David Furst/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images An Iraqi police officer walked amid the wreckage caused Saturday by a suicide bombing in Baghdad that killed 20 people. The attack at a heavily fortified police compound wounded at least 26 people.

47 Are Killed in Iraq Bombings, 20 in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, March 24 — A suicide bomber driving a truck carrying explosives hidden under construction materials on Saturday was waved through a checkpoint at a heavily fortified police compound in southern Baghdad, where he detonated his payload, killing at least 20 people, an Interior Ministry official said.

The attack was the deadliest of a wave of suicide bombings around Iraq on Saturday that killed at least 47 people, many of them policemen, the authorities said.

Despite the infusion of American and Iraqi troops to Baghdad this year, suicide bombings, a hallmark of the Sunni Arab-led insurgency, have been rising. Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the top spokesman for the United States military here, said last week that the number of car bombs in Baghdad reached a record high of 44 in February, of 77 nationwide.

With Shiite militias largely lying low since the start of the security crackdown, American generals say their primary focus is to curtail the Sunni insurgency’s high-profile attacks by raiding car bomb factories and erecting blast walls in areas where large groups of people congregate, like public markets.

The suicide bombing against the police station, in the Dora neighborhood of southern Baghdad, was particularly brazen. The two-story building serves as the district headquarters for a large swath of southern Baghdad. It is set within a perimeter of tall walls, sandbag fortifications, police checkpoints and a chicane of traffic barriers designed to impede a fast approach by a vehicle bomber.

But according to a police official at the Interior Ministry, police officers apparently thought the driver on Saturday was hauling bricks to a site next door, where a new police headquarters is under construction. The driver was waved through and then set off his explosives in a devastating blast that was audible on the other side of the sprawling capital. Those killed were mostly policemen, but several were prisoners being held in the station, the official said. At least 26 people were wounded.

Dora has been one of the most violent areas in the city. A concentrated effort by American and Iraqi troops to seal off and clear the neighborhood last summer did not last, and violence rose sharply. But in recent weeks, American commanders have said that the latest security plan has tamed parts of the district.

Under the plan, thousands of fresh American troops are also being sent to the western province of Anbar, a wellspring and refuge of the Sunni Arab insurgency.

The American military said Saturday that two soldiers were killed in combat on Friday, one in Anbar and the other in Baghdad.

In Suhada, a village in western Anbar near the Syrian border, three suicide car bombers attacked police posts in a seemingly coordinated triple attack. One detonated himself outside a police station, and the other two struck police checkpoints, according to Col. Ahmad Jeedan, an Iraqi Army commander in Qaim. At least eight people were killed and 20 wounded, he said.

Another suicide bomber driving a truck with boxes of new shoes destroyed a Shiite mosque in Haswa, about 40 miles south of Baghdad, killing 11 people and wounding 45, according to an Iraqi Army officer and a police official in Haswa.

At least eight people were killed and another eight wounded in the northwestern town of Tal Afar when a suicide bomber wearing an explosives belt blew himself up inside a food store, the chief of the city’s main hospital said.

In Baghdad, according to an Interior Ministry official, two civilians died in cross-fire between militants and the Iraqi Army in the Sunni neighborhood of Fadhel; a mortar shell exploded in the Kamalia district, killing a woman; gunmen shot and wounded the head of Al Karam Hospital in the Amil neighborhood; a major in the Baghdad police force was assassinated; and 10 unidentified bodies were recovered from the street.

In Baquba, north of Baghdad, two insurgents were killed during clashes with the police, according to a security official in Diyala Province.

Insurgents fired more than 10 mortar shells at a police station in the town of Khan Bani Saad, south of Baquba, killing two civilians, the police said. The authorities recovered four bodies in Swaira, a town north of Kut, in southern Iraq, the police there said. In Wahda, insurgents attacked a hydroelectricity station but were repelled by government security forces stationed there, the police said. Five gunmen were killed.

Qais Mizher contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Hilla, Ramada and Tal Afar.

Building an Embassy Fit for an Empire

By Adil E. Shamoo, The Baltimore Sun
Posted on March 22, 2007, Printed on March 22, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/49518/

The headline reads: "Thousands of angry Iraqis pillage billion-dollar U.S. Embassy in Baghdad." The article details the ransacking of the grandiose American Embassy by Iraqi mobs.

This is the story I expect to read one day within the next decade.

In the 1950s, when I was in high school in Baghdad, my friends and I admired the technological advances of America and the West. But we resented the colonial tendencies of the West (especially, at the time, those of the British). Many demonstrations were held in front of the British and American embassies. The Iraqis are a proud people, and they resented foreigners meddling in their affairs. And the British were, in reality, running the country through a puppet regime.

You may call it false pride; you may call it a preoccupation with dignity; or you may simply call it an honest concern about sovereignty. In any case, this is what the culture of the region dictates.

So, with this in mind, why has Washington never taken the cultural context of the Iraqis into consideration? Instead, Congress has appropriated nearly $1 billion to build the largest embassy in the world. A significant portion of that money is for security infrastructure. This future "fortress" is housed in Saddam Hussein's former palace -- providing more bad symbolism to the Iraqis.

Why are we building such a mammoth embassy in the heart of Baghdad? The embassy complex is on 104 acres, with 21 buildings and facilities. It will eventually house a U.S. staff of 5,000. According to a recent report in the Washington Post, it has more than twice the staff and 20 times the budget of our Beijing embassy. The embassy will surpass all others in terms of size and staffing.

One would think that we would be more clever than that in camouflaging our occupation. Are we to believe that Iraqis will not take notice of this massive complex in the heart of Baghdad?

We will be attempting to legitimize our presence with a "negotiated" agreement with the government of Iraq. If that happens, the people of Iraq will know that their elected government no longer is representing them but rather has become another puppet government. More Iraqis will become radicalized and join foes of the government.

American forces left Saudi Arabia in order to reduce hostilities toward us and to prevent further recruitment by groups opposing the United States and the Saudi royal family. Why would our officials think that the same will not happen in Iraq?

The Roman Empire, which (depending on your definition) lasted from 1,000 to 1,500 years, was the longest-lasting empire in history. Empires are destined to decline. Despite our intentions to stay in Iraq for a long time, Iraqis will not allow their country to be an extension of the American empire.

Adil E. Shamoo, born and raised in Baghdad, is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/49518/

Hagel: Some see impeachment as option

Kucinich video asks if it's time to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush

03/19/2007 @ 1:39 pm

In a new video posted at YouTube.com and at his campaign website, Rep. Dennis Kunich (D-OH) asks if it's time for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Last Thursday, as RAW STORY reported, Kucinich declared during a speech on the House floor that "impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran." The 2004 presidential candidate, who is running again in 2008, told RAW STORY that his House floor statement "speaks for itself."

"This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power," Kucinich said on the floor Thursday. "The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies."

Kucinich added, "Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran."

"I'm asking you. Do you think it's time?"

In the three-and-a-half minute video which was posted on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq War, Kucinich states, "We are in an interesting condition in this country, where we are told to take impeachment off the table, and keep on the table a U.S. military attack against Iran."

"Kucinich was referring to the long-standing insistence of some House Democrats that impeachment was 'off the table' in Congress, and to the removal last week of a clause in the pending Iraq War appropriations bill that would have insisted the President come to Congress for approval before launching any military action against Iran," explains a press release obtained by RAW STORY.

Kucinich continues, "This past week, in the Congress of the United States, I noted that the administration has threatened aggressive war against Iran. This is a violation of the UN charter. Charters are treaties. Article 6 of the Constitution of the United States says that treaties are the law of our land, the supreme law of our land."

"It's illegal to threaten aggressive war against another nation," Kucinich states. "Iran has no ability to attack us. And they do not have the intention to attack the United States."

The 2008 presidential candidates is calling on people to help him mount a "peace stand."

"We cannot let this administration go any deeper into this journey, into destroying democratic governance, trashing our Constitution, forgetting the very purpose of this nation," Kucinich adds. "America was never meant to be a nation forever on the warpath. It was meant to be a nation which also had the capacity to 'Promote the General Welfare.' We need to reevaluate the direction of this administration by looking at its conduct in office, by determining whether it has faithfully followed the laws of our nation."

Kucinich insists that he is "prepared to start that process."

"I began this week with a speech on the floor of the house, which warned the administration that its actions toward Iran already constitute a case to ask the question about impeachment," Kucinich states.

"So I'm asking you, what do you think?" Kucinich asks at the end of the video. "Do you think it's time?"

Video as posted at YouTube and at Kucinich 2008:

Transcript of video:

#

My fellow Americans. We are in an interesting condition in this country, where we are told to take impeachment off the table, and keep on the table a U.S. military attack against Iran.

This really calls for a new thinking. It calls for us to reconsider very deeply the moment that we're in – where our Constitution is being trashed, where international law is being violated, where our hopes and dreams for the education of our children, for the health of our people, for housing, for our veterans, are being set aside as we go deeper and deeper into war.

We need a whole discussion in America. And with your help, we're about to have one.

This past week, in the Congress of the United States, I noted that the administration has threatened aggressive war against Iran. This is a violation of the UN charter. Charters are treaties. Article 6 of the Constitution of the United States says that treaties are the law of our land, the supreme law of our land.

It's illegal to threaten aggressive war against another nation. Iran has no ability to attack us. And they do not have the intention to attack the United states.

We are at a moment in human history where we have to make a decision whether we are going to go deeper into war, or whether we are going to take a stand on behalf of peace.

I determined a long time ago to take that stand on behalf of peace. And I want to enlist you and enroll you in taking that same stand.

We cannot let this administration go any deeper into this journey, into destroying democratic governance, trashing our Constitution, forgetting the very purpose of this nation. America was never meant to be a nation forever on the warpath. It was meant to be a nation which also had the capacity to “Promote the General Welfare.”

We need to reevaluate the direction of this administration by looking at its conduct in office, by determining whether it has faithfully followed the laws of our nation.

I'm prepared to start that process. I began this week with a speech on the floor of the house, which warned the administration that its actions toward Iran already constitute a case to ask the question about impeachment.

So I'm asking you, what do you think? Do you think it's time?

#

G.I. Is Jailed for Killing Iraqi Detainees

CHICAGO, March 19 (Reuters) — An American soldier was sentenced to 10 years in prison on Monday after a court-martial found him guilty of killing three Iraqi detainees who were freed and told to run before being shot, officials at Fort Campbell in Kentucky said.

The soldier, Sgt. Raymond Girouard, 24, of Sweetwater, Tenn., had been charged with premeditated murder and other offenses that could have drawn a life sentence, but the military jury hearing his case convicted him on Friday of negligent homicide, a lesser offense.

The sentence is subject to review by the commanding general at the post, and Sergeant Girouard could be paroled after serving about a third of the 10-year sentence, a spokesman said.

Sergeant Girouard led a squad in May 2006 during a raid on a suspected insurgent camp southwest of Tikrit, when the killings occurred.

Three other soldiers under his command who were also charged with the deaths made plea agreements earlier and have been sentenced. Two received 18-year prison sentences and a third got nine months in jail.

The three had said Sergeant Girouard ordered them to shoot the men. He had said he was under orders to kill all men of military age but denied ordering the slayings.

During a hearing in Iraq in August that led to the charges, a witness testified that he saw the prisoners trying to run away at full sprint, some with their blindfolds down, when they were shot.

Doug Mills/ The New York Times

Speaking on Monday on the fourth anniversary of the invasion, President Bush said the new security plan will take time.

Don’t ‘Pack Up,’ Bush Says After 4 Years of War

WASHINGTON, March 19 — President Bush marked the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq on Monday with a plea for patience and a stark warning against the temptation "to pack up and go home."

Mr. Bush's brief speech came in the midst of an increasingly tense showdown with the Democratic-controlled Congress over the constitutional balance of power during war. The House is scheduled to vote Thursday on a Democratic proposal to attach conditions to the president's $100 billion war financing package that would require American combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq next year, a timetable Mr. Bush has said would undercut the troops and aid the insurgents.

Mr. Bush's commemoration of the anniversary, delivered beneath a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt as a Rough Rider, was notable for the sharp change in tone from his speeches in the heady, early days of the war — when it still appeared possible that a quick victory in Baghdad could be followed by a relatively swift withdrawal. In those first few months, Mr. Bush argued that he was on the way to spreading democracy throughout the Middle East through the euphoria that would surely follow the unseating of Saddam Hussein.

But on Monday Mr. Bush made no reference to democracy. In his only reference to the regional effects of the war, he cautioned, "If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could engulf the entire country; in time, this violence could engulf the region."

In an echo of the initial case for war, Mr. Bush warned that Iraq could become a staging ground for terrorists to plan devastating attacks on the order of 9/11.

Anniversaries of the invasion have become more politically fraught in the years since the invasion. Mr. Bush used his statement on Monday to argue that it was the responsibility of Congress to support the troops already there, and that he alone had the authority to decide the strategy and the timetable for adding or withdrawing troops.

"They have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay," Mr. Bush said of the war financing package.

Also on Monday, the administration released a statement calling the House bill "unconscionable" and saying that the president would veto it if it was passed.

But where Democrats once feared they were vulnerable to charges that they were undercutting the troops by defying the commander in chief, they expressed no such concern on Monday. Reflecting Mr. Bush's low approval ratings and the widespread discontent with continuing American casualties, they used the anniversary on Monday to go on the attack.

"After four years of failure in Iraq, the president's only answer is to do more of the same," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a statement. Referring to Republican efforts to defeat a resolution in the Senate calling for a 2008 troop withdrawal, Mr. Reid added, "With the blessing of Senate Republicans, he's committing more U.S. troops to an open-ended civil war."

Democrats are hardly unified on the war: some are concerned that Democrats could be blamed for whatever happens in Iraq if Congress specified dates for withdrawal.

In the mid-1990s, President Clinton regularly clashed with Republicans in Congress as they sought to limit United States involvement in United Nations peacekeeping missions, leading to charges from Mr. Clinton that Congress was infringing on presidential war powers.

The Iran-contra affair during President Reagan's term was itself a reaction to Congressional restrictions on the United States involvement in Nicaragua's civil war.

But the most direct parallel might be Vietnam, when Congress tried to limit presidential maneuvering room as protests over the war increased in volume — including the 1970 repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that was an important part of Congressional assent for the United States involvement in the war.

It remains unclear whether the House Democrats will have the votes to approve the bill tying funding of the war to benchmarks and the goal of a 2008 withdrawal. "We're in the hunt," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democratic conference chairman.

Mr. Bush's explicit reference to the temptation to leave Iraq was in sharp contrast to other moments when he has commemorated milestones in the war. His well-known statement aboard the aircraft carrier Lincoln in the late spring of 2003 — declaring an end to active combat — was a celebration of what initially looked like a quick military victory. But that was before the rise of the insurgency and counterattacks by Shiite militias.

In 2003, both White House and Pentagon officials said that any American presence in Iraq four years later would most likely be relatively small. On Monday, the White House was instead pressing anew its claims that withdrawal would result in defeat.

"It is a withdraw-the-troops bill, not a fund-the-troops bill," Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said of the Congressional legislation during a news briefing that followed Mr. Bush's remarks. "It would also force failure of the mission in Iraq and forfeit the sacrifices made by our troops."

In keeping with the political jockeying of the day, Mr. Snow attacked the bill for also including several items of political pork, presumably inserted to secure votes of the faint of heart.

But Mr. Snow faced skepticism from reporters on Monday, fencing with them over a new poll of Iraqis showing that they hold a gloomy view of the future. At one point Mr. Snow snapped, "Zip it" during an argument with a CNN reporter over whether the administration could provide a "recipe for success" at a time when it was portraying the Democrats as putting forward a recipe for failure.

White House officials on Monday said the political pressure to leave Iraq would abate when conditions on the ground appeared more positive.

But officials acknowledge that they are in a race between better results in Iraq and a Democratic Congress beginning to insert itself in decisions about war and peace.

Chlorine bombs poison hundreds in Iraq