Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WikiLeaks: U.S. Anger at Gordon Brown's Iraq Withdrawal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 06:29 PM
Original message
WikiLeaks: U.S. Anger at Gordon Brown's Iraq Withdrawal
Edited on Sat Jun-04-11 06:35 PM by Hissyspit
Source: The Scotsman

Published Date: 05 June 2011
By Kenny Farquharson

Wikleaks: U.S. Anger at Gordon Brown's Iraq Withdrawal

Published Date: 05 June 2011
By Kenny Farquharson

A DAMNING verdict on Gordon Brown's handling of the war in Iraq is revealed in secret US diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and seen by Scotland on Sunday.

The cables accuse the former Prime Minister of pulling British troops out of Iraq to improve his chances of winning a general election, despite warnings from the UK's allies that withdrawal would represent a victory for terrorists.

- snip -

The cables detail the failure of British forces to bring peace and stability to Basra, in southern Iraq, the area put under UK guardianship after the 2003 invasion.

- snip -

The cables reveal:

• The British government effectively gave up on its mission in Iraq, with defence secretary Des Browne admitting privately to a US general that chaos in Basra was "depressing and incomprehensible", and "could not be resolved… by the UK's forces".

Read more: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/wikileaks/Wikleaks-US-anger-at-Gordon.6779840.jp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. The terriorist won when chimpy invaded Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shining Jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-04-11 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. +1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. They won again when TSA agents started groping Americans' private parts
And again when it became required that Americans have passports for travel into Canada and Mexico...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoralme Donating Member (812 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Yep. Unfortunately, many here don't really get it. I would like to be
out of this country next year if it appears Obama will not win. After the OBL kill things were looking good. The US's continued presence in Libya is cancelling that out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iwishiwas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. Yes, the terrorists have made a lot of wins from our spineless
congresscritters and the WH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. + 1000
You would almost think that terrorists might be sharing in the profits from all the 'security' profiteering they are given credit for. If not, they should definitely be demanding a share from Chertoff/Giuliani But, Cheney et al who cannot stop using 'terror' for profit.

How much money has Congress spent on these worthless tactics that have accomplished nothing other than to take away the very rights they CLAIM terrorists were threatening?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. if you mean the banksters, oil companies, and Wall Street, you are correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. The Binladen family is composed of all those..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. when you get to a certain level in any business, legal or illegal, it's a very small club
with the same members with their fingers in every pie, drugs, terror, business, human trafficking.

Profit is profit.

I sometimes wonder if there isn't a formula they teach in MBA programs to decide whether to run aboveboard or illegally, some risk to benefit calculations they make.

For example, I'm sure with recreational drugs, in addition to avoiding taxes, avoiding liability for junkies ODing is probably also a consideration. The downside is that when drug dealers make deposits in banks they have to pay rather than get interest.

and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. Not Everybody Shares the US State and Military Vision
Correction: not anyone shares the US State Dept. and Military/Industrial Complex, Multinational Corporate Vision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. UK leader wasn't bought off by the MIC & withdrew troops per will of his citizens
Edited on Sun Jun-05-11 08:16 AM by Divernan
US via cables opined that Brown took this action (1) to be seen by the UK public as correcting Tony Blair's mistake in sending troops to Iraq in the first place and (2) to get re-elected.

That's how real politik works in a country (UK) where foreign corporations are not permissible donors to campaigns.

Imagine the gnashing of teeth in the US DOD, State Department, Pentagon & White House when their best friends and potential future employers, the Military Industrial Complex, could not be turned loose to buy off the individual members of Parliament or leaders of Britain's political parties. Because in the UK, "foreign donors are not permissible donors".

And the Brits still enjoy habeas corpus rights as well.

Here's are some sections from a Link to the Library of Congress materials detailing UK Election Law.

Note to DU readers - this whole document is chock full of common sense rules on campaign financing. Reading this shows you how very, very vulnerable the US campaign financing system and our elected officials are to corrupting influence by wealthy special interests, whether individuals like the Koch brothers or corporations.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/uk.php

Executive Summary

Legislation to prevent excessive spending by electoral candidates in the United Kingdom has been in place since 1883. The UK’s system of regulating campaign financing focuses on limiting the expenditure of political parties and individual candidates, rather than limits on donations that can be received by these parties and individuals, combined with a transparent reporting system of donations received and election expenditure incurred .
***********************************************

The definition of campaign expenditure for political parties extends to “party political broadcasts, advertising, unsolicited material to electors, manifesto or other policy documents, market research and canvassing, media/publicity, transport, rallies or other events.”<7> The law also requires that any notional expenditure (incurred when another person pays the cost that the political party would have otherwise had to pay) be counted as a campaign expenditure incurred by the party.<8>

Donations to Political Parties

There are no limits on the amount of donations that political parties may receive; however, there are laws that govern who may be a donor, as well as limits, noted above, on spending by political parties on campaign expenditure. The aim of the law is to regulate donations to political parties through transparency, as political parties must make their finances public.<12> Political parties may only accept donations above £200 (approximately US$280) from “permissible donors.”<13> Donations are defined in the PPERA to include “gifts of money and property; subscriptions and affiliation fees; sponsorship; money spent on behalf of a party; the provision of property, services, or facilities; or the lending of money other than at commercial rates.”<14> Permissible donors are defined as: an individual registered on a UK electoral register; a UK registered political party; a UK registered company; a UK registered trade union; a UK registered building society; a UK registered limited liability partnership; a UK registered friendly/building society; or a UK based unincorporated association.<15>

Foreign donors, other than registered British electors living abroad, are not considered to be permissible donors. If a donation is received from a donor that does not fall into these categories, the political party must return the donation or, if the donor cannot be identified, return the money to the Electoral Commission.<19> If the Electoral Commission believes that a political party has received donations from a non-permissible source they “may seek forfeiture orders in the courts to recover from political parties the value of donations.”<20>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. wish i could rec this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. +15 Trillion
Can you put this up separately? It needs to be seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I just followed your suggestion and posted this in GD
However, to the extent it does not endorse the Obama administration/Gates' recent pitch via his talk to the American Enterprise Institute, to ditch the current end of the year deadline to leave Iraq, and instead to extend it indefinitely, I expect multiple unrec's. (You & Nasville & I have been around DU a long, long time. The tone on the board has certainly changed, and a lot of my favorite and most committed progressive posters have left.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Sadly, True
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. That should be an OP!
Good for Brown, the British people were always against that war, at one point by over 80% or more.

Blair was a cultist in his dedication to the PNAC idea of ruling the world. They must have promised him a lot for his willingness to take his country down that horrible road.

The US throwing a temper tantrum over a PM of a sovereign country acting in the best interests of that country! We really need someone to reign in this arrogant nation because clearly it is out of control and they will not ever listen to the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 03:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. I am signed in but rec won't function ?
Edited on Sun Jun-05-11 03:37 AM by dipsydoodle
:shrug:

Kick anyway.

edit - its worked now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. >>>>>>
Edited on Sun Jun-05-11 05:28 AM by No Elephants
"The US government condemned Scotland on Sunday's decision to publish the cables, saying: "Any unauthorised disclosure of classified material is regrettable as it has the potential to harm individuals as well as efforts to advance foreign policy goals shared by nations around the world."

Potential harm to individuals (read "potential embarrassment of politicians") is not a lawful reason to classify info. Neither is advancing foreign policy goals allegedly shared by nations around the world.


Aldoux Huxley was a genius.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Translated..
... we want to fuck up with impunity
and have complete immunity
from the prying eyes of the community
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hotler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
11. k&r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogmoma56 Donating Member (329 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. Bu$h43 was counseled by Doug Coe's C street "Family" for his Alcoholism at age 40, >link
more on post http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Bu$h43 said he was on a mission from god to invade Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion

here is Part 2 of the, Expose' of the CHRISTIAN MAFIA
http://www.exminister.org/Madsen-Christian-mafia-second.html




"Deluded people:
You must understand that there exists a conspiracy in favor of despotism and against liberty; incapacity against talent; of vice against virtue; of ignorance against light! It is formed in the depths of the most impenetrable darkness, a society is to rule the world, to appropriate the authority of sovereigns, to usurp their place."
Marquis de Luchet, 1789


“You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”
George W. Bush,

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Corruption Winz Donating Member (581 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
14. I personally don't see this as anything controversial or strange...
They realized a huge mistake was made and needed to minimize it as much as possible.

Sounds like a good example of something we should be doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. +1. I wish our presidents had to pull out of Iraq to win elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. They do! That's why, in Oct. '02, in the same month as the "Iraq War Resolution,"
the Anthrax Congress passed the "Help America Vote for Bush" Act (aka, the "Help America Vote Act"--HAVA), by which they appropriated $3.9 billion to spread electronic voting machines all over the U.S.A., run on 'TRADE SECRET' programming code--code that the public is forbidden to review--with virtually no audit/recount controls--a made-to-order election fraud system now largely (80%) controlled by one, private, far rightwing-connected corporation--ES&S, which bought out Diebold.

We saw the result in 2004. The lie about WMDs was well-known by then. So was the treason of outing CIA agents. And the torture of prisoners had just been revealed, complete with godawful photos. Back in late '02/early '03, nearly 60% of the American people opposed the invasion of Iraq (Feb '03, all polls, just before the invasion). The war profiteers knew this and they had to find a way around it. 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting with NO AUDIT was first tried out in Georgia in '02 and kept Max Cleland (paraplegic Vietnam vet, against the Iraq War) out of the U.S. Senate. It was then employed as the chief means of 're-electing' Bush/Cheney in 2004, to keep the war going. The system was not yet complete, so additional means had to be used (purging black voters from the voting rolls in Ohio and Florida, etc.). But sufficient 'TRADE SECRET' systems were in place--with no audit or only a miserably inadequate 1% audit--to throw some close states to Bush/Cheney, in spite of the American peoples' revulsion at their war, their torture of prisoners (64% of Americans opposed to torture "under any circumstances"--NYT poll, May '04), and much else.

The grass roots rallied and matched the Bush/Cheney money machine dollar for dollar. The first stirrings of the American rebellion occurred in that election, with awesome "get out the vote" campaigns and rallies. The exit polls said Kerry won, then, mysteriously, Kerry hadn't won. You had to be against that war to get elected, but the trick is to stay elected, when the people elect you, in a system in which transparency has been removed, and half the states are doing NO AUDIT AT ALL of privately coded election theft machines, and the other half are doing a completely inadequate audit. Nobody can "prove" anything. Those who cried "election fraud" are consigned to "tinfoil" and we "move on" with four more years of a horrendously destructive war, on people who had done nothing at all to us and were no threat to anybody (had been crippled--nay, softened up--by sanctions).

Now, the president is free to just pick his wars. Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP want control of Libya's oil? Sure thing! Activate the CIA sleepers in Libya, stir up a rebellion that sort of looks like Egypt, and go to it! Bomb the shit out of them. Pick a puppet from the many possibilities and install him. Mission accomplished!

You might reasonably surmise that Kerry would have done the same thing--merely shifted the Forever War to other ground. In fact, that's what he promised--to move the Forever War to Afghanistan (if you listened closely). But that's not why people elected him. (Despite vote counting proof having been made impossible to obtain, I think that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that Kerry won that election.) They elected him because they opposed the Iraq War! They didn't want ANOTHER war. They didn't want THREE oil wars! They wanted peace! The war profiteers, who play both sides, had gaged that the war on Afghanistan was more "sellable" (in addition to being a lot murkier) so they went with that, when the need arose to put a Democratic face on the Forever War (Obama). But that is NOT what the American people were voting for--in either case.

Yes, you have to be against these horrible oil wars that are draining the very life out of our country and our democracy, and are wantonly slaughtering people around the globe, to get elected in a real democracy. In a fake democracy, you can wage illegal, unjust war with impunity, or--when certain circumstances arise among the war profiteers necessitating a switch of masks*--you can be good at giving the impression that you oppose war while secretly assuring the war profiteers that you don't mean it--and then, you had better, in fact, do their bidding or they will UN-elect you very fast.

-------------------------

*(I do think--or guess--that Obama was in fact elected, on the basis of his airy promises of hope and change, but he was also PERMITTED TO BE elected, and that is the problem. Neither Obama nor any other elected official in the country can prove that he or she was actually elected. Transparency has been removed. And the control over whether they are elected or not does not lie with voters. It lies with ES&S/Diebold and their 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines. To get elected, therefore, means making deals with the transglobal corporations, banksters and war profiteers who are running things in a way that suits the far rightwing owners of ES&S/Diebold. There was a crisis among these forces in 2005-2006 (during Katrina and its aftermath), in which the Bush White House was split down the middle--Bush/Rove vs Cheney/Libby--over who was going to take the fall for the outing the CIA's entire WMD counter-proliferation project. There was a simultaneous crisis between Rumsfeld/Cheney and the military brass over nuking Iran (the brass opposed it). Daddy Bush intervened--with his "Iraq Study Group"--and the combined power of the "old CIA," the current disaffected CIA, the military brass and perhaps other players--ousted Rumsfeld, in late '06, de-fanged Cheney for the rest of Bush Jr's term, and agreed to let the Democrats win (in '06 and and '08), provided that, a) Impeachment was taken "off the table" (no investigation, no prosecution of Bush Junta principles), b) continued war (for oil and gas resources, and, in the case of Afghanistan, the pipleline) and war profiteering; and c) (a likely third condition) no economic reform (continued corporate looting of the people and "the commons").

These were the conditions by which the candidates were vetted, and Obama agreed to them. (I have the suspicion that John Edwards did not, and that is why his indiscretions were exposed and his career destroyed--this simply doesn't happen to "made men.") Obama may have goals of his own--better goals--and figured getting power was essential to them. But he is in a very compromised and hampered position--by his own choice. And now they've saddled him with a wholly ES&S/Diebold Congress of total scumbags and we may even lose Social Security and Medicare, and there is a powerful contingent among them that wants a fourth oil war, against Venezuela and Ecuador. It's nuts. But that's what ES&S/Diebold's power does--it makes our national political life insane.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. Absolute conspiarcy theory nonsense
Edited on Mon Jun-06-11 01:29 PM by karynnj
1) Edwards never came close in either 2004 or 2008 to getting the nomination - he won only one contested contest in 2 election years - South Carolina in 2004. This in spite of incredible media support as a political prodigy - even called "Bill Clinton without bimbo eruptions" - which was equally wrong on both counts.

2) Kerry explained what he would do in 2004 and he put out plans in 2005 and 2006. We likely would already be out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. What I heard in 2004, was that the "war on terror would mostly be intelligence and law enforcement and occasionally military, mostly small special forces. Kerry as President likely would have been able to do more to help create alternative energy. Over his entire career, Kerry, the son of a diplomat, spoke of the need to do the diplomacy - ad he would have worked as hard as humanly possible to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
23. Regardless of reason, their choice to leave was more intelligent than
our choice to stay indefinitely.

The terrorists did not win, reason did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
25. I am the USA, and I'm not
Aren't most of us the USA?

And I agree with Brown's pullout, and think we should too! Completely!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-11 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
26. So the Bush gang didn't like Brown beginning to withdraw troops in 2007 or announcing in 2008
that British combat operations would end in 2009

No shit, Sherlock
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 15th 2024, 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC