Pushed AEI/PNAC talking points then when exposed deleted the whole thread, wtf?

[Dig]

[stray85]

I think Clinton and Obama are worse. I liked Ron Pauls courage to stand up for the constitution and America. I voted for him in our Missouri primary. Now though I have to look towards the future and the Democrats socialistic slant is worse than the Republican. Obama wants to just give away our resources to the third world and Hillary wants to eradicate God from our country and turn the USA communist. I know McCain is horrible but at least he's the animal we're accustomed to. I wish Paul would have went third party so we could vote for him in the general election.

[DCUBED]

Why don't you just write in Ron Paul.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. And believe me, McCain is evil.

[stray85]

Can you do that in Missouri? I never did a write in before...

[xaro007]

The country is lost and we won't get it back until people who think like this wake up! 

I was paraphrasing Alex.

[A K]

Yes Obama or Clinton would be bad on taxes and government spending, but what makes you think McCain would be any better?  Bush increased spending MORE than Bill Clinton, and McCain usually votes with the Dems on taxes, spending and regulation.  Obama was against the Iraq war, and McCain has supported it, said we will be there 100 years, there will be "more wars" and pretty much says he will attack Iran.  McCain has been an enemy of 9-11 truth, and an enemy of POW/MIA truth.  Most of his key advisors are neocon traitors.  McCain supports NAFTA, WTO and is pretty much 100% with the NWO War Party agenda.  Obama has criticized NAFTA and voted against CAFTA.  I would advise people to vote Libertarian or write in Ron Paul, or in a battle ground state like Florida or Ohio,  vote for the anti-war Obama over McCain.  I can't think of a single issue that most of the Alex Jones fans support that McCain agrees with.  

[stray85]

Well I do have a problem with just withdrawing without setting up a good way to do it. That's the only thing I have a problem with Ron Paul...foreign policy. The problem is the U.S. has already done too much over there to just leave. The resulting mess of a quick withdrawl just might put the U.S. and our access to oil at risk. Oil is life..simple as that..

Of course Bush is the idiot that got us in this mess but that's water under the bridge...also Turkeys invasion of the Iraqi North might be the beginning of the final redrawing of Iraq's boundry line.

[Beefcake]

Anyone voting for McCain can't be a listener of Alex Jones so i will never understand why somebody would post on a prison planet forum that they will vote for McCain.

Its so silly in fact, that i will bet that saying provocative things like this, and trust me saying you are voting for McCain is provocative, on these forums is a way of getting reaction.  It usually works and then tons of people respond and it pushes important topics off the recent post lists.

I realize that i am now a hypocrite for responding but i am responding not to point out McCain"s negatives in a futile attempt to alter an opinion that is intended to spark reaction.  Instead i am illustrating that submitting a topic that just states that you want to vote for a NWO candidate is just the stupidest thing you could ever post on a an anti-nwo site. 

Its like posting on a Hillary fan boy site that you are voting for Obama.  Just provocation to either actually instigate or just to make you feel special when everyone tries painstakingly to convince you not to vote that way. 

I've gone on too long to combat this kind of subtle trolling.  Why not say you like the NAU and eugenics you will get lots of responses then too and you will feel popular:)  I look forward to seeing this thread disappear into nothingness.

[Dig]

100 years of more wars

Paying off all his buddies with sweetheart telecom/military contracts

Institutionalized torture/surveillance/propaganda

Completely controlled by neo-cons/neo-liberals

Amnesty for over 100 million illegal aliens (including up to 20 friends and family members)


Ooooh Yeahhhhh, I want that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Div]

Ron Paul's foriegn policy is just about the best thing about him. Staying in Iraq any longer will just make things worse, I don't think hundreds of thousands of Al Queda militias are going to swarm in and occupy it (mostly cause they dont exist)

[Optimus]

Don't waste your vote on Insane McCain!

Just write in Ron Paul.

[stray85]

Anyone voting for McCain can't be a listener of Alex Jones so i will never understand why somebody would post on a prison planet forum that they will vote for McCain.

Its so silly in fact, that i will bet that saying provocative things like this, and trust me saying you are voting for McCain is provocative, on these forums is a way of getting reaction.  It usually works and then tons of people respond and it pushes important topics off the recent post lists.

I realize that i am now a hypocrite for responding but i am responding not to point out McCain"s negatives in a futile attempt to alter an opinion that is intended to spark reaction.  Instead i am illustrating that submitting a topic that just states that you want to vote for a NWO candidate is just the stupidest thing you could ever post on a an anti-nwo site. 

