Ablogination

Construction began on "Fortress America" during the middle of 2005 on land provided the year before by the Iraqi so-called 'government' for EXACTLY what in return, it has never been revealed.

Situated on 104 acres (80 football fields), it has its own water wells, its own electrical plant, and its own wastewater treatment facility. The American so-called embassy in Iraq consists of 21 separate buildings. These structures are in a park-like setting directly on the Tigris River.

Just the residence alone for the ambassador consists of 16,000 square feet. The 'house' for the "deputy chief of mission" (whatever that involves exactly) within the 'compound' in Iraq has only 9,500 square feet.

Costs for construction have been debated for several years, ranging from half a BILLION to somewhere over a BILLION. The operating costs, however, for "Fortress America" is $1.2 billion. A year! Every year!

Let that soak in. $1.2 billion for just the necessary operating costs every year. And that summary of operating costs was made a while back. Those same operating costs will surely increase in the future, won't they?

Meanwhile, the unemployment situation in Baghdad is not so good. Some of the 'Sunnis', accustomed to ruling the country for years under the former dictator, will continue to antagonize and to terrorize the majority 'Shiites'. If the 'Shiites' over-react, then the 'Sunnis' will have the opportunity (some of them apparently think anyway) to regain control of the country with the assistance of the United States. After all, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are predominantly 'Sunni'. The United States obviously supports the autocratic regimes in those nations. Do you suppose that some 'Sunnis' believe that the United States just might establish & maintain another authoritarian 'Sunni' government in Iraq some day?

In 2001, some estimated that approximately 85% of all Muslims identified themselves as 'Sunni'. I wonder what the figures are today.

Also, some of the 'Shiites' within Iraq fanatically lust for a theocratic form of government similar to what exists within the boundaries of their next door neigbor, Iran. Some even entertain delusions about a 'Shiite' controlled so-called 'super nation' consisting of Iraq, Iran, and parts of Lebanon, Bahrain, etc. The 'Shiites' may not represent the majority of Muslims today, but some of their fundamentalists in Iraq are just as intolerant, pig-headed, socially ignorant and eager to kill anyone opposed to their faith-based superstitions as are some of the Christian fundamentalists in America, as demonstrated by various calls made by some to "take back" their respective nation from the majority infidels, the non-believers, the satanists, the 'lib-rals' - the whatever label that is created by the fanatics to refer to those opposed to their fascist fantasies.

In Iraq, both some of these 'Sunnis' and some of these 'Shiites' will persistently exploit the unemployment rate, the poverty, the implicit subservience, the hardships, the dismal living conditions, etc. Those afflicted need only to look across the river in order to see the opulent living conditions of the American occupation forces.


Do you suppose that any of those people resent "Fortress America"? What do you suppose "Fortress America" represents to them?


And, significantly too, does anyone sincerely believe that certain interest groups in America are going to pleasantly disregard their 'investments' and voluntarily leave Iraq at anytime in the near future? For good or worse, we are there and suspectedly not going anywhere anytime soon unless forced out in some manner.

Years of focused American political efforts can certainly rectify the situation. But can such efforts really be focused over a period of years, what with all of the other problems, economic & otherwise, occurring in the United States these days? I certainly don't know the answer.

Excellent addendum, vic. Amazing, no?

Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq is one Robert Ford. Former Ambassador to Algeria and you can bet he's CIA to the core.
Little info is available.

Trivia Q?

Who was the former Deputy Ambassador to Iraq?
Why, Joseph Wilson of course.
As you remember, Wilson was removed when he questioned the BushCo lie about Saddam trying to buy Uranium from Niger.
That was the beginning of the truth coming out about the war and the true motivation for it.
Wilson's wife, Val Plame, was the covert CIA operative Cheney exposed. A textbook act of treason Cheney and his cronies have yet to pay the price for.

After Robert Ford was "deputy chief of mission" at the American embassy in Manama, Bahrain, he became the "political affairs counselor" in Baghdad during 2004. Then, ol' George W. Bush selected him to be the American ambassador to Algeria where Ford had been involved in embassy-related activities prior to his Bahrain service. This was back in 2006 (although he wasn't "confirmed" until 2007).

Now Ford is purportedly the #2 American 'representative' in Iraq.

He reportedly speaks Arabic, which seems to be a prudent skill. Evidently, he has much experience in Middle Eastern affairs. That's surely a good thing considering that the latest ambassador, Chris Hill, has absolutely NO experience working in the Middle East. But Hill has been with the State Department for years, and others have described him as being "one of our most seasoned diplomats..."

Yeah. SEASONED.


On 6/18/2009 during a State Department briefing, Hill was answering some questions:


QUESTION - "I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IRAN, ACTUALLY. YOUR PREDECESSOR MET WITH THE IRANIANS SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT ISSUES SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO IRAQ. WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE YOUR ROLE BEING WITH THE IRANIANS AS FAR AS YOUR POST NOW IN IRAQ?"

