union leaders have asked us to inform the public in Britain that the government’s attack on Basra serves the occupation. The city is “steadfast” and the onslaught will end in “utter failure.” The city streets were free of the occupying forces before the assault and the regime’s attacks will

make it even more dependent on the occupation forces, they stressed.

 

Naftana, the UK support committee for the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions in the struggle for democratic trade unionism in Iraq, condemns British collusion in the preparation of the assault on Basra city and British participation in air strikes.

 

Naftana urges all to join in calling for an immediate withdrawal of British forces from Iraq, ending the US-led occupation, and the payment of reparations to Iraq.

 

In the absence of adequate media coverage of the nature and context of this savage onslaught, Naftana wants to set the record straight on UK involvement.

 

In December 2007, the Basra Development Commission (BDC) was formally announced after discussions between Gordon Browne and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih. (1) Browne appointed a British businessman, Michael Wareing, Chief Executive of KPMG International as “Commissioner”, apparently heading the BDC. (2) Wareing visited Basra in February and made outrageous comments, confirming his real interests to be those of predatory

business rather than the security, development and well-being of Basra and its people.

 

Wareing told The Observer: “If you look at many other economies in the world, particularly the oil-rich economies, many of these places are quite challenging countries in which to do business. … Frankly, if you can successfully operate in the Niger Delta, that is a very different benchmark

from imagining that Basra needs to be like London or Paris.” (3)

 

Wareing’s appointment was welcomed by Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a major advocate of the 2003 invasion and of privatisation. On March 13 the British Defence Minister Des Browne met with Salih in Basra Airport. Browne promised to show new action on ’security’ in Basra province and to bring Umm Qasr port up to ‘the highest international standards’. (4) What this meant was made clear by Salih who threatened the Governor, people of Basra and port workers’ union of Umm Qasr saying ‘there must be a very strong military presence in Basra to eradicate these militias’. (5)

 

What Salih, himself a former militia leader, was concerned about were organised port workers who had earlier confronted the American SSA Marine corporation in Umm Qasr and the Danish Maersk corporation in Khor az-Zubair in the two years after these companies were imposed by the occupying forces in 2003. (6) The new plans involve privatisation measures opposed by

the port workers, who are supported by other trade unions and port management. It is likely that the planned corporate takeover of the port is required in order to facilitate the activities of international oil companies.

 

Nevertheless, the scale of what was afoot was not apparent, but the link between military action and breaking trade unionism was. On March 17-18 the US Vice-President Dick Cheney was in Baghdad meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who presently heads the attack on Basra city. (7) Top of the agenda was the oil law (8) and how to insure its passage. The oil law means that international oil majors will control Iraqi oil for many decades.

 

Various reports reveal that the present carnage was coordinated and agreed with British and American leaders. Naftana believes they commanded it. Why? The tide of national public opinion has turned against long-term troop deployment in both the UK and the USA. If the war was fought for oil and total domination of Iraq, then those most closely associated to those

interests must speed up their plans. The present onslaught aims to break popular resistance, especially from the Sadrist movement, to the passage of the oil law and to the occupation itself. Beyond that, with local elections looming next autumn, it aims to destroy morally and physically the popular base which would otherwise be set to drive, first from local power, and subsequently from national power, the US/UK allies, Nouri al-Maliki (al-Dawa party), his main allies in the Supreme Islamic Council, led by Abdulaziz al-Hakim, and the Kurdish leaders, Talbani and Barzani.

 

Naftana calls on all who support democratic trade unionism to stand by the people of Iraq, with the port workers of Umm Qasr and the oil workers of Southern Iraq, with workers in Baghdad and many other cities who are in danger of physical elimination.

 

Naftana For further information on Naftana and IFOU: Sabah Jawad – 07985 336886 sabah.jawad@googlemail.com

Kamil Mahdi – k.a.mahdi@exeter.ac.uk

Sami Ramadani – 07863 138748 sami.ramadani@londonmet.ac.uk

 

(1) http://www.eeegr.com/events/info.php?refnu...amp;startnum=A0

(2) http://www.kpmg.com/Press/KPMGLeaderappointed.htm

(3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/iraq.oil

(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7294144.stm

(5)http://www.nytimes.com/2008

/03/13/world/middleeast/13basra.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=iraqi+troops+move+to+seize+control+of+iraqi+port&st=nyt&oref=slogin

(6) Since 2003 the first shortened its name to SSA Marine. See on Umm Qasr:

http://www.allbusiness.com/transportation/.../5665051-1.html

and http://www.publici.net/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=56

and on Khor az-Zubair http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13196

and http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12490

(7) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120593326652748375.html

(8)http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080317082409.1u8it4sf&show_article=1

[Guest LAW_*]

The Green Zone has come under intense mortar and rocket attack over the past week as Mehdi Army fighters loyal to Sadr have battled Iraqi and U.S. security forces in the capital and in southern Iraq.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastC...s/idUSCOL127908

[Guest Michael Schwartz]

A tidal wave of misery is engulfing Iraq-and it isn't the usual violence that Americans are accustomed to hearing about and tuning out. To be sure, it's rooted in that violence, but this tsunami of misery is social and economic in nature. It dislodges people from their jobs, sweeps them from their homes, tears them from their material possessions, and carries them off from families and communities. It leaves them stranded in hostile towns or foreign countries, with no anchor to resist the moment when the next wave of displacement sweeps over them

[Guest The White House]

the following is a statement by the President on Iraq:

 

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Fifteen months ago, I announced the surge. And this week, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave Congress a detailed report on the results.

