Shoddy electrical work by private contractors on United States military bases in Iraq is widespread and dangerous, causing more deaths and injuries from fires and shocks than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to internal Army documents.
During just one six-month period — August 2006 through January 2007 — at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military’s largest dining hall in the country, documents obtained by The New York Times show. Two soldiers died in an electrical fire at their base near Tikrit in 2006, the records note, while another was injured while jumping from a burning guard tower in May 2007.
And while the Pentagon has previously reported that 13 Americans have been electrocuted in Iraq, many more have been injured, some seriously, by shocks, according to the documents. A log compiled earlier this year at one building complex in Baghdad disclosed that soldiers complained of receiving electrical shocks in their living quarters on an almost daily basis.
Electrical problems were the most urgent noncombat safety hazard for soldiers in Iraq, according to an Army survey issued in February 2007. It noted “a safety threat theaterwide created by the poor-quality electrical fixtures procured and installed, sometimes incorrectly, thus resulting in a significant number of fires.”
The Army report said KBR, the Houston-based company that is responsible for providing basic services for American troops in Iraq, including housing, did its own study and found a “systemic problem” with electrical work.
No one who truly supports the troops would allow this to happen. George Bush deserves most of the blame. But where the Senate's leading investigators -- Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins? They all let this happen.
The White House on Monday said it agreed with Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-Conn.) warning that terrorists could test the new president with an attack next year.
Lieberman, who has ruffled Democratic feathers with his outspoken support of Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), said on “Face the Nation” that “our enemies will test the new president early.”
Asked about that statement, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Lieberman could be right.
“I think Sen. Lieberman, unfortunately, could be right,” Perino stated, noting that there continue to be extremists determined to attack the U.S.
Of course the White House agreed with Senator Joe Lieberman. They're all on the same team trying to win a third Bush term for John McCain --and the politics of fear is a key part of McCain's campaign.
Now, if Lieberman and Bush and McCain had actually put their time and energy into vanquishing al Qaeda, we wouldn't be talking about the potential for a terror threat.
But, as we learned today, the Iraq war and Bush administration in-fighting hampered the effort to defeat the enemy who killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11th. Joe Lieberman and his pal, John McCain, never held Bush accountable for his failures. Now, they're all exploiting those failures for political gain. It's sick, but the traditional media will let them get away with it -- again.
Senator Joe Lieberman has cultivated this image of being a "nice guy." And a lot of Americans fell for it. But he's not a nice guy at all. He's kind of a backstabber, in the worst Washington way. Just ask Barack Obama. You know how Lieberman is endorsing John McCain for president, and he's even gone so far as to publicly criticize Obama? Well did you know that when Joe Lieberman was in the campaign for his life just two years ago, he begged Obama to help him, and Obama did. (Here's video to prove it.)
Lieberman is a backstabber. He betrays his friends. He's what's wrong with Washington. From TPM Election Central:
[A] top official on Joe Lieberman's 2006 Senate reelection campaign tells me that Lieberman's staff practically begged Barack Obama to come in and endorse him at a critical moment -- requests that Obama agreed to, helping Lieberman minimize the damage from challenger Ned Lamont's recent entry into the contest.
This back-story is particularly relevant right now in light of Lieberman's harsh assaults on Obama's national security credentials.
The top Lieberman official, who was directly involved in securing Obama's help, tells me that the campaign was desperate for Obama to come to Connecticut in March of 2006, soon after Lamont entered the race.
"We needed him to strongly validate us as a candidate that liberal Democrats should not desert," the staffer tells me. "We went to the Obama operation with a very urgent plea for him to come out for us." ...
In response to the Lieberman camp's pleas for help, Obama subsequently endorsed him at a dinner of Connecticut Democrats later that month.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," Obama said at the time.
"It was a favor as huge as we could have gotten -- it was like a drowning man getting thrown a life preserver," the Lieberman official continued. "Just when Ned was trying to establish himself as a credible alternative on the war, Barack Obama came in and said, `Hey, I disagree with him on the war, but you should send him back to the Senate.'"
Joe Lieberman isn't a nice guy. He's a bitter old Washington politician who begged a friend for help, got it, then turned around two years later and stabbed that friend in the back. Joe Lieberman isn't crossing party lines to show how he puts principle above party. He's crossing party lines because today it's the move that pays him the most benefit. That doesn't make him principled, it makes him a whore.
You have to wonder if McCain really did end his relationship with Rev. Hagee. Otherwise, why would one of McCain's top surrogates show up at Hagee's conference? It seems likes there's some kind of "wink, wink" going on here:
Sen. Joe Lieberman says he'll speak at a July conference hosted by Rev. John Hagee, whose endorsement was recently rejected by Republican John McCain because of Hagee's controversial remarks about religion.
Lieberman, one of presumed GOP presidential nominee McCain's strongest supporters, said Wednesday while Hagee's comments were unacceptable and hurtful, he will judge him on his life work fighting anti-Semitism and building bridges between Christians and Jews.
Lieberman, I-Conn., will speak at Hagee's "Christians United for Israel" summit in Washington.
