Summary: the site whocalled.us is cool. Here's why.
I keep getting calls every month or two, and mailings, from something called "warranty division" at 723 (New Jersey area code) 242-6506, and 723 242-6512. The mailing says I am about to expire my factory warranty on a vehicle I bought a few years ago. The mailings have the VIN number and some model info printed on the top. So it looks legit, right?
Except that I got an offer from the manufacturer, soon after I bought the vehicle, to purchase an extended factory warranty. And I bought it. So when I see these mailings, it reminds me of the time that I thought I bought the warranty via phone and credit card only to have it screw up and not go through; it took two tries to get it right after that. Because of that snafu, I always have lingering doubts about whether my warranty is good, even though the warranty service card sits in the vehicle and the contract is in my files (somewhere).
Since the caller ID from Warranty Division pops up occasionally, I decided to call them back a few days ago. I got a phone answering machine saying I can be removed from the Warranty Division caller list if I leave my number. No operator, no electronic voice mail system, just a hoaky answering machine and a "beep." So I left the nastygram.
And today a man called back. I said "Is this the factory warranty center? Because I already bought a factory warranty." He didn't answer yes or no, but instead said, "It's possible the VIN number on your warranty contract doesn't agree with what's on record, and the dealer doesn't have a record of your warranty." So at that point, rather than explode, I said, "I have the contract here, let's give it a look right now." He said "OK." I just happened to have the file handy, because I went and checked all this stuff yesterday. And I got it. And the warranty with the factory had the VIN that matched my title. And when I got back on the phone, he was gone. He hung up.
Next I called my local car dealer, and asked them to not release my personal info for sales of other produts. They said that was already their policy. So how did these guys get the info? He figured it was probably the State Motor Vehicle records that led them to me (but how did they get my number? I'm unlisted, and as of a month ago I'm on the National do-not-call list). He also had the opinion that they are trying to scam me to buy something, that they have been operating this way for years, and that I would probably not be happy with the warranty they sell, and if I have a factory extended warranty to ignore them, and there has been no success in stopping their scam marketing efforts. Oh.
So I called back the Warranty Division, and again got the same message machine I got a few days ago. I left a message that they could stop their calls again please, and that their rep had hung up when I pressed him. And that I would certainly send this info to my State Atty. General and perhaps the Atty. General in New Jersey. Argh!
Now, here is a great way to dig up info: whocalled.us is a great site. You put in the area code and number from your caller ID, and there it is: a form tells you how many other callers logged the same call, a form to report your incident. There is a place to put in a comment about what happened, and read other folk's comments and what they found out about the caller. Great resource!!
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Creation Museum
I was just listening to Chris Hodges on the radio, delivering an address in Colorado January 2007. (This is a very smart fellow. I am getting worried about a creeping tide of fascism in the US, especially religious tyrany, whether directed at, well, anyone.) He mentioned this nugget, "The Creation Museum," and sure-as-shit, here it is, opening in Ohio in 2007, thanks to some "godly men" (their words, not mine, see the FAQ below). From their web site:
"About the Creation Museum: The 50,000 sq. ft. Creation Museum located within the greater Cincinnati area will proclaim the Bible as supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice in every area it touches on. Set to open in June 2007, this “walk through history” museum will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture."
OhhhKayyyy????? The hosting website is Answers in Genesis: "Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." Sorry, not for me, thanks. I wonder if the public school kids will go on field trips in their big yellow (taxpayer-funded) school buses to the wonderful creation museum, hmmm?
So, Why? Let's read their words in the FAQs in Answers in Genesis. right at question #1.
"Why is this museum needed? Our increasingly anti-Christian country must return to a belief in the authority of the Bible and be presented with the life-changing gospel message. Evolutionary indoctrination has undermined the Christian foundations in America."
First off, I don't consider the foundation of the country to be Christian. I consider the foundation of this country to be freedom of, and also freedom from, religion. You can have yours, or none at all, and I for my choice can have mine, or none at all. Why is our country turning so anti-agnostic and anti-atheist?
Second, why are these religionists trying to destroy science? Didn't the enlightenment teach mankind anything... remember Galileo's little dust-up with the church over whether the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe versus the theory of heliocentrism? More from the FAQ:
"What is so different about this museum? Almost all natural history museums proclaim an evolutionary, humanistic worldview. For example, they will typically place dinosaurs on an evolutionary timeline millions of years before man. AiG’s museum will proclaim the authority and accuracy of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and will show that there is a Creator, and that this Creator is Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:15-20), who is our Savior.
So who do we thank for doing this? I mean besides... Glad you asked, the FAQ has the answer.
"Who are the leaders of Answers in Genesis? AiG’s board of directors consists of Christian leaders who are thoroughly committed to proclaiming biblical truths and reaching the world for the cause of Christ. The individual members bring to the board a wide background of professional and pastoral experiences. Each is a godly man who walks with the Lord in wisdom and maturity. AiG’s president is Ken Ham, well-known speaker, author and radio host. AiG is a non-denominational ministry, having no affiliation with any particular denomination."
Got to like the "just a Christian, no denomination" part; floating above the rest of the christians, are you? Well, enough of this bollocks. Good grief, the guy moved from Australia to the U.S.; Aussies, it's your lucky good fortune he left you. Thanks a lot.
By the way (if you've read this far, dear reader), check out the documentary film Jesus Camp. Really. Came out on DVD in 2007 already, I just watched it last month. Go right now to your Blockbuster, rent it and watch it. Blockbuster carries this, right? Still think I'm paranoid? Can you now agree that we are seeing a rise of a fascist movement here in the U.S.?
WTF.
Monday, March 12, 2007
No child left behind: Brzezinski gives Bush an "F." Let's not let Georgie fail!
"How do you expect a democracy in that setting? " An (another) F for George Bush.
Bloomberg TV interview broadcast Monday 12 March 2007 of Zbigniew Brzezinski, and discussion of his recent book, "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower." ZB now at the CSIS: Center for Strategic & International Studies.