Its like posting on a Hillary fan boy site that you are voting for Obama.  Just provocation to either actually instigate or just to make you feel special when everyone tries painstakingly to convince you not to vote that way. 

I've gone on too long to combat this kind of subtle trolling.  Why not say you like the NAU and eugenics you will get lots of responses then too and you will feel popular:)  I look forward to seeing this thread disappear into nothingness.

Well, I think Clinton and Obama are worse and I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. I'm not fully sold on the other stuff you mentioned. I've been listening to Alex Jones since either 98 or 99 when his website used real player:) Don't tell me how to think,I don't like McCain BUT I like him better than Obama and Clinton. He at least fought for this country and suffered for it. His cellmate at the Hanoi Hilton,Col. George E.Day,one of the countries highly decorated Vets,said this about McCain.
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/865/public/news874503.html

Actions speak volumes...Between the Democrats and him.. I pick McCain..though I wish McCain would step aside and allow an open convention.

[stray85]

Ron Paul's foriegn policy is just about the best thing about him. Staying in Iraq any longer will just make things worse, I don't think hundreds of thousands of Al Queda militias are going to swarm in and occupy it (mostly cause they dont exist)

Just leaving would cause major backlash with allies and could be very dangerous to the U.S. in the long run. What's needed is plan for withdraw...

[Optimus]

Well, I think Clinton and Obama are worse and I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. I'm not fully sold on the other stuff you mentioned. I've been listening to Alex Jones since either 98 or 99 when his website used real player:) Don't tell me how to think,I don't like McCain BUT I like him better than Obama and Clinton. He at least fought for this country and suffered for it. His cellmate at the Hanoi Hilton,Col. George E.Day,one of the countries highly decorated Vets,said this about McCain.
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/865/public/news874503.html

Actions speak volumes...Between the Democrats and him.. I pick McCain..though I wish McCain would step aside and allow an open convention.

Songbird McCain is not a war hero, he's a f**king traitor!

[Dig]

Just leaving would cause major backlash with allies and could be very dangerous to the U.S. in the long run. What's needed is plan for withdraw...

dude, are you really trying to put that argument here?

i mean you are joking right?

look, go to the list of websites that omnicom told you to troll and pick another one.

thanks

[A K]

You say McCain is better than the Dems - you do realize that he usually votes with the Dems on taxes, spending and regulation? 

[Beefcake]

Jeesh vote for whoever you want why do we care.  Majority here won't vote for McCain so just lets end this agonizing debate.  Lets start responding to the other threads that actually might be enlightening.

[thrashbassist]

Just leaving would cause major backlash with allies and could be very dangerous to the U.S. in the long run. What's needed is plan for withdraw...

I have a plan, let's get the f*ck outta there immediately and stop the genocide.

At least try and realize that McCain is just as dangerous as Clinton or Obama. Do some research for chrissakes.

[stray85]

Ok, let me explain it. If we just left there would be no stablizing force to keep the sides apart. Right now, the Shiites would join Iran and would wipe out the Sunni's,the Shiites would then support the Kurds against the Turks. Turkey is a Nato ally...hear that big sucking sound? If Turkey strikes back at the Iranian backed Shiites..then Iran and Syria get's involved...that happens then NATO joins the conflict..of course Israel would probably get hit some time during all of this and retaliates....and this is just one of the possibilities..

[NotASheep]

Why don't you just write in Ron Paul.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. And believe me, McCain is evil.

Ditto!

[Dig]

Surrender Should Not Be an Option

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts.  They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case.  As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11.  The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option.  In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms.  Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists?  Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us?  This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization.  Saddam Hussein has been removed.  An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval.  The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence.  Why are we still over there?  Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality.  We can't be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian.  There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began.  The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with.  There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.

The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran.  Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.

The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000.  They voted for an end to the war in 2006.  Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves.  Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran.  Defense of our homeland is one thing.  Offensive tactics overseas are quite another.  Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?

The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve.  They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front.  The American People deserve much better than this.  They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn't require they surrender their liberties.

-Dr. Ron Paul

[Dig]

The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq

June 4, 2007   

Good intentions frequently lead to unintended bad consequences.  Tough choices, doing what is right, often leads to unanticipated good results.

The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do.  Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam dunk operation; that we would be welcomed as liberators, and oil revenues would pay for the operation with minimal loss of American lives.