 

The immediate goal of the surge was to bring down the sectarian violence that threatened to overwhelm the government in Baghdad, restore basic security to Iraqi communities, and drive the terrorists out of their safe havens. As General Petraeus told Congress, American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress in all these areas. While there is more to be done, sectarian violence is down dramatically. Civilian deaths and military deaths are also down. Many neighborhoods once controlled by al Qaeda have been liberated. And cooperation from Iraqis is stronger than ever -- more tips from residents, more Iraqis joining their security forces, and a growing movement against al Qaeda called the "Sons of Iraq."

 

Improvements in security have helped clear the way for political and economic developments described by Ambassador Crocker. These gains receive less media coverage, but they are vital to Iraq's future. At the local level, businesses are re-opening and provincial councils are meeting. At the national level, there's much work ahead, but the Iraqi government has passed a budget and three major "benchmark" laws. The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces. And many economic indicators in Iraq -- from oil production to inflation -- are now pointed in the right direction.

 

Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq, from the presence of al Qaeda to the destructive influence of Iran, to hard compromises needed for further political progress. Yet with the surge, a major strategic shift has occurred. Fifteen months ago, America and the Iraqi government were on the defensive; today, we have the initiative. Fifteen months ago, extremists were sowing sectarian violence; today, many mainstream Sunni and Shia are actively confronting the extremists. Fifteen months ago, al Qaeda had bases in Iraq that it was using to kill our troops and terrorize the Iraqi people; today, we have put al Qaeda on the defensive in Iraq, and we're now working to deliver a crippling blow. Fifteen months ago, Americans were worried about the prospect of failure in Iraq; today, thanks to the surge, we've renewed and revived the prospect of success.

 

With this goal in mind, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have submitted recommendations on the way forward. After detailed discussions with my national security team, including the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I've accepted these recommendations.

 

The recommendation likely to receive the most attention is on troop levels. General Petraeus has reported that security conditions have improved enough to withdraw all five surge brigades by the end of July. That means that by July 31st, the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be down by 25 percent from last year.

 

Beyond that, General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

 

Some have suggested that this period of evaluation will be a "pause." That's misleading, because none of our operations in Iraq will be on hold. Instead, we will use the months ahead to take advantage of opportunities created by the surge -- and continue operations across the board.

 

All our efforts are aimed at a clear goal: a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs. No one wants to achieve this goal more than the Iraqis themselves. Those who say that the way to encourage further progress is to back off and force the Iraqis to fend for themselves are simply wrong. The Iraqis are a proud people who understand the enormity of the challenges they face and are anxious to meet them. But they know that they still need our help until they can stand by themselves. Our job in the period ahead is to stand with the Iraqi government as it makes tough choices and makes the transition to responsibility for its own security and its own destiny.

 

So what will this transition look like? On the security front, thanks to the significant progress General Petraeus reported this week, it is clear that we're on the right track. In the period ahead, we will stay on the offense against the enemy. As we speak, U.S. Special Forces are launching multiple operations every night to capture or kill al Qaeda leaders in Iraq. Coalition and Iraqi forces are also stepping up conventional operations against al Qaeda in northern Iraq, where terrorists have concentrated after being largely pushed from central and western Iraq. And Prime Minister Maliki's government has launched operations in Basra that make clear a free Iraq will no longer tolerate the lawlessness by Iranian-backed militants.

 

In the period ahead, we'll also continue to train, equip, and support the Iraqi security forces, continue to transfer security responsibilities to them as provinces become ready, and move over time into an overwatch role. The Iraqi army and police are increasingly capable, and leading the fight to secure their country. As Iraqis assume the primary role in providing security, American forces will increasingly focus on targeted raids against the terrorists and extremists, they will continue training Iraqi forces, and they will be available to help Iraq's security forces if required.

 

On the economic front, Iraq is moving forward. With Iraq's economy growing, oil revenues on the rise, and its capital investment expanding, our economic role in the country is changing. Iraqis in their recent budget would outspend us on reconstruction by more than ten to one. And American funding for large-scale reconstruction projects is approaching zero. Our share of Iraq's security costs will drop, as well, as Iraqis pay for the vast majority of their own army and police. And that's the way it should be. Ultimately, we expect Iraq to shoulder the full burden of these costs. In the period ahead, Iraq's economy will increasingly move away from American assistance, rely on private investment, and stand on its own.