Well, if Lieberman is judging Hagee by his life work, then why didn't John McCain? This is terribly contradictory, coming from a lead McCain surrogate, and a man who has been talked about as possibly VP material for McCain. McCain needs to now distance himself from Lieberman, or admit that his campaign is continuing to help a man who slurs Catholics, Jews and gays.
Senator Joseph Lieberman is scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee's 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit this July 22. In accepting Hagee's invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala. Last year, when Lieberman spoke at Hagee's summit, he compared the Texas televangelist to the biblical prophet Moses, dubbing him "an Ish Elochim," or "a man of God." ...
Hagee's vitriolic condemnation of Catholicism, his jeremiad declaring Hurricane Katrina divine punishment for New Orleans' hosting of a "homosexual rally," and his generally disturbing apocalyptic theology became national news last February when John McCain accepted his endorsement in a widely publicized ceremony.
While initially resisting pressure to reject Hagee's endorsement, McCain finally ended his relationship with Hagee when a sermon by the preacher describing the Holocaust as the will of God registered on the mainstream media's radar.
Saturday, we reported on the blockbuster scoop from the Huffington Post that Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham were already breaking John McCain's policy against campaign advisers working for 527s or any "other independent entity" that engages publicly for or against a presidential candidate. Both of the Senators have a leadership role in a group called "Vets for Freedom" -- that group's PAC began running a negative ad against Obama last week. Here's McCain's policy:
According to the policy: "No person with a McCain Campaign title or position may participate in a 527 or other independent entity that makes public communications that support or oppose any presidential candidate."
Turns out, McCain himself is quite familiar with "Vets for Freedom." In fact, just last month, John McCain proclaimed that the group is a "wonderful organization." No wonder he likes them, "Vets for Freedom" is already doing McCain's dirty work. Because the McCain and his crew have nothing positive going for them, they're already in the slime.
Watch Jed's latest video -- and see the very cozy relationship that exists among McCain, Lieberman and Graham and the "Vets for Freedom." Just how independent is "Veterans for Freedom" from the McCain campaign? Doesn't seem like there is much distance at all. Lieberman and Graham show up on the "Policy Board of Advisors" on the website paid for by the Vets for Freedom PAC. There's another reason why this matters. Under the law, PACs or 527s and election campaigns cannot "coordinate" their activities. Meaning, they can't speak and strategize together. So just what is John McCain's relationships with this political entity that's running ads against Obama?
In response to Joe Lieberman's risible Wall Street Journal op-ed attack on Senator Obama, Senator Biden hits back, hard and directly, against the mendacity and foolishness of the Bush/McCain/Lieberman worldview. The whole thing is an exceptional rebuke of failed policy and underhanded politics, and it's worth a full read. The closing point, though, is this:
The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.
The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?
It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.
It's nice to see some Democratic push-back against Lieberman, too. He has the potential to be a real problem in the fall, and it's important to start making sure people know his foreign policy views are completely and utterly bankrupt long before then.
That's against the Senate rules. It's one thing for Joe Lieberman to sell out Harry Reid and the Democratic party and endorse the Republican for president, but it's quite another to permit him to use government resources to campaign. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed, and it's clearly the intent of Lieberman's newest veiled post to his Web site. He's taking a swipe at Democratic nominee Obama in an effort to help Republican nominee McCain.
Not that you need more reason to loathe Joe Lieberman, who Lanny Davis and so many others worked so hard to re-elect, but here's more reason to loathe Joe Lieberman:
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that the Iraqi government was more successful than the U.S. government at anything -- until Tuesday's hearing.
Joe Lieberman praised the Iraqis at the expense of his own government: "Hey, let's be honest about this. The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September then the American political leadership has." Check out the video.
Like his pals, Bush and McCain, Lieberman has a funny way of measuring progress. As for all that reconciliation, progress and praise for the Iraqis, I live in Washington, DC and I don't recall any recent mortar attacks or militia crackdowns or soldiers engaged in armed clashes:
American and Iraqi troops clashed with gunmen in the cleric's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City for a third day running on Tuesday, part of an upsurge in fighting that is likely to color two days of testimony to Congress by U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and top commander, General David Petraeus.
An Iraqi cameraman working for Reuters in Sadr City was lightly wounded by shrapnel in what witnesses said was a U.S. air strike in the slum.
Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said a total of four Hellfire missiles were fired at gunmen and mortar crews in Sadr City in three separate air strikes. He estimated 12 gunmen had been killed.
A health official said 10 people had been killed and 61 wounded.
Yeah, that's what was happening while Lieberman was singing the praises of the Iraqi government while trashing his own.
In a just world, this WSJ op-ed by the "centrist" who'd like us to stay in Iraq for another 1,000 years (seriously) would be the end of Senator McCain's long political career. In it, he is either displaying an awe-inspiring lack of understanding about political and military affairs, or he's flat-out lying.
Let's go through this once again: The goal of the surge was political reconciliation, i.e., to provide a low-violence atmosphere in which the Iraqi government would agree on issues including oil revenue sharing, de-Baathification, federalism, and more. In the past year, none of those political objectives have been accomplished. There is a reduction in violence, thankfully, which means fewer Americans (and Iraqis) are being maimed and killed. There is not any movement on the political front.
When Lieberman and McCain say, "Political progress has been slow," that's the ballgame! That's the goal. It hasn't been met. The surge failed. Not the soldiers, not the military, not the people giving their hearts and souls (and lives) to the mission -- they have not failed; rather, they have *been failed* by a complete lack of strategy. And no one who understood counter-insurgency (or, frankly, international politics) would ever say that a reduction in violence in a war-torn country was akin to victory. It's absolutely disgraceful.
Daily Kos released a poll this week showing that if the election were held this year, Democrat Ned Lamont would defeat Independent Joe Lieberman by a margin of 48 - 40 with 10% for the Republican.
A friend in Connecticut (who knows these things) tells us that the independent Senator from Connecticut registered as a Democrat when he moved to his new hometown of Stamford. He moved there this past summer from New Haven. However, his wife, Hadassah, and his daughter, Hana, are now registered as unaffiliated so there are some independents in the family. That's according to the voter registrar's records in Stamford anyway.
UPDATE: Sprinkles has a post at Daily Kos pointing out that Joe was supposed to join another party, but didn't:
This past week Senator Joseph Lieberman had a chance to keep his promise that he made to the Secretary of State that he would join another party.
Of course he continued his deception and he registered once again as a Democrat in his new town of Stamford. In order to get on the ballot last year after losing the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont, Lieberman promised that he would not be running as a Democrat which would violate state law by having two members of the same party running for the same office after the primaries.
He circulated a petition to form a new party in Connecticut called "Connecticut for Lieberman". I challenged him in August 2006 and said he had no intention of joining such a party, that he was going to remain a Democrat and that he was just using this gimmick to keep on running as a stealth Democrat. The new party had no party chair, no rules, no platform, nada.
Max Blumenthal, released a whale of a video that I blogged about last week that I highly recommend, Generation Chickenhawk: a look at The College Republicans. He's got another spot-on film on the Christians United for Israel's annual Washington-Israel Summit, organized by a Texas-based megachurch pastor named John Hagee. Seriously, watch the whole video, these religious extremists border on insane. It's truly disturbing.
The end times are near for these folks; Max actually asks one of them if he can have his car when the Rapture comes and takes them away.
Appearing in the video at the conference: Tom DeLay, Holy Joe Lieberman and -- get this -- Rick Santorum, man-on-dog himself.
But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. - must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation. Over a dozen CUFI members eagerly revealed to me their excitement at the prospect of Armageddon occurring tomorrow. Among the rapture ready was Republican Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. None of this seemed to matter to Lieberman, who delivered a long sermon hailing Hagee as nothing less than a modern-day Moses. Lieberman went on to describe Hagee's flock as "even greater than the multitude Moses commanded."
...I was forbidden from asking Hagee about statements he made in his book, "Jerusalem Countdown," that appeared to blame Jews for their own persecution. After doing just that during a press conference, I was removed from the conference by off-duty DC cops summoned by members of Hagee's family.
I have covered the Christian right intensely for over four years. During this time, I attended dozens of Christian right conferences, regularly monitored movement publications and radio shows, and interviewed scores of its key leaders. I have never witnessed any spectacle as politically extreme, outrageous, or bizarre as the one Christians United for Israel produced last week in Washington. See for yourself.
I was watching Lieberman go off on ABC's THIS WEEK about how successful the surge in Iraq has been, and I remembered a roundtable discussion 2 weeks ago on the same show in which ABC's Martha Raddatz obliterated the very arguments - the very Bush administration talking points - that Lieberman is now "coincidentally" using. Here's the side by the side of the two interviews (the entire video is under a minute).
It's clear to me, from Lieberman's interview, that in the long term he's not remaining in the Democratic party. (Yes, I know, he's an Independent and not a Democrat. But he caucuses with the Dems.) He was clearly briefed by Bush White House officials for today's ABC appearance, and he has no problem using their talking points - on the same show today he even accused the Democratic candidates of being bad on "national security," a classic Bush talking point: "I would say that Democratic candidates, in the larger questions of American security, have been disappointing." What Lieberman means, I think, is that the Democratic candidates aren't willing to give Israeli national security a higher priority than American national security.
This man has no intention of continuing to help the Dems. He's going to become a Republican, and we need to get more seats in the Senate so that we can afford to tell Lieberman to take a hike. (The only reason Lieberman doesn't walk now is because he's a committee chair on the Democratic side. On the Republican side, he'd be in the minority, and thus wouldn't chair anything.)
This is actually kind of funny. Lieberman is appearing at a fundraiser for pro-Bush GOP Senator Susan Collins of Maine. As a result, tons of money is pouring into Collins' opponent, Tom Allen. Hopefully Lieberman will attach himself to more GOP members this election cycle - he's a walking ATM for our side.