HILL'S ANSWER - "It's hard to say. Frankly, the ISSUE HASN'T COME UP as of now. I've only been there a couple of months. Iran has a GREAT INTEREST in Iraq. We certainly FEEL THEIR INTEREST in Iraq. They're a HISTORICAL NEIGHBOR of Iraq and obviously those two countries will have a RELATIONSHIP GOING FORWARD. And as I said at my confirmation hearing, I think it would be best if Iran did all it could do to respect the sovereignty of its neighbor".

QUESTION - "IS SYRIA BEING MORE HELPFUL IN TERMS OF IRAQ? HAVE YOU NOTICED A CHANGE?

HILL'S ANSWER - "I think, you know, obviously it's - this is - Syria's relationship with Iraq has gone through some ups and downs in recent years. Obviously we are INTERESTED in Syria and Iraq having a better relationship. We are - we have addressed that issue with the Iraqis and we will continue to do so and see if we can be HELPFUL. And as the Iraqi Prime Minister said to me, we'll TRY to coordinate what we're doing with Syria. But MAKING Iraq have a better relationship with its neigbors is a key element of WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO in that country".

QUESTION - CAN I ASK YOU ABOUT THE RENEWED VIOLENCE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS IN IRAN? IT DEFINITELY SEEMS A CONCERTED EFFORT --

CORRECTION TO THE QUESTION - IRAQ

HILL'S ANSWER - "I think if you look at overall levels of violence in Iraq, you'll see an overall TRENDING DOWNWARD. And this trending downward includes some of the events that took place in recent weeks. I must say, as someone who is new there and when I see a couple of rockets hit the green zone, those are a couple of rockets too many for my taste. But people who have had the benefit of more time there always tell me it's nothing compared to last year. So when you see the aggregate numbers PUT TOGETHER BY THE U.S. MILITARY, you see there is an overall trending downward".

"Now the real question is whether some of these attacks - in one case, an attack on an Iranian tourist, actually - whether these attacks on obvious Shiite populations are ones that are going to be RECIPROCATED. And certainly, you've seen some attacks on Sunnis. Whether it's CONCERTED or not, it's obviously, in our view, an attempt to STIMULATE tensions. And we're pleased to say that it has not had a DESIRED effect".

"The OVERALL level of violence is - continues to be low. We don't see any RECREATION of milita groups. There are still militia groups out there, but there's certainly no GROWTH IN THAT PATTERN. Whether we continue to have this - these POSITIVE trends I think is hard to say, except that we work very hard to make sure that there is DIALOGUE among the various POLITICAL INTERLOCUTORS in the country. We continue to do what we can to help people get together".

"That is a country that's gone through six years of very, very painful violence, where everybody has lost a loved one. And one never wants to PREDICT WHEN PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THIS SORT OF THING, but since arriving there in the the last couple of months, I do believe that people are trying to work their way through a POLITICAL PROCESS".

QUESTION - BUT YOU DON'T SEE - I MEAN, THE VIOLENCE IS DOWN, BUT THE LAST KIND OF - COUPLE OF YEARS OF VIOLENCE SEEMED TO BE MORE EVIDENCE FROM THE INSURGENCY AND FROM AL-QAIDA-TYPE - YOU KNOW, AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ THINGS. YOU DON'T SEE A RENEWED LEVEL OF SECTARIAN TENSIONS THAT GIVES YOU PAUSE THAT THERE MIGHT BE A --

HILL'S ANSWER - "No, I mean - no, we don't, actually. What we do see are an ANTICIPATION of parliamentary elections which are now expected to be in January. We do see a lot of JOCKEYING for political positions. We see Shiite parties reaching out to have a Sunni partner and to have a Kurdish partner. These sort of things are actually healthy. So in general, what we see is a TENDENCY to want to work with a political - within the political system. But I don't want to sound POLLYANNISH about that because these are trends that are fragile and ones that need to be nurtured every day".




Those are probably enough examples to illustrate a pattern.

So, does this new ambassador, with his stereotypical State Department way of describing the world around him, inspire anyone? Does he reveal any understanding of the survivors in Iraq in consideration of the fact that hundreds of thousands of men, women & children have died (some studies claim the real figure is over a million) subsequent to the American invasion of their nation?

Is anyone tempted to think that Robert Ford will actually be the man who is capable of accomplishing anything constructive in Iraq while Hill continues to be effectively nothing more than a glorified 'press secretary' for the American military bureaucracy?

Or is that realistic thinking? Is Ford just another State department sycophant?


Oh well. At least Ford can speak Arabic and will be able to know what Iraqis say to him. Perhaps, the question is whom or what interest groups will he actually hear?

On another informative website besides ABLOGINATION, one called the DAILY KOS, a blogger who goes by "Geenius at Wrok" has posted an essay, part of which illustrates a point I tried to make previously when I wrote:

".....some of their fundamentalists in Iraq are just as intolerant, pig-headed, socially ignorant and eager to kill anyone opposed to their faith-based superstitions as are some of the Christian fundamentalists in America, as demonstrated by various calls made by some to "take back" their respective nation from the majority infidels, the non-believers, the satanists, the 'lib-rals' - the whatever label that is created by the fanatics to refer to those opposed to their fascist fantasies....."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/2/749183/-Time-for-a-Christian-Revolutionary-War



What "Geenius at Wrok" has written illustrates that the 'fundamentalist PROBLEM' is not just one indicative of certain areas in the southern States.


He wrote:

"Time For A Christian Revolutionary War. That's the title of the FROM THE PULPIT column in today's Freeport, Ill., Journal-Standard, my local newspaper.


Here are some tidbits (i.e. excerpts):

It is time for a new Christian revolutionary war. It is time for Christians all over the United States to stand up for our Judeo-Christian heritage. Our nation has slowly turned its back on God. We have forsaken our call as a nation, which is to be a light to all other nations. We have allowed a few in the secular minority to rob our freedoms, which came by the blood of many brave men and women throughout history.

The true church of Jesus Christ must arise in this desperate hour and storm heaven with our prayers. We must not relent until our Christian heritage is established again in every aspect of society. Jesus declared in John 8:36, “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” Jesus Christ paid the ultimate price for our spiritual freedom. He died and rose again in order that all who come to Him could live a life free from spiritual oppression.

The United States of America is still the greatest country in the world. However, our nation is in a battle of major proportions for its soul. We cannot allow the secular humanists, the religious liberals or the immoral of society speak on behalf of our nation. It is time that the church of Jesus Christ find its revolutionary voice, and proclaim to everyone who will listen, that this nation is and will always be “one nation under God.”



Writings like Vandenburgh's make me fear for my country, not just because of their militant demands for conformity of conscience but because of their distortion of history.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence (not 55, as he says), whom Vandenburgh says "committed their life, liberty and possessions to see a new nation birthed with religious freedom," only 12 were "Christians" by the contemporary "born-again" Evangelical definition (which excludes, among others, Catholics, but could probably be construed to include Colonial-era Congregationalists). Mostly mainline Episcopals and Presbyterians, the signers also included two Deists, two Quakers and two Unitarians.

Vandenburgh forgets (or ignores) that the religious freedom sought on America's shores by Puritans, Catholics, Quakers, Huguenots, Jews, Baptists, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Pietists, freethinkers and, yes, Evangelicals was the freedom to dissent from the established church. Statements such as, "We must not relent until our Christian heritage is established again in every aspect of society," show no respect for dissent. Indeed, I'm not sure what kind of "freedom" he refers to that a "secular minority" has robbed Americans of, unless it's the freedom to repress dissenters. America has been a pluralistic society from the start, which is why the First Amendment not only protects the free practice of religion but also prohibits the establishment of religious authority in government.

The Preamble to the Constitution -- America's "mission statement" -- refers to establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and ensuring freedom for generations to come. It says NOTHING about "serv[ing] Jesus Christ and His kingdom." The Constitution does, however, state plainly that "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust."

Quoting the Pledge of Allegiance, Vandenburgh also says, "this nation is and will always be 'one nation under God.'" Perhaps he isn't aware that the words "one nation under God" were not added to the pledge until 1954, at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, or that President Dwight Eisenhower enacted the change as a reminder to Americans "that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble." I see no humility in Vandenburgh's dominionist declaration.

Finally, it takes nerve to say, "It is time for a new Christian revolutionary war," so close on the heels of the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas ob/gyn who performed abortions. Did Tiller's murderer imagine himself as a frontline soldier in such a war? Do secular humanists and religious liberals need to worry that there might be other self-imagined Christian revolutionaries awaiting the signal to fire?

It's unfortunate that such an inflammatory and un-American entreaty should have been published so close to our annual celebration of liberty, equality and justice for all -- and of our independence from a kingdom with an established church that did reach into every aspect of society".

THE END



I would like to add that people in the United States do indeed have enemies, both foreign and domestic. The MOST vile & despicable enemies are those self-righteous religious fanatics who lust for power and who have wet dreams every night about tyranically exercising that imaginary power over every individual in America. If you are not prepared to combat & to defeat those enemies who want to control every aspect of your life, I surely hope you begin, at least, your own preparations before it's too late to matter.

Unless you are willing to allow certain 'elements of society' to control your life, as some sheep apparently are, because it's 'easier', or 'convenient', or 'expedient' or whatever.



May you celebrate on the 4th of July considering what may be the TRUE threats to future stability that exist today in the United States.

Spot on about Hill, vic.
That's why Ford (CIA) is the go to guy. Hill is exactly as you described. A face man who smiles and shakes hands for the camera.

There are some very talented people a Kos. I certainly do understand the poor image of religion that is painted by those who wish to do evil in God's name. Christians like myself do have the responsibility, more than anyone, to stand up against and expose those who are fakes among the faithful.
Religion is not the problem. People who use it to exercise control over others and to gain personally are the issue and that's the reason I assail them every day.
These people exist in all religions and even in my own church.

I strive to make sure they know that I know who and what they are.
I wish more of us would take that initiative.