 

On the political front, Iraq has seen bottom-up progress -- as tribes and other groups in the provinces who fought terror are now turning to rebuilding local political structures and taking charge of their own affairs. Progress in the provinces is leading to progress in Baghdad, as Iraqi leaders increasingly act together and they share power, and they forge compromises on behalf of the nation. Upcoming elections will consolidate this progress. They'll provide a way for Iraqis to settle disputes through the political process instead of through violence. Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year, and these elections will be followed by national elections in 2009.

 

On the diplomatic front, Iraq will increase its engagement in the world -- and the world must increase its engagement with Iraq. To help in this effort, I'm directing Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus to visit Saudi Arabia on their trip back to Iraq. I'm directing our nation's senior diplomats to meet with the leaders in Jordan, the UAE, and Qatar, and Kuwait and Egypt. In each capital, they will brief them on the situation in Iraq, and encourage these nations to reopen their embassies in Baghdad, and increase their overall support for Iraq. This will be followed by Secretary Rice's trip to the third Expanded Neighbors Conference in Kuwait City and the second International Compact with Iraq meeting in Stockholm.

 

A stable, successful, independent Iraq is in the strategic interests of Arab nations. And all who want peace in the Middle East should support a stable, democratic Iraq. And we will urge all nations to increase their support this year.

 

The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make. It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners.

 

On each of these fronts -- security, economic, political, and diplomatic -- Iraqis are stepping forward to assume more responsibility for the welfare of their people and the fate of their country. In all these fronts, America will continue to play an increasingly supporting role.

 

Our work in Iraq will still demand sacrifices from our whole nation, especially our military, for some time to come. To ease the burden on our troops and their families, I've directed the Secretary of Defense to reduce deployment lengths from 15 months to 12 months for all active Army soldiers deploying to the Central Command area of operations. These changes will be effective for those deploying after August 1st. We'll also ensure that our Army units will have at least a year home for every year in the field. Our nation owes a special thanks to the soldiers and families who've supported this extended deployment. We owe a special thanks to all who serve in the cause of freedom in Iraq.

 

The stress on our force is real, but the Joint Chiefs have assured me that an all-volunteer force -- our all-volunteer force is strong and resilient enough to fight and win this war on terror. The trends in Iraq are positive. Our troops want to win. Recruiting and retention have remained strong during the surge. And I believe this: I believe the surest way to depress morale and weaken the force would be to lose in Iraq.

 

One key to ensuring that our military remains ready is to provide the resources they need promptly. Congress will soon consider a vital emergency war funding request. Members of Congress must pass a bill that provides our troops the resources they need -- and does not tie the hands of our commanders or impose artificial timelines for withdrawal. This bill must also be fiscally responsible. It must not exceed the reasonable $108 billion request I sent to Congress months ago. If the bill meets all these requirements, it will be a strong show of support for our troops. If it doesn't, I'll veto it.

 

Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher. Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense. Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again. Yet our defense budget accounts for just over 4 percent of our economy -- less than our commitment at any point during the four decades of the Cold War. This is still a large amount of money, but it is modest -- a modest fraction of our nation's wealth -- and it pales when compared to the cost of another terrorist attack on our people.

 

We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq.

 

Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran. If we fail there, al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq, and our failure would embolden its radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region. The Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Pakistan would grow in confidence and boldness. And violent extremists around the world would draw the same dangerous lesson that they did from our retreats in Somalia and Vietnam. This would diminish our nation's standing in the world, and lead to massive humanitarian casualties, and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland.

 

On the other hand, if we succeed in Iraq after all that al Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran. It would demonstrate to a watching world that mainstream Arabs reject the ideology of al Qaeda, and mainstream Shia reject the ideology of Iran's radical regime. It would give America a new partner with a growing economy and a democratic political system in which Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together for the good of their country. And in all these ways, it would bring us closer to our most important goal -- making the American people safer here at home.

 

I want to say a word to our troops and civilians in Iraq. You've performed with incredible skill under demanding circumstances. The turnaround you have made possible in Iraq is a brilliant achievement in American history. And while this war is difficult, it is not endless. And we expect that, as conditions on the ground continue to improve, they will permit us to continue the policy of return on success. The day will come when Iraq is a capable partner of the United States. The day will come when Iraq is a stable democracy that helps fight our common enemies and promote our common interests in the Middle East. And when that day arrives, you'll come home with pride in your success, and the gratitude of your whole nation. God bless you. (Applause.)

 

END 11:42 A.M. EDT

[Guest Vets for Freedom PAC]

Last week, General Petraeus was back on Capitol Hill to testify before Congress. Senator Barack Obama was there too, but not for long. He stayed in the committee meeting long enough to ask one question, before ducking out to head back to the campaign trail. This wouldn't normally be a big deal, except ...

 

Senator Obama has never sat down, one-on-one, with General Petraeus. Even worse, he hasn't visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. And on April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in his office, just wouldn't come out.