Notes to follow.
--------------------------------
[] Is Congress taking the wrong approach to Iraq?
I think the Congress has no alternative, given the fact that the elections last November were fought largely over the Iraq issue, and the Democratic congress came to power because it had a very critical view of the stewardship of the president of the Iraqi war. So we are seeing the preliminary skirmishing, but I think the Congress really has to do what it is trying to do.
[]So the Bush administration, potentially, is making an error on this, as far as Iraq goes?
That depends. The president obviously is personally committed. He doesn't want to, in effect, have his policy refuted. But to the extent that he can succeed in blaming the Democrats for the "lack of victory," even though his definition of victory was really unrealistic, then to that extent he can score some political points. This is why I call it skirmishing.
[] Well you are quite critical of the Pres in a new book that you have written... You give the current president a grade of an "F". What has he failed at, in your view?
I think he has failed in global leadership, and I think that is the greatest tragedy of his administration. You know, he came to power with America still standing tall, after the leadership provided, first of all by his father, then, with some failings, by president Clinton. But he has managed to undermine American credibility, world wide, American legitimacy, worldwide, and respect for American power, worldwide. That is a real disaster. And this is why---in that table that I have ranking the three presidents in different categories---I do, very reluctantly as a citizen, give him the grade of F, failure.
[]Some of his supporters might argue that the president has kept America safe from any further terorist attack. How do you factor that into the equation?
I think the evidence for that is limited. First of all, thousands of Americans have died since then, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan has been neglected, thereby letting al Qeada reconstitute itself . It is true that domestically there has been no act of terror, but that's hardly related to what we have been doing in Iraq. In part it may be good work by the law enforcement agencies; in part it may be because al Qeada was disrupted initially in Afghanistan and hasn't had time yet to stage a come-back.
[]What should president Bush be doing now... to improve his grade?
I would think he should be giving serious negotiations a serious chance. He and his secretary of state have been so dismissive of diplomacy. They have been saying that diplomatic efforts are not worthwhile unless we know in advance that those we negotiate with agree with our positions. Well, that's a non-starter, in giving diplomacy a chance.
I think the conference over the weekend in Iraq with all of Iraq's neighbors suggests that the neighbors, at least, including Syria and Iran, recognize that a disrupted exploding Iraq is not in their interest. And therefore we should be able to exploit that attitude, to try to formulate some political context for the termination of the war, including American disengagement from Iraq.
[] You talk, in your book, about [how] America needs to restore its political credibility and legitimacy. If that's the case, how can the US move forward successfully on the diplomatic front, if it's lacking some of that that you mention in the book.
I think only by proving credibly that it is serious about negotiating. If our definition of negotiations is that we only talk to those who, in advance, agree to our demands, then we'll never demonstrate credibility and legitimacy in seeking alternative solutions to those imposed by force. Sometimes you have to use force. But when you choose to use force before giving the other alternative a chance, then the responsibility rests on you to be effective in the use of force. And the sad, sad fact of our engagement in Iraq is that the President has bungled badly in deciding to go to war, and then in the way he has waged that war.
[] Is Iran a major threat to the United Staes?
It is a country that is weak economically and militarily. It may, at some point, have weapons of mass destruction, but that's years away. We have time to undertake a serious effort to deter and forestall that from happening: by accomodation, by compromises, by promoting, at the same time, a dialog with the Iranians. Because we know that a large proportion of the Iranian people like America and don't like being ruled by the mullahs. And if we are smart about it, I think we can avoid the worst, and have our cake and eat it too---that is to say, have some accomodation with Iran while at the same time getting the Iranians not to cross the t's and dot the i's in the quest for nuclear weapons.
[] Do you think democracy is achievable in Iraq, if so when? And should American troups withdraw immediately?
I think American troups should withdraw within a year or so, while we go about creating a political context that absorbs some of the consequences of the withdrawl. And this is why the political effort is so needed.
Will there be a Democracy in Iraq? No! I don't think so. I think this was a totally unrealistic objective, made even less likely by the destructive impact of American war in Iraq on the Iraq society.
Just consider this one short list of figures. The Iraqi population was twenty-four million when we walked in. Two million have fled the country, probably the ablest and best educated. A million and a half have been displaced. And according to the John Hopkins University study, about a half million more were neither born, or died earlier than they would have. A total loss of close to four million people. How do you expect a democracy in that setting?
End of interview.
ZB points out how Secretary Rice has so often failed to engage diplomatically, and we need only look down a few posts in this blog to read Rice's own rationale as recently as Jan 11 2007, responding to Sen. Chris Dodd:
Bloomberg TV interview broadcast Monday 12 March 2007 of Zbigniew Brzezinski, and discussion of his recent book, "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower." ZB now at the CSIS: Center for Strategic & International Studies.
Notes to follow.
--------------------------------
[] Is Congress taking the wrong approach to Iraq?
I think the Congress has no alternative, given the fact that the elections last November were fought largely over the Iraq issue, and the Democratic congress came to power because it had a very critical view of the stewardship of the president of the Iraqi war. So we are seeing the preliminary skirmishing, but I think the Congress really has to do what it is trying to do.
[]So the Bush administration, potentially, is making an error on this, as far as Iraq goes?
That depends. The president obviously is personally committed. He doesn't want to, in effect, have his policy refuted. But to the extent that he can succeed in blaming the Democrats for the "lack of victory," even though his definition of victory was really unrealistic, then to that extent he can score some political points. This is why I call it skirmishing.
[] Well you are quite critical of the Pres in a new book that you have written... You give the current president a grade of an "F". What has he failed at, in your view?
I think he has failed in global leadership, and I think that is the greatest tragedy of his administration. You know, he came to power with America still standing tall, after the leadership provided, first of all by his father, then, with some failings, by president Clinton. But he has managed to undermine American credibility, world wide, American legitimacy, worldwide, and respect for American power, worldwide. That is a real disaster. And this is why---in that table that I have ranking the three presidents in different categories---I do, very reluctantly as a citizen, give him the grade of F, failure.
