DeFazio impressed with Army, Iraqi work

[central scrutinizer]

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/01/30/d1.cr.defazio.0130.html

Our progressive congressman, Peter DeFazio, just returned from touring Iraq. As expected, he praises the work of our soldiers there, so the title of the article is slightly misleading. He has been a tireless defender of veterans and veterans' benefits. But in the article is his account of the state of affairs.

Excerpt:

U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio knows firsthand just how dangerous Iraq is.

It's so bad that military escorts accompanying DeFazio and other visiting U.S. legislators couldn't decide whether to drive or fly the party from the Baghdad airport to a downtown command compound - all of about 5 miles.

In the end, they drove, a harrowing trip because there wasn't enough of the ceramic body armor to go around and DeFazio had to do without.

It's so bad that the legislators weren't even allowed to spend the night in Iraq, but were instead flown out to Jordan and back in the next day.

"We don't have control of this country. It's not safe," DeFazio said Thursday after returning to Eugene.

[HuckleB]

1. DeFazio is a great truthteller.

I'm glad to know he went.

[GregW]

2. That's my Congress Critter!

DeFazio is a great guy - met him a few times and see him around town from time to time.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Pretty positive looking title on that article eh?

"We don't have control of this country. It's not safe,"

Things are much worse than we are being told (we really aren't being told anything). Noticed that there aren't anymore fluff pieces coming out of Iraq, the kind with the army guy in full battle gear holding a huge machine gun, with the tear in his eye looking at the unkempt Iraqi children saying "I guess this is why we are here".

[central scrutinizer]

4. I really like this paragraph

There he saw a cement plant up and running that Halliburton had said would cost $26 million and take a year to build, but that Iraqis had put together for $70,000 in just a few months.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. It would probably take 26 million

If you needed 100's of armed guards from Indonesia, truck in all the supplies, including food for the workers, from Kuwait, hardened bunkers for living quarters & plenty of profit...

[central scrutinizer]

6. They are not all Kuwaitis

according to DeFazio:

While eating one night with soldiers, he discovered that the people working behind the food line - employed by Halliburton - were East Indians, not Iraqis.

[0rganism]

8. And this one

Foremost, he wants better gear for U.S. troops putting their lives on the line, not just more body armor, but special radio-jamming devices that block the signals that set off roadside bombs, and more armored Humvees. "With all the closed auto plants in the United States, you'd think we could ramp up and produce a few lines," (DeFazio) said.

Peter DeFazio is definitely one of the 20 best things about Oregon.

[stevedeshazer]

7. I sure wish DeFazio...

...would run against Gordon Smith for a Senate seat in 2008. Hell, I'd support him for President.

Progressive Democrats ought to read this from his floor speech last October regarding the extra $87 billion for Bush's war:

Madam Speaker, well, that was a quite a week's work for the United States Congress. We just managed to add $87 billion to the debt of the United States of America if this legislation stands in conference with the Senate. $87 billion will be borrowed to continue the conflict in Iraq and to build a vibrant new economy for Iraq, roads, bridges, highways, telephone systems, 9/11 ports, a lot of things that we could use here in the United States, investment that if it was made in the United States, would put more than a million people to work.

But in the wisdom of the Republican majority in the House, this will be money that will be borrowed and spent in Iraq. They would not allow us to convert it to loans. One gentleman from Indiana famously stood up with an amendment to convert it to loans last night. He knew his amendment was not going to be made in order. He got an hour to debate it and then went away like a sheep when his amendment was not allowed, did not even challenge the ruling of the Chair, did not even try to get a vote. And then when he was offered a chance to vote on a democratic amendment to turn it into a loan because they have $7 trillion of oil reserves, he voted no.

People like that are going to have to explain that to their constituents. How is it more important that the working people of America assume billions of dollars of debt, that people for three generations are going to repay over the next 30 years for the people of Iraq so they may prosper, so they may better exploit their $7 trillion of oil reserves, and we cannot ask them to contribute to that process. It is not about war damage. It is about the damage done to their economy by a brutal dictator.

Here are a few things that were not in the bill. Even though we are borrowing $87 billion, it did not include $4.6 billion transferred from rebuilding Iraq to quality-of-life enhancements for our troops so they can have potable water, health and dental screening, postdeployment health care coverage for the Guard and Reserve, prepaid phone cards, transportation home on leave, they would not allow that. It was more important to borrow the money and spend it on Iraq.

source: http://defazio.house.gov/101703DEStatement3.shtml

[JohnyCanuck]

9. Another account of Army/Iraqi relations.

This is an account by a US doctor of a recent visit to Iraq and a meeting he attended between Iraqis and a US Army colonel.

Hilfiker, a poverty doctor for many years and also the author of, among other works, Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, reported for Tomdispatch from Iraq before the April invasion of that country and recently made his second postwar trip there as part of a Christian Peacemaker Team delegation. (The Christian Peacemakers now have a permanent presence in Baghdad.) He is a sober and fair man, ready to consider all sides of any matter. Here is his report on one local incident, a single close-to-the-ground encounter between Iraqis and their occupiers. I commend it to you. Tom

<snip>

"I'm working to transcend family, tribal, and religious boundaries," said Col. Sassaman. "The only way we're going to get this thing really fixed is for Iraqis to work with Iraqis." They had set up a radio station and newspapers (subject to the criterion that nothing be written against the occupying military forces), reinforced the local Iraqi police, and developed an Iraqi Civilian Defense Corps of about 200 people that provided rural security, "sort of like a county sheriff."

<snip>

The lawyers began to describe an incident in October when a car was shot up by American troops and children killed. Almost before they started, Sassaman interrupted them. "Yeah, I know about that. That wasn't our unit; that was somebody else, but we had to go in and clean up the mess, anyway. Do you think I like it that children were killed?" He was already angry, and I must admit I felt some sympathy for him.

It was quickly clear from his body language and his curt responses, however, that he was in no way disposed to listen to these lawyers. I was shocked some minutes later when he became particularly irritated and, turning to us, blurted out without preface or explanation: "You need to understand that these people are Muslim, and their values are just different from Judeo-Christian values. They aren't for doing things for other people like we are; they're only out for themselves."

As mentioned further on in the report Col. Sassaman is the US Army colonel who told journalist that with a heavy dose of fear and violence and a lot of money for projects they could convince the Iraqis that the US Army was there to help them.

http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1218

[GreyV]

10. Support the troops!

Why, how dare you JohnyCanuck!? Why, Col. Sassaman is probably killing, maiming, and generally oppressing them backward Muslims who are glad we liberated them! Shut up you anti-American terrorist!

/sarcasm off

[GreyV]

11. I like this part....

>>>>He flatly denied that either men or women had been taken in without being allowed to clothe themselves fully, and he emphasized that he is not authorized to detain people just because they are family members of suspects. He assured us that his troops didn't usually handcuff the detainees. He preferred, he said, to leave them uncuffed, so that "if they run we can use any level of force necessary to control them. Once we cuff 'em, we can't touch 'em."

That phrase, "any level of force," left no doubt in my mind that he was referring to lethal force. But why would he deliberately leave people uncuffed, opening up the possibility of flight? His comment was so incongruous, given everything else he'd said, that I wasn't sure I'd heard correctly. As our group was large, none of us asked a follow-up question.<<<<


Just like the LAPD.