Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.

Baghdad Orders Lockdown As Petraeus Testifies

What is the solution?

HP-Unauthorized vehicles will be banned in Baghdad from 5 a.m. to midnight on Wednesday, the fifth anniversary of the city’s capture by U.S. troops, the AP reports.

The decision by the Iraqi military command for Baghdad was announced on Iraqi state TV.

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is threatening to lift a seven-month freeze on his Mahdi Army militia if the Iraqi government does not halt attacks on his followers or set a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

Mother Jones reports that while while Petraeus testifies, U.S. personnel in Iraq are taking cover:

As General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker testify before Congress this week about the security situation in Iraq, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that the surge is working and progress is under way, U.S. embassy officials in Baghdad have been ordered to take heightened security precautions in light of stepped-up attacks on the Green Zone, including one on Sunday that killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded 17 others.

Under this new security boost, says a U.S. Embassy official who asked not to be identified, embassy personnel have been told to remain under “hardened cover.” Instructed to avoid their trailers, some embassy staffers are now sleeping in their offices and on cots in the new embassy building, currently under construction, according to a source who has spoken with embassy officials in Baghdad. Embassy personnel have also been cautioned to limit their trips outdoors and, when they must leave the protection of reinforced structures, to wear flak jackets, protective eyewear, and helmets.

GREAT DEBATE!

Posted by JohnKonop on Tuesday, April 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm | under Uncategorized | |RSS 2.0 feed | Comments and pings closed. |

4 Responses to “Baghdad Orders Lockdown As Petraeus Testifies”

  1. captain_menace says:
    April 9, 2008 at 12:44 am

    Why can’t the defeatocrats understand that everything will be better in 6 to 9 months?

    Let me spell it out a little more clearly. Just another $60 to $100 billion will fix all of our problems in Iraq. And since our kids our paying for the bill… it’s a win-win.

  2. Bill says:
    April 9, 2008 at 11:20 am

    Most of us are fiscal conservatives when it comes to GETTING REAMED BY THESE CROOKS AND LIARS!! My only question is what’s the budget allocation for paying bloggers to throw blind support behind whatever forays into economic oblivion the neo-cons lead us into.

  3. JohnKonop says:
    April 9, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Joe Biden On Iraq: Staying Is “Killing Us”

    Iraq war, the lack of a plan forward, and the fact that there seems to be “no end in sight.” “The costs of staying are immense,” Biden told Today host Matt Lauer, “It’s killing us.”

    LAUER: You didn’t wait to hear from General Petraeus last week. You said the surge is a failure. Yesterday you heard him say the progress is real but it’s fragile and reversible. Did he say anything yesterday that changed your mind?

    BIDEN: No. Look, what I said was that the military side of the surge works. It’s brought down violence. But we went from drowning to treading water. And now we’re having 30 to 40 Americans die a month, 225 a month wounded. and we’re spending $3 billion a month with no end in sight, Matt. They have no plan how to get down below 140,000. They have no plan how to end this war and they have no political prescription as to how to bring the parties together.

    LAUER: In terms of the security improvements that have been made — General Petraeus laid those out — with the challenges with the Iraqi government, when he uses those words, “fragile and reversible,” Senator, are you okay with the fact that withdrawing troops might take us backwards in Iraq?

    BIDEN: No. Look, Matt, we can debate whether or not the cost of drawing down troops will hurt. That’s debatable. For example, as many military experts argued if we were to withdraw gradually and more substantially from Iraq, that al Qaeda would be hurt more than if we stayed. I asked yesterday — I asked our ambassador and I asked Petraeus, where is the greatest threat from al Qaeda, in Afghanistan where we don’t have enough troops to fight them, by their own admission, or in Iraq? They said they’re more dangerous in Afghanistan. We don’t debate the cost of staying, Matt. The costs of staying are immense, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said…it’s killing us.

    [WATCH.]

  4. JohnKonop says:
    April 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Clinton Declines to Answer on Troops in Iraq in 2013

    CNS- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) would not say Tuesday whether she stands by her Sept. 26, 2007, statement that she could not pledge to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 if she were elected president.

    “That’s why we are having the hearing here,” was Clinton’s response to Cybercast News Service when asked if she still can’t commit to withdrawing all troops by the end of her first term.

    Clinton was on her way to hear Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. commander of the multi-national force in Iraq, and ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the war in Iraq.

    Despite a display of colorful charts showing dramatic improvements in Iraq since the start of the so-called surge late last summer, Clinton criticized the Bush administration and Petraeus’ surge strategy and said she wanted to bring U.S. troops home.

    “What condition would have to exist for you to recommend to the president that the current strategy is not working?” Clinton said to Petraeus.

    Clinton began her remarks by responding to GOP presidential hopeful John McCain, who also attended the hearing and said recently on the campaign trail that it would be “irresponsible” and show a “lack of leadership” to withdraw the troops from Iraq.

    “I fundamentally disagree,” said Clinton, who is battling it out with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it may well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again.”

    Clinton spoke after several of her fellow committee members had the floor, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who wondered aloud why politicians can’t accept the facts that show improvements in Iraq, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who asked Petraeus if the U.S. invasion of Iraq is helping defeat al Qaeda and keeping Americans safer.

    “Yes, sir,” Petraeus answered.

    Petraeus showed one chart that detailed weekly “security incidents” in Iraq from Oct. 1, 2004, to March 2008. It shows the highest number of incidents in the months preceding the surge, with a steady decrease since the surge began.

    Another chart shows a drastic fall in the number of civilian deaths since the start of the surge. One of the most dramatic contrasts was revealed in a chart showing the number of weapons and explosive devices found and cleared since the surge got under way, with the numbers tripling since August 2007.

    Before Clinton spoke, Petraeus also said he hoped conditions on the ground would allow for a U.S. troop reduction to pre-surge numbers by July and further withdrawals after a 45-day period to evaluate conditions on the ground over the summer.

    Petraeus added that the Iraqi military and police continue to grow in number and skills, despite recent setbacks in Basrah.

    “I think it’s time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan, the global terrorists’ groups and other problems that confront America,” Clinton said.

    Clinton’s remarks seemed in contrast to her remarks in the MSNBC debate in September, where Tim Russert asked Obama and Clinton about their Iraq strategy.

    “Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?” Russert asked.

    “I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” Obama said, “and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there.”

    “Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term,” Clinton told Russert. “But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House on January 2009, what we’re going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal?”

    Petraeus and Crocker also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. Obama is on that committee and questioned the pair before some members of the public and a packed gallery of reporters. Petraeus and Crocker are scheduled to testify before the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

|