[]Some of his supporters might argue that the president has kept America safe from any further terorist attack. How do you factor that into the equation?
I think the evidence for that is limited. First of all, thousands of Americans have died since then, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan has been neglected, thereby letting al Qeada reconstitute itself . It is true that domestically there has been no act of terror, but that's hardly related to what we have been doing in Iraq. In part it may be good work by the law enforcement agencies; in part it may be because al Qeada was disrupted initially in Afghanistan and hasn't had time yet to stage a come-back.
[]What should president Bush be doing now... to improve his grade?
I would think he should be giving serious negotiations a serious chance. He and his secretary of state have been so dismissive of diplomacy. They have been saying that diplomatic efforts are not worthwhile unless we know in advance that those we negotiate with agree with our positions. Well, that's a non-starter, in giving diplomacy a chance.
I think the conference over the weekend in Iraq with all of Iraq's neighbors suggests that the neighbors, at least, including Syria and Iran, recognize that a disrupted exploding Iraq is not in their interest. And therefore we should be able to exploit that attitude, to try to formulate some political context for the termination of the war, including American disengagement from Iraq.
[] You talk, in your book, about [how] America needs to restore its political credibility and legitimacy. If that's the case, how can the US move forward successfully on the diplomatic front, if it's lacking some of that that you mention in the book.
I think only by proving credibly that it is serious about negotiating. If our definition of negotiations is that we only talk to those who, in advance, agree to our demands, then we'll never demonstrate credibility and legitimacy in seeking alternative solutions to those imposed by force. Sometimes you have to use force. But when you choose to use force before giving the other alternative a chance, then the responsibility rests on you to be effective in the use of force. And the sad, sad fact of our engagement in Iraq is that the President has bungled badly in deciding to go to war, and then in the way he has waged that war.
[] Is Iran a major threat to the United Staes?
It is a country that is weak economically and militarily. It may, at some point, have weapons of mass destruction, but that's years away. We have time to undertake a serious effort to deter and forestall that from happening: by accomodation, by compromises, by promoting, at the same time, a dialog with the Iranians. Because we know that a large proportion of the Iranian people like America and don't like being ruled by the mullahs. And if we are smart about it, I think we can avoid the worst, and have our cake and eat it too---that is to say, have some accomodation with Iran while at the same time getting the Iranians not to cross the t's and dot the i's in the quest for nuclear weapons.
[] Do you think democracy is achievable in Iraq, if so when? And should American troups withdraw immediately?
I think American troups should withdraw within a year or so, while we go about creating a political context that absorbs some of the consequences of the withdrawl. And this is why the political effort is so needed.
Will there be a Democracy in Iraq? No! I don't think so. I think this was a totally unrealistic objective, made even less likely by the destructive impact of American war in Iraq on the Iraq society.
Just consider this one short list of figures. The Iraqi population was twenty-four million when we walked in. Two million have fled the country, probably the ablest and best educated. A million and a half have been displaced. And according to the John Hopkins University study, about a half million more were neither born, or died earlier than they would have. A total loss of close to four million people. How do you expect a democracy in that setting?
End of interview.
ZB points out how Secretary Rice has so often failed to engage diplomatically, and we need only look down a few posts in this blog to read Rice's own rationale as recently as Jan 11 2007, responding to Sen. Chris Dodd:
"I think it's extremely important to note that we have talked to the Syrians, we've generally gotten nowhere, and now we would be going in a way that I would fear looks like a supplicant." --- Rice.Right, g*d forbid that we should "look like a supplicant," let's continue to occupy a foreign land... is it so much better that they and their neighbors hate and fear us, than we fear "what it makes us look" like? I feel so strong now... I nominate that this president's name be changed immediately to "George F. Bush" to commemorate the "accomplishment" thus far achieved. You have two years of summer school (well, now 22 months) to make up your failed course in international relations. Argh.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The AEI as author of Bush's Jan 10 2007 Iraq plan.
Another interesting nugget about George Bush's January 2007 Iraq "surge" plan. It's possible to read what's possibly the basis for the plan, in a civilian version, from its think-tank author, the AEI (American Enterprise Institute). You can hear a Senate FRC hearing where, of Jan 11, the AEI author (Kagan) and two panelists of differing view are quized by Senators.
The afternoon of Jan 11 2007, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations conducted more of its policy hearings on the Iraq war: The Remaining Options: Troop Surge, Partition, or Withdrawl. To watch the streaming video try a link here or here.
Three witnesses sat at opposing ends of the stay/exit spectrum.
- The Honorable Peter W. Galbraith, Senior Diplomatic Fellow, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Washington, DC.
- Dr. Frederick W. Kagan. Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC
- Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, CATO Institute, Washington, DC.
Other goop: Wikipedia entry for Galbraith; none for Carpenter but there is one for CATO Institute. One parting grain of sand in the oyster of the conspiracy ironists: the Wikipedia entry for F. W. Kagan reports that his father, Donald Kagan, is a profesor at... wait for it... Yale! You know... skull and crossbones and all that old-boy stuff. Hey, it's not what you know, it's who you know!
Friday, January 19, 2007
Transcript Senator Barbara Boxer and Secretary Rice 2007-01-11 Sen-FRC The Administration Policy on Iraq
Fortunately, I don't have to transcribe this one. It has been published in full several places, search for it or try the copy at the New York Times Jan 11 2007.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Transcript Senator Chris Dodd and Secretary Rice 2007-01-11 Sen-FRC
This is a transcript of the entire exchange between Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, appearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing 10:00 AM Thursday 11 January, 2007. A website for this meeting, titled The Administration's Plan for Iraq (has just moved from Jan 16 '07) carries streaming video of the entire proceeding. I prepared this transcript as best I could from a video recording. You might also find Sen. Dodd's prepared opening remarks on his website here, but what I found there was not the entire opening remarks, nor the Q&A exchange.
Linguistic pieces that stand out here: Sen. Dodd quotes Churchill on "fool's paradise;" the term "supplicant" (as in U.S. not wanting to appear to be one) appears in Secretary Rice's remarks.
[Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut)]
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Madame Secretary. Let me thank you as well, we have had some conversations over the last couple of weeks prior to the trip that Sen. Kerry and I took to the region and then on the return as well. I thank you for that, and I thank you for being here this morning. And again I thank the chairman for holding the series of hearings we are going to have on this subject matter that offer, I hope, an opportunity for us to not only listen to you, as we did the President last evening, but also an opportunity for you to hear from us as well.
I think it's important that there be a conversation here as we try to sort out this policy and begin to make sense of it. It's not about Democrats and Republicans, it's about getting this right. And I couldn't agree more with Sen. Biden, I don't know of another foreign policy crisis that's been as compelling as this one. Over the past 32 years as a member of the house, and as a member of this body, and a member of this committee for a quarter of a century, I've never been to a region where it's felt it was more in crisis that it is today, and at greater risk. I'd like to share just some opening thoughts and comments and then get to a quick question.
On the eve of the Second World War, the twentieth century's most daunting and difficult struggle, Winston Churchill explained in the following words a compelling thought. He said,
"There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. [People] can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived or finding that those responsible for their affairs are themselves dwelling in a fool's paradise."
Madame Secretary, I'm sorry to say today, and I think many hold this view, that a fools paradise describes nothing as aptly as our Iraq policy today. I think most Americans know it painfully; the Iraqi people, of course, know this in compelling numbers. If the president did grasp, I think, the sad extent of that failure, I sincerely doubt he would have ordered yet more troops into Iraq. The President's plan simply strikes me as a continuation of Operation Together Forward which has been described already, which far from improving Iraq's security climate produced the unintended consequences of heightened sectarian violence.
I fail to see, and I think many others share this view, that the outcome will be different this time. And that is a true disservice to the American troops, which have shown nothing other than professionalism and courage, and they should not be asked to risk their lives for an unsound strategy, and an unsound and unsure purpose.
The Baker-Hamilton report should have disabused us of the notion that, caught in the midst of sectarian, ethnic, and religious political hatreds, we can simply bludgeon our way to victory. As many have been saying for some time now, only political and diplomatic possibilities hold out any real hope of reversing this spiral into chaos.
The time for blunt force I think is long past, and many hold that view. Instead, we ought to withdraw, I think, our combat troops from these large urban area of sectarian conflict, where they simply are cannon fodder. There are twenty three militias operating in Baghdad alone. It's hard to identify exactly who is the enemy here. We have Shi'ias and Sunnis, you have Ba'athists, you have insurgents, some al-Qaeda elements. Here, asking our military people to sort out who the enemy is in all of this is extremely difficult, to put it mildly.
Instead, we ought to be focusing our attention on training reliable Iraqi security forces, providing some security at the border areas, and as several of our junior officers that I talked with in Baghdad suggested, providing the kind of security around some of these critical infrastructure areas that provide the kind of water, sewage, electrical grids, that is so critical to people having some sense of opportunity, or hope for the future.
If the only solution to Iraq is a political one, then diplomacy happens to be the weapon that we have left and must use. The President's solution to all of this is to ignore the most important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, namely, robust diplomacy, and instead must settle instead on an escalation of our current combat strategy. This is a tactic in search of a strategy in my view, and will not bring us a more stable Iraq.
The American people have spent 14 billion dollars training and equipping three hundred thousand Iraqi police and security forces. As I've said a moment ago, 23 separate sectarian militias operate with impunity throughout Baghdad alone. Sectarian killings continue, largely unabated, averaging scores of deaths every day, thousands a month.
This is not random violence. This is targeted civil war, complete with ethnic cleansing. Those of us who have been to Iraq recently have seen it with our own eyes, heard it with our own ears.
Beyond that, the President's own intelligence experts have told us that the Islamic world is growing more radical, and that the terrorist threat is greater today than it was in nine-eleven. Not despite, but because of the continuing war in Iraq. Their conclusion: it has become the physical and ideological training ground for the next generation of extremists.
The wider region has been further plunged into violence, we know: Hezbollah has crippled the Lebanese government, civil war in the Palestinian territories now seems more likely than ever, Syria and Iran are more powerful and emboldened than they have been in recent memory. We are farther away from stabilizing Afghanistan, as drug traffickers and tribals warfare now threaten to destroy its nascent democracy, and the Taliban is growing stronger by the hour.
And perhaps most troubling of all is our standing in the world. According to the Pew Center for Global Opinion, most people in Great Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria, India and China think that the war in Iraq is a greater danger to world peace than either Iran or North Korea. Stunning as those numbers are, the President says we are in a war of ideas. But how can we possibly win that kind of a war, between democracy and extremism, when so much of the world considers us to be the threat? It's deeply troubling to me, as I hope it is to you as well.
How weakened is our standing in the world and our support from foreign peoples? How may tools have we thrown away, and how safe are we now?
Senator Lugar raised an important question in his opening comments that I would like you to address if you can. And that is, none of us are suggesting at this table that we engage Iran or Syriaas if they were an ally, or a friend. We are talking about conferences where we give them a status that they do not deserve.
But it's awfully difficult to understand, Madame Secretary, why we would not try to engage very directly with people here whocould play a critical role in providing some stability. We heard in Syria the president say that he is interested in a secular Arab state operating on his border. He does not want a Shi'ia dominated fundamentalist state on his border. That was just a comment to us in the room with embassy personnel present.
It seems to me it's worth examining and exploring those areas where we can have a common ground here rather than just neglecting or ignoring that kind of an offer if we are going to bring stability to the region.
I wish you'd once again address again, the issue raised by Senator Lugar in the context in which he raised it. Not diplomacy as a favor or a gift, or some acknowledgement that we agree with these people, but rather the necessity for the United States to lead in a region where we have not been able to do so.