All of this hyperbole came while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead.  The chaos that this preemptive, undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the Al Qaida to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served.

The unintended consequences have been numerous.  A well-intended but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination, without victory or resolution in sight.

Those who want a total military victory, which no one has yet defined, don’t have the troops, the money, the equipment or the support of a large majority of the American people to do so.

Those in Congress who have heard the cry of the electorate to end the war refuse to do so out of fear, the demagogues will challenge their patriotism and support of the troops so nothing happens except more of the same.  The result is continued stalemate with the current policy and the daily sacrifice of American lives.

This wait and see attitude in Washington, and the promised reassessment of events in Iraq later on, strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans in order to influence the decision coming in three months.  In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait and see attitude in Iraq, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving, the perfect time for the Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each other and on our troops and just possibly begin talking with each other.

Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq , yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse when we leave.  They refuse to admit that the condition of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruitment device for Al Qaida.

It’s time for a change in our foreign policy.

-Dr. Ron Paul

[Dig]

Fixing What’s Wrong With Iraq

May 21, 2007

Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.

More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq .

According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”

I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States .

As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.

With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq ? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization?

This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .

Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later.

-Dr. Ron Paul

[thrashbassist]

You take care of the problem by eliminating the root of the problem. US foreign policy is responsible for creating and breeding the insurgency.

The New World Order is DEPENDENT on the turmoil in the middle east, and they will do nothing to solve the problem, only exacerbate it.

[A K]

Pure BS.  The Shites run the government - why would they wipe out the Sunnis?  Our boys don't need to be there as referees in a 1400 hundred year long war, getting killed by all sides.  We need to get out and let them solve their own problems, or not solve them.  It is not our problem.Whoever runs the country will sell us the oil.  

[Dig]

Ok, let me explain it. If we just left there would be no stablizing force to keep the sides apart.

LIE - The only one pushing this bullshit is Lynne Cheney's American Enterprise Institute (funded by Halliburton and Energy...DUH)

Right now, the Shiites would join Iran and would wipe out the Sunni's,the Shiites would then support the Kurds against the Turks.

LIE - that makes no sense whatsoever.  Turkey is doing Dick Cheney a favor by pretending to care about Northern Iraq (which conveniently is also Northern Iran).  The purpose is to open a Northern front for Dick Cheney's personal masturbation called...Nuke Iran Plan (also supported by his wife's puppet organization...AEI).

Turkey is a Nato ally...hear that big sucking sound?

? - Why the f**k are we even in NATO?

They are worse than Israel getting us into tangling messes like Serbia, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, etc. etc.

If Turkey strikes back at the Iranian backed Shiites..then Iran and Syria get's involved...that happens then NATO joins the conflict..of course Israel would probably get hit some time during all of this and retaliates....and this is just one of the possibilities..

More Cheney masturbation scenarios.  The only people pushing these treasonous outright lies are the same people profiting off the genocide...

AEI

Halliburton

Exxon

Shell

BP

Like I said, just pick another website, I understand you need work, but please push the AEI/Rendon/Lincoln/Omnicom arguments another place.

Thanks

[stray85]

I agree Bush made the problem by invading Iraq period....but we need to have a exit strategy that will stop a bigger problem down the line. Al Sadre is one of the problems...we leave he takes over. The ppk is another..What's left of the Sunni insurgents....could spark a bigger war...

[Dig]

I agree Bush made the problem by invading Iraq period....but we need to have a exit strategy that will stop a bigger problem down the line. Al Sadre is one of the problems...we leave he takes over. The ppk is another..What's left of the Sunni insurgents....could spark a bigger war...

George Bush directly funds the Sunni Insurgents (John McCain has been the co-supporter of this plan).  You are saying this is BAD?

I do not understand your position.

Do you?

[LIbertAS]

"Just leaving would cause major backlash with allies and could be very dangerous to the U.S. in the long run. What's needed is plan for withdraw..."

With what allies? Most of them have left already have they not? And to the lesser of two evils argument only means you think evil is OK in moderation and my opinion to that is NO F-ING WAY PERIOD

John McCain = Hillary Clinton = Barack Obama

There is no difference, but hey you will find this out in 2 years anyway right?

[Dig]

Hersh: U.S. Funds Being Secretly Funneled To Violent Al Qaeda-Linked Groups
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/


New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.

Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”

Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: “We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.” Watch it:
 

http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/02/hershciv.320.240.flv

Hersh added, “All of this should be investigated by Congress, by the way, and I trust it will be. In my talking to membership — members there, they are very upset that they know nothing about this. And they have great many suspicions.”

