Assassination Shoots Holes in Rogers' Rosy Anbar Scenario

After George Bush's phony speech last week about bringing home from Iraq the troops next year that already were scheduled to come home, 8th District Republican Rep. Mike Rogers gave the Livingston Press and Argus his usual "me, too" line about how great things are going there.

In a written statement (guess the issue isn't important enough for Rogers to actually talk to his hometown newspaper) reported in Friday's newspaper, Rogers said:

"The bravery and dedication of our troops has had a positive impact in al Anbar Province where communities are now standing up against the brutality of al Qaeda. By bringing local leaders together to reject al Qaeda’s violent ideology, stability and security in that region has improved and as a result we are seeing a draw down of troops coming in the next three months. The President’s shift in strategy must reflect the lessons learned in al Anbar. As we confront the sobering challenges that remain, solutions must take on, more and more, an Iraqi face."

What Rogers failed to mention, of course, is that one of the U.S.' most important allies in Anbar province had just been assassinated. The Sunni shiek, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, was killed by a bomb along with two of his guards -- just a week after shaking hands with Bush when Bush sneaked into the country for a brief visit.

Why did Rogers ignore this development in his statement? It occurred early enough in the day for The New York Times to carry a full story on it, and The Times noted that Bush issued a statement on the killing on Thursday.

Even more telling is the information reported Sunday (Sept. 16, 2007) in The New York Times in an Op-Ed piece by pollster Gary Langer titled, "What They're Saying in Anbar Province."

Here's the nut graf:

"In a survey conducted Aug. 17-24 for ABC News, the BBC and NHK, the Japanese broadcaster, among a random national sample of 2,212 Iraqis, 72 percent in Anbar expressed no confidence whatsoever in United States forces. Seventy-six percent said the United States should withdraw now — up from 49 percent when we polled there in March, and far above the national average.

"Withdrawal timetable aside, every Anbar respondent in our survey opposed the presence of American forces in Iraq — 69 percent 'strongly' so. Every Anbar respondent called attacks on coalition forces 'acceptable,' far more than anywhere else in the country. All called the United States-led invasion wrong, including 68 percent who called it 'absolutely wrong.' No wonder: Anbar, in western Iraq, is almost entirely populated by Sunni Arabs, long protected by Saddam Hussein and dispossessed by his overthrow."

Stunning, isn't it. Every Anbar person question called attacks on coalition forces "acceptable." And Mike Rogers says we're making progress there.

The American people don't want our troops there. The people we are supposedly helping don't want us there.

Who does want us there and why?

The Worm Turns

You may have seen the reprint of Bob Alexander's Lansing State Journal op-ed over at Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (if you haven't, do check it out). It's a calm, reasonable op-ed that provides a much-needed reminder of Rogers' flip-flop on Iraq.

Five years ago Rogers returned from a Middle East trip and surprisingly announced that he no longer favored a military attack on Iraq (Ann Arbor News, Sept. 6, 2002). Rogers said information from Israeli and Saudi intelligence officers and others caused him to reassess his position.

Rogers' objections to military action then are still true:George Bush hasn't made a case for military action.

He was not sure a military action is in the best interests of the United States. We ought to pursue inspections.

He was not convinced that Iraq has the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

What will happen after a fall of the Hussein government .. how it will it affect stability in the Middle East?

Mike definitely drank the Bush Kool-Aid on this one. But he wasn't alone:

Political Wire started off this morning's news roundup with a flashback of Dick Cheney's 1994 C-SPAN interview, in which Cheney said that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would result in a quagmire.

He [Cheney] even asks, "How many additional dead Americans is Saddam Hussein worth?" and answers himself saying, "Not very many."

So what happened? How did cautious, realistic views of U.S. involvement in Iraq morph into a 21st century equivalent of the Salem Witch Trials?

There's an antidote for this particularly noxious Kool-Aid: it's called the 2008 elections. Unfortunately, it will come too late for more than 3,000 U.S. service members who lost their lives in this war.

Visit to Vacationing Rogers Rescheduled

If you couldn't make it to Lansing on Tuesday (August 7, 2007) to welcome back the vacationing Mike Rogers, don't despair. The event has been re-scheduled for Wednesday (August 8, 2007) due to inclement weather.

Details of the event, organized by Iraq Summer, are here.

Welcome Back, Mike!

Rep. Mike Rogers is coming back to Michigan after a hard session in our nation's Capitol voting against health care for children and in support of the war in Iraq.

Organizers of the Iraq Summer campaign plan to welcome Rogers home for the August recess with a rally at noon on Tuesday (August 7, 2007) at Rogers' Lansing office, 1327 E. Michigan Avenue.

Field organizer Mike Webb says the idea is to make Rogers "feel the heat" for his position in favor of the escalation of troops in Iraq.

Webb says the group wants to make the point that while American troops continue to be shot at, the Iraqi government is going on vacation instead of getting to work hammering out the compromises necessary to meet major milestones for moving Iraq forward.

Volunteers are asked to wear Hawaiian shirts and sunglasses, conjuring up the idea of vacationing lawmakers.

Military Moms for Peace is a co-sponsor of the event.

Rogers Responds to Protests -- Sort Of

Rep. Mike Rogers has finally mustered the courage to respond to his constituents' opposition to the Iraq War -- with a brief statement claiming that the war is essential to American security.

The Lansing State Journal reports that it reached Rogers by email after a Thursday protest at Michigan State University organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.

According to the Lansing State Journal, the Brighton Republican replied to the protest with the following statement:

"We have several problems in Iraq - an Iranian problem, an al Qaeda problem and a sectarian violence problem. What we need is not empty political resolutions like the measure on the House floor recently, but an honest, bipartisan dialogue on what strategy we need if the surge, which I did not favor, does not work.

"Immediate withdrawal is not a strategy and neither is ignoring the challenges. Our nation's security rests on our ability to take partisan politics out of this debate and move forward together. We must agree on a strategy that brings our troops home without leaving an al Qaeda safe haven in Iraq."

Let's dissect this bit of nonsense.

First of all, Rogers leaves out the biggest problem we have in Iraq -- an incompetence problem created by George Bush's decision to invade the country in the first place.

Then Rogers calls for a "dialogue" IF the surge doesn't work. So why doesn't Rogers start the dialogue by laying out his plan IF the surge doesn't work?

After that bit of hot air, Rogers throws out the red herring that "immediate withdrawal is not a strategy." A withdrawal next April is not "immediate" by any stretch of the imagination.

Then he claims that "our nation's security" rests on this debate. "Our nation's security" has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. The war has made us less safe, as shown by the recent National Intelligence Estimate that Al Qaeda has regained its strength while the U.S. has been distracted by the unnecessary war in Iraq. The NIE report said that the Iraq War had had a "rejuvenating effect" on Al Qaeda.

As for Al Qaeda finding a safe haven in Iraq, why would Al Qaeda move there from the safe haven it already has in Pakistan, to which its leaders fled after George Bush botched the war in Afghanistan?

Why do journalists routinely print such nonsensical statements from politicians? Unfortunately, journalistic norms requiring "balance" sometimes work against journalists' desire to seek out the truth. If just once a newspaper could tell Rogers that his statement is not worthy of being printed because it doesn't say anything new, he might change his ways. But no newspaper will, for fear of being labeled biased. So he -- and other politicians -- get away with issuing statements that dodge the question and hide the truth.

Will He or Won't He?

Noncommittal.

That was the response that a group of 8th Congressional District residents opposed to the Iraq War got Thursday (July 12, 2007) when they met with Republican Rep. Mike Rogers' staff about the upcoming "Take a Stand" event at the Michigan Capitol.

The group, which included the mother of a man who has served a year in Iraq, a Shiawassee County veteran opposed to the war, and others, gathered outside Rogers' office in Lansing. Rogers was in Washington, but staff members met with four of Rogers' constituents.

Afterward, participants said they had a chance to explain their positions to Rogers' aide and hand-delivered a letter, along with a petition signed by 200 people, inviting Rogers to the Aug. 28 "Take a Stand" event being organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.

Rogers recently told the Livingston Press & Argus that he will not support a change in policy in Iraq until after he hears a report this fall on the effectiveness of Bush's recent troop escalation, although Rogers opposed the "surge" when Bush announced it in January.

While two Lansing-area television stations sent cameras to the event, the Livingston Press & Argus was not visible. Too busy covering "ducks stuck in gutter" stories to bother with "country stuck in costly, unpopular war" stories probably.

But LivingBlue has you covered, with on-the-spot video.

Be There Or We'll Talk About You

Can't make it to Detroit for the NAACP presidential candidates forum today? How about visiting Lansing instead?

The political event there today (July 12, 2007) is at Republican Rep. Mike Rogers' office.

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq will be hand-delivering a letter to Rogers' office urging him to take a stand on the Iraq war. The letter will invite Rogers to a town hall meeting on Aug. 28 to explain his stance on the war to his constituents.

Today's event is at 12:30 p.m. at Rogers' office, 1327 E. Michigan Avenue.

Be there or we'll talk about you.

Rogers' Newsletter Avoids War Talk

Does Rep. Mike Rogers even know there's a war on? You can't tell by reading his Legislative Email Update.

Rogers' three-page, taxpayer-funded letter arrived in my email inbox on Tuesday (July 10, 2007). The headlines: "Rogers Proposal Would Boost Alternative Fuel Research, Protect Jobs," "Rogers Rejects Senate Amnesty Bill," "Mentoring Legislation Co-Sponsored by Rogers," and "Michigan State Receives $50 Million for Energy Research, Creates 100 Jobs."

Missing was the headline I'd really like to see: "Rogers Breaks with Bush on Disastrous Iraq War." No surprise there. Rogers appears ready to follow Bush all the way to the bottom of the public opinion polls and continue to support the war which the overwhelming majority of Americans now oppose.

But neither is Rogers crowing about his support of that war. Where's the headline touting his determination to keep fighting in Iraq come hell or high water? If he supports this war, why doesn't his newsletter give us an update on its progress and explain why we are succeeding and must keep at it?

Instead, Rogers gives us warmed-over news about a Department of Energy grant to Michigan State, which already has appeared in the Detroit Free Press.

Rogers' silence may be an admission -- if you don't have anything good to say about a war, don't say anything at all.

After skipping the Brighton 4th of July parade, Rogers did emerge from his summer vacation long enough to talk to the Livingston Press & Argus about the war. In a story in Wednesday's edition (July 11, 2007), Rogers
wanted to give the recent troop escalation more time.

"The truth of the matter is, nobody's really sure if it's working yet," Rogers was quoted as saying, adding that any discussion of it should be put off until yet another report is due out in September.

Rogers' position is illogical. He supposedly opposed the escalation in January, proposing that troops be moved out of Baghdad to track al Qaeda fighters elsewhere in Iraq. But after opposing it in January, now he wants to stick with it.

Then he goes on to disingenuously misrepresent the position of Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, who has introduced legislation to begin withdrawing troops in 120 days and end combat by next April.

"Immediate withdrawl is not the answer," Rogers said.

Starting withdrawl in four months and keeping troops in Iraq until April 2007 is hardly "immediate."

Rogers' alternative plan seems to be little more than an attempt to construct political cover for himself. He wants to separate himself from Bush's "surge" while continuing to support the war.