[Secretary Rice]
Thank you Senator, let me address the question first Iran and Syria. And they are different. And I think we need to separate the two. First of all, on Syria. We did engage. For quite a long time. Colin Powell engaged. Rich Armitage engaged. Bill Burns engaged. And in fact, we got nowhere. And indeed I would argue that the situation from our point ofview is worst today, in terms of the terms on which we would be engaging, than it was at that time.
The terms on which we would be engaging now, and on which we are being asked to engage, is that we go to the Syrians and say, help us to stabilize Iraq, or, lets join in our common interest to stabilize Iraq. That's what we would say to them.
The problem of course, is that if they have an interest in stabilizing Iraq, I assume that they will do it on the basis of their national interest, and that they will do it because it is in their national interest. To do anything more with them is to suggest that a trade-off is possible. You help us stabilize in Iraq, and perhaps we will overlook some of your activities in Lebanon. You help us stabilize in Iraq, perhaps we can do something to shave some of the teeth from the tribunal.
I think it's extremely important to note that we have talked to the Syrians, we've generally gotten nowhere, and now we would be going in a way that I would fear looks like a supplicant.
[Sen. Chris Dodd]
Can I just ask you, Madame Secretary, is that speculation on your part...
[Secretary Rice]
No...
[Sen. Chris Dodd]
... or has that been the reaction you have heard?
[Secretary Rice]
Well I would also just note that an awful lot of people have engaged the Syrians recently to no good effect. The Italians, the Germans, the British, all engaged them.
[Sen. Chris Dodd]
How about us?
[Secretary Rice]
Senator Dodd, if I really thought that the Syrians didn't know how to help stabilize Iraq and we needed to tell them, then perhaps that would be worth doing. They know how to stabilize Iraq, they just need to stop allowing terrorists to cross their borders.
[Sen. Chris Dodd]
Thank you. [time has run out].
[Secretary Rice]
Shall I go to Iran? Because I do think they are different. When it comes to Iran... First of all there is a twenty-seven year history of not engaging Iran, so this would be a major shift in policy. Of course we did talk to them about Afghanistan, when that made sense.
But what we are looking at, again, is an Iran that is engaging activities to try to kill our troops. They know how to stop that. They know how to stop it tomorrow. They know how to stop destabilizing the young Iraqi government. And I assume that if they believe it's in their interest, they would do so.
But I just don't believe for a moment that the conversation with the Iranians is going to in the following way, "help us stabilize Iraq," and they don't want to talk about a price on their nuclear program.
We are, I think, dealing with Iran in the proper fashion. Which is to insist with the rest of the international community, that any negotiations with Iran are going to be on the basis of suspension of their nuclear program. We are reaching out to the Iranian people. We just had a group of Iranian medical doctors here. In exchange we will have some American sports teams go there.
We are making it difficult for Iran to continue its policies of terrorism and WMD pursuit, because we are sanctioning, and designating their banks that are engaged in those activities. And it is having an effect, on whether people are willing to invest in Iran, whether they are willing to take the reputational [sic] risk of handling Iranian assets. That's why banks are leaving Iran, that's why they are having trouble finding a way to support their investment in their oil and gas industry. We do have a pretty comprehensive way of dealing with Iran.
I have made the offer. If they are prepared to suspend their enrichment capability, I'm there. With their people at any time they would like, in any place they would like. But I think that that's the proper context.
And finally, we do have the opportunity, within the International Compact,
to have Iran and Syria play a positive role in Iraq if they wish to do it. They have been at those meetings of the International Compact and they should play a positive role. And so I don't think there is an absence of diplomacy, an absence of policy toward Iran and Syria. It's just that direct negotiations on this matter put us in the role of supplicant, and I think that's a problem.
[Chairman]
Thank you.
[During the Dr. Rice's concluding remarks, a male demonstrator who has held up a small cloth sign is addressed, and shortley after, during Sen. Hagel's statement, is removed, shouting while being dragged up the aisle. The time clock is reset.]
Linguistic pieces that stand out here: Sen. Dodd quotes Churchill on "fool's paradise;" the term "supplicant" (as in U.S. not wanting to appear to be one) appears in Secretary Rice's remarks.
[Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut)]
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Madame Secretary. Let me thank you as well, we have had some conversations over the last couple of weeks prior to the trip that Sen. Kerry and I took to the region and then on the return as well. I thank you for that, and I thank you for being here this morning. And again I thank the chairman for holding the series of hearings we are going to have on this subject matter that offer, I hope, an opportunity for us to not only listen to you, as we did the President last evening, but also an opportunity for you to hear from us as well.
I think it's important that there be a conversation here as we try to sort out this policy and begin to make sense of it. It's not about Democrats and Republicans, it's about getting this right. And I couldn't agree more with Sen. Biden, I don't know of another foreign policy crisis that's been as compelling as this one. Over the past 32 years as a member of the house, and as a member of this body, and a member of this committee for a quarter of a century, I've never been to a region where it's felt it was more in crisis that it is today, and at greater risk. I'd like to share just some opening thoughts and comments and then get to a quick question.
On the eve of the Second World War, the twentieth century's most daunting and difficult struggle, Winston Churchill explained in the following words a compelling thought. He said,
Madame Secretary, I'm sorry to say today, and I think many hold this view, that a fools paradise describes nothing as aptly as our Iraq policy today. I think most Americans know it painfully; the Iraqi people, of course, know this in compelling numbers. If the president did grasp, I think, the sad extent of that failure, I sincerely doubt he would have ordered yet more troops into Iraq. The President's plan simply strikes me as a continuation of Operation Together Forward which has been described already, which far from improving Iraq's security climate produced the unintended consequences of heightened sectarian violence.
I fail to see, and I think many others share this view, that the outcome will be different this time. And that is a true disservice to the American troops, which have shown nothing other than professionalism and courage, and they should not be asked to risk their lives for an unsound strategy, and an unsound and unsure purpose.