Transcript:

BLITZER: Near the end of your article, you have this explosive point in there about John Negroponte, who is now going to be the deputy secretary of state, as opposed to the head of U.S. intelligence.

You write this: “I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence officials that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept the position of deputy secretary of state.”

Explain what you were hearing, because that is obviously a very explosive charge.

HERSH: Yes. It is probably the single most explosive, if you will, or depressing — or distressing sort of thing I discovered in the last few months, which is simply this. This administration has made a policy change, a decision that they are going to put all of the pressure they can on the Shiites, that is the Shiite regime in Iran, the Shiite — and they are also doing everything they can to stop Hezbollah — which is Shiite, the Hezbollah organization from getting any control or any more of a political foothold in Lebanon.

So they essentially, I quote the — I saw Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, and he described it this way, as “fitna (ph),” the Arab word for “civil war.” As far as he is concerned, we are interested in recreating what is happening in Iraq in Lebanon, that is Sunni versus Shia. And in looking into that story, and I saw him in December, I found this. That we have been pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia is putting up some of this money, for covert operations in many areas of the Middle East where we think that the — we want to stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.

They call it the “Shiite Crescent.” And a lot of this money, and I can’t tell you with absolute certainty how — exactly when and how, but this money has gotten into the hands — among other places, in Lebanon, into the hands of three — at least three jihadist groups. There are three Sunni jihadist groups whose main claim to fame inside Lebanon right now is that they are very tough. These are people connected to al Qaeda who want to take on Hezbollah. So this government, at the minimum, we may not directly be funneling money to them, but we certainly know that these groups exist.

My government, which arrests al Qaeda every place it can find them and send — some of them are n Guantanamo and other places, is sitting back while the Lebanese government we support, the government of Prime Minister Siniora, is providing arms and sustenance to three jihadist groups whose sole function, seems to me and to the people that talk to me in our government, to be there in case there is a real shoot-’em-up with Hezbollah and we really get into some sort of serious major conflict between the Sunni government and Hezbollah, which is largely Shia, who are basically — or as you know, there is a coalition headed by Hezbollah that is challenging the government right now, demonstrations, sit-ins.

There has been some violence. So America, my country, without telling Congress, using funds not appropriated, I don’t know where, by my sources believe much of the money obviously came from Iraq where there is all kinds of piles of loose money, pools of cash that could be used for covert operations.

All of this should be investigated by Congress, by the way, and I trust it will be. In my talking to membership — members there, they are very upset that they know nothing about this. And they have great many suspicions.

We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11, and we should be arresting these people rather than looking the other way…

BLITZER: And your bottom line, Sy…

HERSH: … and could lead to a real mess…

BLITZER: Your bottom line is that Negroponte was aware of this, obviously, and he wanted to distance himself from it? That is why he decided to give up that position and take the number two job at the State Department?

HERSH: He — that is one of the reasons, I was told. Negroponte also was not in tune with Cheney. There was a lot of complaints about him because he was seen as much of a stickler, too ethical for some of the operations the Pentagon wants to run.

[stray85]

LIE - The only one pushing this bullshit is Lynne Cheney's American Enterprise Institute (funded by Halliburton and Energy...DUH)

LIE - that makes no sense whatsoever.  Turkey is doing Dick Cheney a favor by pretending to care about Northern Iraq (which conveniently is also Northern Iran).  The purpose is to open a Northern front for Dick Cheney's personal masturbation called...Nuke Iran Plan (also supported by his wife's puppet organization...AEI).




? - Why the f**k are we even in NATO?

They are worse than Israel getting us into tangling messes like Serbia, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, etc. etc.

More Cheney masturbation scenarios.  The only people pushing these treasonous outright lies are the same people profiting off the genocide...

AEI

Halliburton

Exxon

Shell

BP

Like I said, just pick another website, I understand you need work, but please push the AEI/Rendon/Lincoln/Omnicom arguments another place.

Thanks

The Kurds are a HUGE concern to Turkey, The Kurds claim a huge chunk of Turkey as their own..that conflict has been going on for a very long time.

[Optimus]

I agree Bush made the problem by invading Iraq period....but we need to have a exit strategy that will stop a bigger problem down the line. Al Sadre is one of the problems...we leave he takes over. The ppk is another..What's left of the Sunni insurgents....could spark a bigger war...

The only foreign policy we should have is to keep out of other countries internal affairs and mind our own business. The only exit strategy is to get our troops out of there and make a beeline for home. Let them take care of their own problems.

[Dig]

Bush pays off 70,000 Sunni Insurgents


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq14jan14,0,7596784.story?coll=la-home-center
January 14, 2008

BAGHDAD -- Eager to cement the security gains of last year's troop buildup, the U.S. military has shifted its strategy from the streets to the corridors of power in a high-stakes effort to persuade Iraq's wary Shiite leaders to put thousands of predominantly Sunni men, many of them former insurgents, on the government payroll. More than 70,000 members of mostly Sunni Arab groups now work for American forces in neighborhood security programs. Transferring them to the control of the Shiite Muslim-dominated government, as policemen and members of public works crews, has taken on a new urgency as American troops begin to withdraw, officials indicated in recent interviews, meetings and briefings. The day-to-day commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, believes that the Iraqi government's reconciliation with onetime Sunni fighters represents the "primary driver of enhanced security" over the next six months, according to internal military planning documents seen by The Times. "It's a big change," said a top Odierno aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because such plans have yet to be made public. "It's a shift in the commander's intent."

So far, however, progress has been limited. Officials of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government, fearing the creation of a potential rival army, are resisting the move. U.S. military officials fear that opposition could send the former insurgents among the Sunni guard corps, known as concerned local citizens, or CLCs, back into the battlefield. "We've got a lull at the moment, an absolute lull in violence, but it could go anywhere next year, depending on how the current government reacts to it," Odierno's aide said. "One of our biggest risks are CLCs and which way they'll go." The aide, like other U.S. officials, warned that the window of opportunity is narrow, and is dependent on the Iraqi government making the Sunni security groups, sometimes called Awakening Councils, part of the official government structure. "If it doesn't embrace it, you could have the different Sunni Awakenings coming together as a Sunni army that tries to overthrow the government, pushing the country into civil war," the aide said. "It's possible." The concerned citizens groups now serve as guards in areas where traditional security forces, such as the Iraqi army and police, are not present or are not trusted because of past sectarian abuses. Not all are Sunnis. But experts on the staff of Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the overall commander in Iraq, estimated at the end of November that about 80% then under U.S. contracts were Sunni. Each gets paid about $300 a month.

U.S. officials believe the concerned citizens groups have helped reduce violence by fighting extremists linked to the group Al Qaeda in Iraq and by redirecting insurgents. Those officials, wary of creating parallel constabulary units that would rival government-controlled forces, have ramped up efforts to persuade the Baghdad government to attach the concerned citizens groups to the Iraqi police or civilian work corps. The move marks an important shift in U.S. efforts to bring rival Shiite and Sunni factions together. Since the start of the U.S. troop buildup, Pentagon officials have tried to get Sunni and Shiite officials to reconcile, a process that U.S. officials acknowledge has largely failed. The Shiite-led Iraqi parliament approved a bill Saturday that would allow many members of Saddam Hussein's party, most of whom are Sunnis, to regain government jobs, but the measure was not related directly to the citizens groups. The law was approved only after months of debate, and other key reconciliation measures sought by the U.S. have languished. Although not abandoning their efforts at the central government level, U.S. officials have made the hiring of Sunni guards the centerpiece of their new reconciliation strategy.

Last year, the Iraqi government cautiously supported a move to bring Sunnis who participated in the Awakening movement in Anbar province into the police force. But government resistance has stiffened as groups closer to Baghdad begin making the same transition. So far, 1,730 members of the concerned citizens groups in the Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib have been allowed to become police officers. An additional 2,000 in the capital were accepted as members of the police force during the fall. But even those limited numbers have been difficult for U.S. officials to clear through the Iraqi government. "It's still an obstacle," said Army Col. Martin Stanton, the officer on Petraeus' staff who is in charge of the effort. "They're deeply suspicious of any organized group of Sunnis, especially ones that were former insurgents." Stanton said he would like to see most of the guards transferred to Iraqi control within the next eight months.

The move to set up concerned citizens groups sprang from the unexpected uprising of Sunni sheiks in Anbar against Al Qaeda in Iraq in 2006, when they approached U.S. military commanders to request permission to band together to protect their own neighborhoods. Since then, Anbar has gone from the most violent province in Iraq to one of the quietest, and U.S. military officials have tried to replicate the model elsewhere. Local commanders used funds provided under a long-standing "emergency-response program" to pay the local groups. Officials targeted cities and regions where Iraqi security forces did not exist, such as Arab Jabour, a largely Sunni rural area south of Baghdad, or were unwilling to actively patrol, like Baqubah, the war-torn capital of Diyala province to the north. Mid-level U.S. officers acknowledge that many of the men being drafted into the CLC groups are former insurgents; one officer in east Baghdad marveled that he recently met over tea with CLC leaders who had been on his unit's insurgent target list just weeks earlier.

"Our 'concerned local citizens' -- people say it without any hint of irony," said one official. "One day, we remove the Al Qaeda patch and put on a CLC patch. Now they're the good guys." But advocates of the program argue that such steps are inevitable, and in some cases desirable. They represent an acknowledgment that many Iraqis who were fighting U.S.-led forces were not hardened militants, but angry men looking to protect their neighborhoods from foreigners. By becoming guards in previously unpatrolled areas in northern and central Iraq, the citizens groups have become a key stopgap, filling in security holes where U.S. forces have lacked the numbers to impose stability. "The CLCs are bridging the gap, but unfortunately that can't last forever," said Army Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, Odierno's chief of staff. "The government of Iraq [must] embrace it, and that's a big battle right now: Are they going to embrace these under their own contracts?" U.S. officials have acknowledged that the Iraqi police forces are not large enough to absorb all 70,000 of the men. Odierno said last month that fewer than a quarter will become government security personnel. As a result, U.S. officials have begun a pilot program to develop a civil service corps to employ the men. "We'll teach them skills, like repairing pipes, electricity, sewage," Odierno said. Still, officials aren't certain such programs can absorb the huge numbers of the concerned local citizens.

Approval from the central government represents a larger hurdle. Odierno has had a series of lengthy and intense meetings with Iraqi officials to sell them on the idea and said last month that the two sides have agreed to a series of "very strict" requirements to temper Iraqi concerns. Among them are restrictions on the citizens groups operating outside the control of the U.S. military or Iraqi government and a limitation on the number of group members who will be moved into the formal security forces. Iraqi officials have raised concerns that citizens groups have been infiltrated by hard-core insurgents, a possibility U.S. officials have openly acknowledged. "Are there people trying to infiltrate them? Yes," Odierno said. "But we can sort through that. The majority of them just want to be part of the government of Iraq. Before, there was no avenue for them to become part of the government of Iraq."

[Dig]

The Kurds are a HUGE concern to Turkey, The Kurds claim a huge chunk of Turkey as their own..that conflict has been going on for a very long time.

Really, wow.

Well then we should make sure that another 5 million American Citizens starve this year to help out, huh?

We should make sure another 1,000 American soldiers die in illegal wars, another 10,000 injured, another 100,000 with PTSD, and another 100,000 innocent Iraqis die for these "outlandish conspiracy theories."


THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE US FEEL SAFE!!!!

Yee-haw!

[LIbertAS]

I agree Bush made the problem by invading Iraq period....but we need to have a exit strategy that will stop a bigger problem down the line. Al Sadre is one of the problems...we leave he takes over. The ppk is another..What's left of the Sunni insurgents....could spark a bigger war...

 So we must eliminate the threat of Al Sadr and the PPK? Take the Shia and Turks out of power and do not let them control Iraq? Sounds to me someone was doing this long before we invaded. Getting out is paramount and like you said you want to see an exit strategy. If you vote for McCain what strategy is he proposing exactly?

[thrashbassist]

The Kurds are a HUGE concern to Turkey, The Kurds claim a huge chunk of Turkey as their own..that conflict has been going on for a very long time.

Sounds like a Turkish problem, no?

[Sub-X]

The Sunni's & the Shiites had gotten on for years until the Iraqi invasion.

[stray85]

Well.. and all that.... I'll look into the write in vote thing...I'm not voting for Hillary or Obama though...what crappy choices to choose from

[LIbertAS]

Well.. and all that.... I'll look into the write in vote thing...I'm not voting for Hillary or Obama though...what crappy choices to choose from

Yes they all suck and not one of them will get my vote

[Optimus]

So we must eliminate the threat of Al Sadr and the PPK? Take the Shia and Turks out of power and do not let them control Iraq? Sounds to me someone was doing this long before we invaded. Getting out is paramount and like you said you want to see an exit strategy. If you vote for McCain what strategy is he proposing exactly?

I think it was something like a 100 year exit strategy.

Oh, and let's not forget, McCain wants to bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran!