By Sahar IIS

One bloc pushing for supremacy.


Another pulling out.

Three contemplating joining ranks.

Speaker of the house holding on with his teeth.

This group accuses that one of foreign affiliation, while a third group accuses them both of shadowy agendas.

Iraqi Army.

Iraqi Police.

American Forces.

Other Forces.

Militias.

Qaeda.

Their Iraqi minions.

Iran

Saudi Arabia.

Syria.

.

. . All, love the Iraqi people and are all doing their very best to provide us with ….WHAT??

Democracy of an Islamist state in the twenty first century?

A Parliament?

The freedom to carry weapons and kill?

The freedom to shout out loud our pain??

Who is listening?

All these good-doers, thousands of them, in four years, what have they presented to the poor Iraqi Man that they all wish to serve?

Thousands of reconstruction contracts have been awarded – and the projects said to be implemented.

What are they?

Where are they? Where are they?

Wouldn't a sinking government jump at the chance to show such accomplishments – had there been any?

Wouldn't an accused occupier jump at the chance to show some successful, truly fundamental infrastructure developments and shout them from the roof tops?

Do we have sanitary drinking water?

Do we have electricity?

Do we have medical services or basic neighbourhood services?

Thank you, but no thank you.

But you see… no one asked me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

By Me...

Today in the U.S.A.

A President/dictator that stole office twice!
demands that congress vote favoring his will.

A Vice President with strong ties to Halliburton, the same company that has paid politicians 6 million dollars for A 600% gain in government contracts since 2000, and reaps huge profits exploiting wars!

A corrupt U.S. Attorney General!

A stacked Supreme Court!

A defunct Congress!

A government that spies on our citizens!

Little if any health insurance for the medial hourly working class citizen and their dependents!

Perscription drugs that are unaffordable for the fixed income elderly!

A cost of living surge that is rapidly outgaining the medial income!

Soaring fuel prices!

Government terrorist alerts on A daily basis!

A wide open southern border!

Is this what I voted for? I think not!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House late Saturday night approved the Republican version of a measure amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 227-183, with most Republicans and conservative Democrats supporting the bill.

President Bush demanded Congress expand his surveillance authority before leaving for vacation.

The White-House backed legislation closes what the Bush administration has called critical gaps in U.S. intelligence capability by expanding the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.

Lawmakers have been scrambling to pass a bill acceptable to the White House before they leave for a monthlong summer recess.

President Bush had threatened to veto any bill that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said did not meet his needs.

The Senate approved its Republican-sponsored bill Friday night. Immediately after that vote, a Democratic-sponsored bill failed to reach the 60-vote majority.

President Bush demanded Congress expand his surveillance authority before leaving for vacation.

Note..The Democratic controlled Congress sells us out again, I guess we should be elated that they are assisting Bush in totally destroying the bill of right, your rights!
But what the hell, their vacation is far more important than anything as trivial as your rights as an American citizen!

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago

Congress and the White House struggled Friday over expanding authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists in a high-stakes showdown over national security.

The House rejected a Democratic proposal opposed by President Bush that would give him that authority for only four months. The largely party-line vote in favor of the bill was 218-207, short of the two-thirds majority needed under rules limiting debate.

**************************************************************
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, prepared to concede to a bill supported by the White House limiting that authority to six months. It also would allow the director of national intelligence and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to carry out the expanded eavesdropping for four months before a court signs off on it.
***************************************************************

The House vote left the bill's fate in doubt.

"I hope that there are no attacks before we are able to effectively update this important act," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

Bush earlier Friday coupled his demand for legislation with a threat to veto any bill that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country."

***************************************************************
"We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials at FBI headquarters. "Time is short."
***************************************************************

Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by Harry Truman.

The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the secret FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.

Negotiators spent Friday trying to narrow differences between what Bush wanted and Democrats' demand for court approval before intelligence agents get expanded authority to tap into overseas phone calls and Internet traffic of suspected terrorists.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the administration plan "more likely to protect the American people against terrorist attacks by those who want to do us harm."

Current law requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas — what the White House calls a significant gap in preventing attacks planned abroad.

***************************************************************
Senate Democrats backed off their initial demands to have the surveillance process reviewed by the FISA court before overseas eavesdropping without warrants could begin. Instead, the bill headed for passage there largely mirrors what the Bush administration wanted. It would require:
***************************************************************

_Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The White House agreed to add McConnell after Democrats balked at giving that authority to Gonzales alone.

_FISA court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and concluded within a month after the surveillance started.

_The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan.

Bush likely to prevent aides' testimony

President Bush is expected to claim executive privilege to prevent two more White House aides from testifying before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors.

Thursday is the deadline for Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, to provide testimony and documents related to the firings, under a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Also subpoenaed was White House political aide J. Scott Jennings. The Justice Department included both men on e-mails about the firings and the administration's response to the congressional investigation.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding has consistently said that top presidential aides — present and past — are immune from subpoenas and has declared the documents sought off-limits under executive privilege.

The House Judiciary Committee already has approved a contempt citation against two other Bush confidants, chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. The full House is expected to vote on the citation in the fall, but the Justice Department has said it won't prosecute the two.

Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month and sought to answer some lawmakers' questions and remain mum on others, citing Bush's claim of privilege.

The controversy over the firings has grown into a larger dispute between Congress and the White House over the credibility of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Lawmakers have questioned whether Gonzales testified truthfully over the government's secret surveillance program.

Bush met with congressional leaders Wednesday to press for action on a proposal to expand the surveillance program and get it done before Congress goes on recess at week's end.

The administration is pushing to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow surveillance without a warrant of terror suspects who are overseas. The proposal, offered late last week by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, is designed to fix what the White House says is a glaring problem: the missing of significant foreign intelligence that could protect the country against terrorist attacks.

"To the extent that more flexibility is needed, as Director McConnell has indicated, we are prepared to make those accommodations under the law," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after congressional leaders met with Bush at the White House Wednesday. "We hope to do that this week."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he, too, thought the matter would be worked out. But he would not predict timing, as Pelosi did.

"In the Senate, I don't promise any legislation," Reid said. He said the hang-up is "what the involvement of the attorney general will be."

Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate have openly questioned the truthfulness of Gonzales, whom they also accuse of helping Bush exploit executive power at the expense of civil liberties and possibly beyond the law on an array of matters.

The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he saw bipartisan willingness to get the legislation done before the Congress goes into recess.

The White House responded with measured optimism.

"I think they understand and appreciate the importance," Bush spokesman Tony Snow said of Democratic leaders. "We will see."

The administration believes the FISA court under existing law must approve certain spying because many conversations and contacts taking place overseas are routed through U.S.-based communication carriers, satellites or Internet providers.

Its latest proposal is narrower than what the administration sought in April: a slew of changes to the 1978 FISA law.

That law created a court which meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the NSA and other agencies to investigate suspected spies, terrorists or other national security threats. Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without requiring a warrant beforehand from the FISA court — on calls between people in the U.S. and others overseas when terrorism is suspected.

After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush earlier this year put it under FISA court supervision.

On spending matters, the Democrats and Bush appeared to get nowhere in their breakfast meeting.

Bush has threatened vetoes or signaled veto threats against most of the 12 annual spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1. The differences between Bush and Congress involve $23 billion in funding — a gap that the Democrats call small, and the White House portrays as wasteful.

Pelosi said the president was firm on his stand, but she added, "I'm not one to take no for an answer."
President Bush is expected to claim executive privilege to prevent two more White House aides from testifying before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors.

Thursday is the deadline for Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, to provide testimony and documents related to the firings, under a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Also subpoenaed was White House political aide J. Scott Jennings. The Justice Department included both men on e-mails about the firings and the administration's response to the congressional investigation.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding has consistently said that top presidential aides — present and past — are immune from subpoenas and has declared the documents sought off-limits under executive privilege.

The House Judiciary Committee already has approved a contempt citation against two other Bush confidants, chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. The full House is expected to vote on the citation in the fall, but the Justice Department has said it won't prosecute the two.

Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month and sought to answer some lawmakers' questions and remain mum on others, citing Bush's claim of privilege.

The controversy over the firings has grown into a larger dispute between Congress and the White House over the credibility of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Lawmakers have questioned whether Gonzales testified truthfully over the government's secret surveillance program.

Bush met with congressional leaders Wednesday to press for action on a proposal to expand the surveillance program and get it done before Congress goes on recess at week's end.

The administration is pushing to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow surveillance without a warrant of terror suspects who are overseas. The proposal, offered late last week by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, is designed to fix what the White House says is a glaring problem: the missing of significant foreign intelligence that could protect the country against terrorist attacks.

"To the extent that more flexibility is needed, as Director McConnell has indicated, we are prepared to make those accommodations under the law," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after congressional leaders met with Bush at the White House Wednesday. "We hope to do that this week."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he, too, thought the matter would be worked out. But he would not predict timing, as Pelosi did.

"In the Senate, I don't promise any legislation," Reid said. He said the hang-up is "what the involvement of the attorney general will be."

Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate have openly questioned the truthfulness of Gonzales, whom they also accuse of helping Bush exploit executive power at the expense of civil liberties and possibly beyond the law on an array of matters.

The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he saw bipartisan willingness to get the legislation done before the Congress goes into recess.

The White House responded with measured optimism.

"I think they understand and appreciate the importance," Bush spokesman Tony Snow said of Democratic leaders. "We will see."

The administration believes the FISA court under existing law must approve certain spying because many conversations and contacts taking place overseas are routed through U.S.-based communication carriers, satellites or Internet providers.

Its latest proposal is narrower than what the administration sought in April: a slew of changes to the 1978 FISA law.

That law created a court which meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the NSA and other agencies to investigate suspected spies, terrorists or other national security threats. Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without requiring a warrant beforehand from the FISA court — on calls between people in the U.S. and others overseas when terrorism is suspected.

After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush earlier this year put it under FISA court supervision.

On spending matters, the Democrats and Bush appeared to get nowhere in their breakfast meeting.

Bush has threatened vetoes or signaled veto threats against most of the 12 annual spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1. The differences between Bush and Congress involve $23 billion in funding — a gap that the Democrats call small, and the White House portrays as wasteful.

Pelosi said the president was firm on his stand, but she added, "I'm not one to take no for an answer."

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer

By Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan
1 hour, 13 minutes ago


President George W. Bush's nominee to be top military adviser said on Tuesday the United States will be in Iraq for "years not months" and a Pentagon official said the war was costing even more than expected.

Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, picked as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned U.S. lawmakers unhappy with the conflict against seeking a rapid pullout from Iraq, saying it could turn the country into a "caldron."

While prudence dictated planning for an eventual pullout, Mullen said that under one scenario it could take three to four years just to halve the 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. Many Democrats want to pull out combat troops by April.

"I do think we will be there for years, not months," Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing. "But I don't see it (Iraq) as a permanent -- you know, on a permanent base at this point."

Mullen, 60, now chief of naval operations, was nominated last month after the Bush administration decided against seeking a second two-year term in the job for Marine Gen. Peter Pace. Defense Secretary Robert Gates concluded that Pace's role in the unpopular Iraq war would have led to overly contentious hearings to reconfirm him.

Based on the warm reception Mullen drew, he appeared headed for approval.

In separate testimony to the House Budget Committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said next year's war tab will exceed the administration's existing request for $141.7 billion. That is on top of more than $600 billion in war checks already written for Iraq and Afghanistan, with 70 percent going to Iraq.

Besides needing more money to build and deliver mine-resistant vehicles to repel insurgent attacks, England said Bush's request did not include next year's costs for the extra 30,000 U.S. troops sent into combat this year.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, the South Carolina Democrat who must juggle war funding, pay for skyrocketing health and retirement benefits for the elderly and also make the budget deficit vanish, complained, "We're actually spending more and more each year" on the war.

Spratt called it an "ominous indication the costs are continuing to increase."

Mullen said Bush's troop buildup had brought more stability to Iraq but that there did not appear to be much political progress.

"Based on the ... lack of political reconciliation at the government level, obviously ... I would be concerned about whether we'd be winning or not," he said.

Ultimately "no amount of troops" could solve Iraqi political problems, Mullen acknowledged, but he said strategic decisions should wait until U.S. Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus report on progress in September.

Mullen expressed concern about the "increasingly hostile" role played by Iran. He said Tehran supported the Taliban in Afghanistan and was trying to drive the United States out of Iraq but he hoped the issue could be solved diplomatically.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office provided an analysis for long-term war costs. It estimated that if troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were reduced to 75,000 over the next five years and stayed at that level through 2017, it would cost the U.S. Treasury $845 billion over the 10-year period.

"We don't have that sort of assumption," England said of the 75,000 troop estimate. He did not give any estimate of how large a U.S. force would be over the next 10 years.

Whatever the costs, England recently returned from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan saying he saw significant progress.

"Lives are starting to return to normal" in Baghdad and other regions, England said, noting that businesses were "coming to life" and religious leaders were spurning al Qaeda in Iraq. But he also acknowledged continuing "problems."