The Baker-Hamilton report should have disabused us of the notion that, caught in the midst of sectarian, ethnic, and religious political hatreds, we can simply bludgeon our way to victory. As many have been saying for some time now, only political and diplomatic possibilities hold out any real hope of reversing this spiral into chaos.
The time for blunt force I think is long past, and many hold that view. Instead, we ought to withdraw, I think, our combat troops from these large urban area of sectarian conflict, where they simply are cannon fodder. There are twenty three militias operating in Baghdad alone. It's hard to identify exactly who is the enemy here. We have Shi'ias and Sunnis, you have Ba'athists, you have insurgents, some al-Qaeda elements. Here, asking our military people to sort out who the enemy is in all of this is extremely difficult, to put it mildly.
Instead, we ought to be focusing our attention on training reliable Iraqi security forces, providing some security at the border areas, and as several of our junior officers that I talked with in Baghdad suggested, providing the kind of security around some of these critical infrastructure areas that provide the kind of water, sewage, electrical grids, that is so critical to people having some sense of opportunity, or hope for the future.
If the only solution to Iraq is a political one, then diplomacy happens to be the weapon that we have left and must use. The President's solution to all of this is to ignore the most important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, namely, robust diplomacy, and instead must settle instead on an escalation of our current combat strategy. This is a tactic in search of a strategy in my view, and will not bring us a more stable Iraq.
The American people have spent 14 billion dollars training and equipping three hundred thousand Iraqi police and security forces. As I've said a moment ago, 23 separate sectarian militias operate with impunity throughout Baghdad alone. Sectarian killings continue, largely unabated, averaging scores of deaths every day, thousands a month.
This is not random violence. This is targeted civil war, complete with ethnic cleansing. Those of us who have been to Iraq recently have seen it with our own eyes, heard it with our own ears.
Beyond that, the President's own intelligence experts have told us that the Islamic world is growing more radical, and that the terrorist threat is greater today than it was in nine-eleven. Not despite, but because of the continuing war in Iraq. Their conclusion: it has become the physical and ideological training ground for the next generation of extremists.
The wider region has been further plunged into violence, we know: Hezbollah has crippled the Lebanese government, civil war in the Palestinian territories now seems more likely than ever, Syria and Iran are more powerful and emboldened than they have been in recent memory. We are farther away from stabilizing Afghanistan, as drug traffickers and tribals warfare now threaten to destroy its nascent democracy, and the Taliban is growing stronger by the hour.
And perhaps most troubling of all is our standing in the world. According to the Pew Center for Global Opinion, most people in Great Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria, India and China think that the war in Iraq is a greater danger to world peace than either Iran or North Korea. Stunning as those numbers are, the President says we are in a war of ideas. But how can we possibly win that kind of a war, between democracy and extremism, when so much of the world considers us to be the threat? It's deeply troubling to me, as I hope it is to you as well.
How weakened is our standing in the world and our support from foreign peoples? How may tools have we thrown away, and how safe are we now?
Senator Lugar raised an important question in his opening comments that I would like you to address if you can. And that is, none of us are suggesting at this table that we engage Iran or Syriaas if they were an ally, or a friend. We are talking about conferences where we give them a status that they do not deserve.
But it's awfully difficult to understand, Madame Secretary, why we would not try to engage very directly with people here whocould play a critical role in providing some stability. We heard in Syria the president say that he is interested in a secular Arab state operating on his border. He does not want a Shi'ia dominated fundamentalist state on his border. That was just a comment to us in the room with embassy personnel present.
It seems to me it's worth examining and exploring those areas where we can have a common ground here rather than just neglecting or ignoring that kind of an offer if we are going to bring stability to the region.
I wish you'd once again address again, the issue raised by Senator Lugar in the context in which he raised it. Not diplomacy as a favor or a gift, or some acknowledgement that we agree with these people, but rather the necessity for the United States to lead in a region where we have not been able to do so.
[Secretary Rice]
Thank you Senator, let me address the question first Iran and Syria. And they are different. And I think we need to separate the two. First of all, on Syria. We did engage. For quite a long time. Colin Powell engaged. Rich Armitage engaged. Bill Burns engaged. And in fact, we got nowhere. And indeed I would argue that the situation from our point ofview is worst today, in terms of the terms on which we would be engaging, than it was at that time.
The terms on which we would be engaging now, and on which we are being asked to engage, is that we go to the Syrians and say, help us to stabilize Iraq, or, lets join in our common interest to stabilize Iraq. That's what we would say to them.
The problem of course, is that if they have an interest in stabilizing Iraq, I assume that they will do it on the basis of their national interest, and that they will do it because it is in their national interest. To do anything more with them is to suggest that a trade-off is possible. You help us stabilize in Iraq, and perhaps we will overlook some of your activities in Lebanon. You help us stabilize in Iraq, perhaps we can do something to shave some of the teeth from the tribunal.
I think it's extremely important to note that we have talked to the Syrians, we've generally gotten nowhere, and now we would be going in a way that I would fear looks like a supplicant.
[Sen. Chris Dodd]
Can I just ask you, Madame Secretary, is that speculation on your part...
[Secretary Rice]
No...
[Sen. Chris Dodd]
... or has that been the reaction you have heard?
[Secretary Rice]
Well I would also just note that an awful lot of people have engaged the Syrians recently to no good effect. The Italians, the Germans, the British, all engaged them.
[Sen. Chris Dodd]
How about us?
[Secretary Rice]
Senator Dodd, if I really thought that the Syrians didn't know how to help stabilize Iraq and we needed to tell them, then perhaps that would be worth doing. They know how to stabilize Iraq, they just need to stop allowing terrorists to cross their borders.
[Sen. Chris Dodd]
Thank you. [time has run out].
[Secretary Rice]
Shall I go to Iran? Because I do think they are different. When it comes to Iran... First of all there is a twenty-seven year history of not engaging Iran, so this would be a major shift in policy. Of course we did talk to them about Afghanistan, when that made sense.
But what we are looking at, again, is an Iran that is engaging activities to try to kill our troops. They know how to stop that. They know how to stop it tomorrow. They know how to stop destabilizing the young Iraqi government. And I assume that if they believe it's in their interest, they would do so.
But I just don't believe for a moment that the conversation with the Iranians is going to in the following way, "help us stabilize Iraq," and they don't want to talk about a price on their nuclear program.
We are, I think, dealing with Iran in the proper fashion. Which is to insist with the rest of the international community, that any negotiations with Iran are going to be on the basis of suspension of their nuclear program. We are reaching out to the Iranian people. We just had a group of Iranian medical doctors here. In exchange we will have some American sports teams go there.
We are making it difficult for Iran to continue its policies of terrorism and WMD pursuit, because we are sanctioning, and designating their banks that are engaged in those activities. And it is having an effect, on whether people are willing to invest in Iran, whether they are willing to take the reputational [sic] risk of handling Iranian assets. That's why banks are leaving Iran, that's why they are having trouble finding a way to support their investment in their oil and gas industry. We do have a pretty comprehensive way of dealing with Iran.
I have made the offer. If they are prepared to suspend their enrichment capability, I'm there. With their people at any time they would like, in any place they would like. But I think that that's the proper context.
And finally, we do have the opportunity, within the International Compact,
to have Iran and Syria play a positive role in Iraq if they wish to do it. They have been at those meetings of the International Compact and they should play a positive role. And so I don't think there is an absence of diplomacy, an absence of policy toward Iran and Syria. It's just that direct negotiations on this matter put us in the role of supplicant, and I think that's a problem.
[Chairman]
Thank you.
[During the Dr. Rice's concluding remarks, a male demonstrator who has held up a small cloth sign is addressed, and shortley after, during Sen. Hagel's statement, is removed, shouting while being dragged up the aisle. The time clock is reset.]
Transcript Senator Dick Lugar and Secretary Rice: 2007-01-11, Sen-FRC, The Administration's Plan for Iraq
This is a transcript of the entire exchange between Senator Richard (Dick) Lugar (R-Indiana) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, appearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing 10:00 AM Thursday 11 January, 2007. A website for this meeting, titled The Administration's Plan for Iraq (has just moved from Jan 16 '07) carries streaming video of the entire proceeding. I prepared this transcript as best I could from a video recording. From Jan 2003 through Dec. 2006 Senator Lugar was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as of Jan 2006 is the ranking Republican leader on the committee. His website has a section elevating the Iraq policy debate with
a batch of policy letters on Iraq.
Interesting topics: dissecting the facts behind David Brooks' column titled "The Fog over Iraq," in the NYT 11 Jan 2007 (which may be more accessible here in the IHT); the 'side surge' of 4,000 American troops to Anbar province; the 1,100 Sons of Anbar.
[Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana)]
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rice, in the New York Times today, columnist David Brooks, in a column called The Fog over Iraq, presents information that I simply wanted your comment. Because you have indicated that you have visited with Prime Minister Maliki. And the article by David Brooks references the meeting of our President with Prime Minister Maliki on November 30th, in which purportedly Maliki presented a plan in which our troops would go to the periphery of Baghdad, would fight off insurgents---Sunni insurgents or whoever---trying to penetrate Baghdad. But the Iraqi army and police, including Shi'ites and Kurds, principally, would take over the responsibility of attempting to clear the city. Essentially, Brooks says President Bush rejected that plan---or our government did and the President as the head of it has indicated this---and decided that indeed we would do the opposite. American troops, and the additional troops, would come into Baghdad, would be embedded in the nine police districts. And would in fact be more heavily involved, whether door-to-door, and there certainly are disputes over whether that's the case, the thought is no, not door-to-door, that the Shiites go door-to-door, essentially, and that we are back, in the background, advising, and supporting, and so forth.
But the article goes on to suggest that in fact, or gives the impression that, Makili and Kurds and the Shi'ites had at least an idea of creating their own kind of stability. Now from our own standpoint, this might have rejected the Sunnis as a partner in the process, and that's led to greater destabilization of the country as a whole.
Let me just ask for your comment, as to whether this is the sequence of events that transpired into the plan that the President gave last night. And what are the strengths and dangers of that.
[Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice]
Yes, Senator Lugar, the core of the Maliki plan has really been preserved here. This really is based on his plan.
It is absolutely the case that the Iraqis have wanted to have responsibility for their own problem, to have their troops under their command, and to move out. When Prime Minister Maliki presented the plan, he wanted our people to look at it with his military people, to see how quickly this could be accelerated, so that he could go and take care of the sectarian problem in Baghdad.
The fact is, it could not be accelerated quickly enough with only Iraqi forces in order to meet the timeline that he really felt he had in terms of dealing with the Baghdad problem. And so, out of this planning process came, from our generals, the view that we needed to augment their forces as embeds---as, by the way, the Baker-Hamilton commission recommends---as people who can help them in a sense with on-the-job training, who can help them to kind of solidify their ability to go after this. But the Iraqis continue to press that they really need to be the ones interfacing with their population in a major way. They need to be the ones to deliver the stability that is needed.
I think you will see that in a relatively brief period of time, as their forces develop, they will take on more and more. And as the President said last night, the thought is they would have all their forces by November [ed? meaning, 2007?]. But there was a gap in time between the time that they need to get Baghdad under control and having the capability to do it. Even bringing, as they are, their best and most reliable army forces from around the country.
So that's the difference. But I don't believe that it was ever really the prime minister's intention that it would be Shi'ia and Kurds, only. I think he understands that one of the problems that they have is that the Sunni population feels that the Iraqi government is not even-handed in dealing with death squads.
[Sen. Dick Lugar]
What can you tell us about favorable reception of some of the sheiks, in Anbar province, of our new policies. Can you describe that situation.
[Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice]
Yes. Well, the last time that there was some kind of report about Anbar, remember some of the reporting as being the tremendous difficulties in Anbar. And it is a difficult place because it is the epicenter of al-Qaeda. Now what you will hear from our commanders in the area, and also I have heard directly from my provincial reconstruction team leader, a very seasoned diplomat, is that the sheiks have essentially gotten tired of al-Qaeda, and want them out. They do not believe that we can do that alone. They have begun to recruit their own young men, to be trained to be a force against the foreign invaders. They have for instance sent eleven hundred young men to Jordan, to train for something that they call the Sons of Anbar, to come back; they will recruit more and send them. This is also part of a success, we believe, of a policy with regional neighbors, who have been involved in the Sunni outreach piece. It is into that Anbar that we believe it is important to surge both civilian and military assets. And so when the President talks about four thousand additional forces into Anbar, this is not because of a sectarian problem, this is because we think we may be able to support this local effort against al-Qaeda and secondly, to surge resources into Anbar.
To be very frank, the chairman asked me if I was confident about the Iraqi government. [ed: Refers to earlier question from Sen. Joseph Biden] I am confident that they want to do this. I am also one who knows there have been times when they haven't performed in the past. And one of the things that they've got to perform better on is getting economic resources into some of the Sunni areas, particularly into Anbar. And so we are also going to increase the number of provincial reconstruction teams in Anbar to help with that process.
[Sen. Dick Lugar]
Thank you.
a batch of policy letters on Iraq.
Interesting topics: dissecting the facts behind David Brooks' column titled "The Fog over Iraq," in the NYT 11 Jan 2007 (which may be more accessible here in the IHT); the 'side surge' of 4,000 American troops to Anbar province; the 1,100 Sons of Anbar.
[Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana)]
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rice, in the New York Times today, columnist David Brooks, in a column called The Fog over Iraq, presents information that I simply wanted your comment. Because you have indicated that you have visited with Prime Minister Maliki. And the article by David Brooks references the meeting of our President with Prime Minister Maliki on November 30th, in which purportedly Maliki presented a plan in which our troops would go to the periphery of Baghdad, would fight off insurgents---Sunni insurgents or whoever---trying to penetrate Baghdad. But the Iraqi army and police, including Shi'ites and Kurds, principally, would take over the responsibility of attempting to clear the city. Essentially, Brooks says President Bush rejected that plan---or our government did and the President as the head of it has indicated this---and decided that indeed we would do the opposite. American troops, and the additional troops, would come into Baghdad, would be embedded in the nine police districts. And would in fact be more heavily involved, whether door-to-door, and there certainly are disputes over whether that's the case, the thought is no, not door-to-door, that the Shiites go door-to-door, essentially, and that we are back, in the background, advising, and supporting, and so forth.
But the article goes on to suggest that in fact, or gives the impression that, Makili and Kurds and the Shi'ites had at least an idea of creating their own kind of stability. Now from our own standpoint, this might have rejected the Sunnis as a partner in the process, and that's led to greater destabilization of the country as a whole.
Let me just ask for your comment, as to whether this is the sequence of events that transpired into the plan that the President gave last night. And what are the strengths and dangers of that.
[Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice]
Yes, Senator Lugar, the core of the Maliki plan has really been preserved here. This really is based on his plan.
It is absolutely the case that the Iraqis have wanted to have responsibility for their own problem, to have their troops under their command, and to move out. When Prime Minister Maliki presented the plan, he wanted our people to look at it with his military people, to see how quickly this could be accelerated, so that he could go and take care of the sectarian problem in Baghdad.
The fact is, it could not be accelerated quickly enough with only Iraqi forces in order to meet the timeline that he really felt he had in terms of dealing with the Baghdad problem. And so, out of this planning process came, from our generals, the view that we needed to augment their forces as embeds---as, by the way, the Baker-Hamilton commission recommends---as people who can help them in a sense with on-the-job training, who can help them to kind of solidify their ability to go after this. But the Iraqis continue to press that they really need to be the ones interfacing with their population in a major way. They need to be the ones to deliver the stability that is needed.
I think you will see that in a relatively brief period of time, as their forces develop, they will take on more and more. And as the President said last night, the thought is they would have all their forces by November [ed? meaning, 2007?]. But there was a gap in time between the time that they need to get Baghdad under control and having the capability to do it. Even bringing, as they are, their best and most reliable army forces from around the country.
So that's the difference. But I don't believe that it was ever really the prime minister's intention that it would be Shi'ia and Kurds, only. I think he understands that one of the problems that they have is that the Sunni population feels that the Iraqi government is not even-handed in dealing with death squads.
[Sen. Dick Lugar]
What can you tell us about favorable reception of some of the sheiks, in Anbar province, of our new policies. Can you describe that situation.
[Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice]
Yes. Well, the last time that there was some kind of report about Anbar, remember some of the reporting as being the tremendous difficulties in Anbar. And it is a difficult place because it is the epicenter of al-Qaeda. Now what you will hear from our commanders in the area, and also I have heard directly from my provincial reconstruction team leader, a very seasoned diplomat, is that the sheiks have essentially gotten tired of al-Qaeda, and want them out. They do not believe that we can do that alone. They have begun to recruit their own young men, to be trained to be a force against the foreign invaders. They have for instance sent eleven hundred young men to Jordan, to train for something that they call the Sons of Anbar, to come back; they will recruit more and send them. This is also part of a success, we believe, of a policy with regional neighbors, who have been involved in the Sunni outreach piece. It is into that Anbar that we believe it is important to surge both civilian and military assets. And so when the President talks about four thousand additional forces into Anbar, this is not because of a sectarian problem, this is because we think we may be able to support this local effort against al-Qaeda and secondly, to surge resources into Anbar.
To be very frank, the chairman asked me if I was confident about the Iraqi government. [ed: Refers to earlier question from Sen. Joseph Biden] I am confident that they want to do this. I am also one who knows there have been times when they haven't performed in the past. And one of the things that they've got to perform better on is getting economic resources into some of the Sunni areas, particularly into Anbar. And so we are also going to increase the number of provincial reconstruction teams in Anbar to help with that process.
[Sen. Dick Lugar]
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)