Bush Administration spokesperson General Petraeus and his sidekick Ryan
CrockerCrockObull are headed back to Washington again today with those gorgeous graphs to fool Congressgive Congress an update on the 6 monthno 1 yearno, ah hell, the never ending surge. They will, of course, say everything is going fantastic with the surge and they only need another Freidman Unit6 months just to make sure.
That brings me back to the title of this post. What ever happened to the 18 benchmarks? You know, the ones our
gloriouspathetic leader Bush told us about in his State of the Union address on January 23, 2007 justifying his surge"New Way Forward" in Iraq.
America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
Lest we forget, here are the benchmarks...
1. Perform constitutional review.
2. Enact de-Ba'athification reform.
3. Implement oil legislation.
4. Form semi-autonomous regions.
5. Hold provincial elections.
6. Address amnesty.
7. Disarm militias.
8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan.
9. Provide military support in Baghdad.
10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces.
11. Ensure impartial law enforcement.
12. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government.
13. Reduce sectarian violence.
14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad.
15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Forces.
16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature.
17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably.
18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference.
Fifteen months later we are no closer to meeting these benchmarks than the day the "SURGE" started three Friedman Units ago. Well then, what was the purpose of the surge you ask? Bush/Cheney/McCain have changed the goal post so many times it is hard to remember. Which is exactly what they are hoping for.
excusepurpose of the surge was to provide the "breathing space" for political reconciliation to occur. Yet three Friedman Units18 months later, political progress has been scant, and what progress has been made is not durable. The Iraqis have not made the difficult political compromises necessary for national reconciliation, and an indefinite U.S. presence in the region will not inspire them to do so. Despite the best efforts of our military men and women in creating a temporary lull in violence, substantial advancement toward a sustainable and independent Iraq has not been made.
The only success has been that slight but temporary decrease in violence in Iraq. But even that has less to do with the SURGE and more to do with the temporary cease fire called by Moktada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army AND the briefcases full of money we give to the various militias each month so they don't attack us.
This is progress? We are no better off now then we were in 2005. The real questions Petraeus needs to answer..
1. Have the results of the SURGE been worth the lives of the 1000 Americans who died during this time?
2. Have the results of the SURGE been worth the 120 Billion dollars it has cost?
3. Have the results of the SURGE been worth the crippling of our military infrastructure?
4. Is the Iraq government any closer to meeting the benchmarks NOW than 2 years ago?
THE ANSWER TO ALL 4 QUESTIONS IS NO
But do you really think Bush, Cheney, McCain and Petraeus give a damn?
Couchmouses Corner, April 21, 2008, 10:22amby couchmouse, obtained via:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)