From "The Peoples Party Times" (USA Today)
I work for the Dept. of State, who have the responsibility for all aspects of the U.S. Diplomatic presence, in both staffing, and building of U.S. Embassy's around the World. I am familiar with what it takes to staff an Embassy. The following personnel are MANDATORY:
1) U.S. Ambassadore and/or Charges D'affairs, or appropriate designee.
2) Marine Security Guard Detatchment (usually approximately 30-100 U.S. Marines)
3) Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM)
4) Regional Security Officer (RSO)
5) Consular Officer (in charge of U.S. Visa requirements)
6) Vice Consul
7) Political Officer (PO)
8) Commerical Officer
9) Administrative Officer
Other U.S. Diplomatic Personnel stationed at an Embassy are contingent on the needs, for instance, if an "Economic Officer" was needed in order to oversee economic issues between the Host Country and the U.S., one will be appointed.
So, you have to ask, is an Embassy of THIS size really needed in a Country the size of Iraq, a Country with which we have not had strong ties with. Routinely, when the U.S. establishes "diplomatic relations" with a Country, let's take Libya for example, it begins with a U.S. Ambassador, a DCM, and it starts out with a very small staff. As the need dictates, additional staff and presence are added as time goes on. In the case of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, it's immediately starting with the LARGEST Embassy in the World, a clear indication that George W. Bush has far more extensive plans than to just go in to Iraq and restore security before bringing the troops home. There is absolutely NO way that a Country of this size would get an Embassy this large if the U.S. did not have major plans for an increased presence in the Country.
Look at the facts of this. Construction was started two years ago, which means 2005. It would have taken at least a year to draw up the plans for this facility. That takes us to 2004. And, at that time, Bush was saying that our only mission in Iraq was to find, and get rid of, any WMD's. If the United States had no intention of a long term stay in Iraq, they would not have drawn up the plans for such a large complex back in 2003 or 2004. It's clear that the intention of the Bush administration was to go into Iraq and set the groundwork for a long and permanent presence in the oil rich Country. Even if we planned to stay there for many years to come, the need for such a large Embassy is just not there, based on our interests in Iraq (not including oil). But, because of Bush's long term goal of controlling the flow of oil, he saw the need for a large Embassy, staffed accordingly with more then likely a State Dept. employee charged with overseeing U.S. Oil interests in Iraq, a position that will more than likely go to a friend of George W. Bush.
In short, there is absolutely NO way that anyone can justify building an Embassy of this size and magnitude, without first having discussed the long term goals of maintaining a significant Embassy staff within Iraq.
This is a perfect example of how Bush had planned all along to go into Iraq and stay there. And yet, he expects us to believe that he's over there because he's doing the "right thing" and fighting the war on terror? I think not!!
George Bush, may you rot and burn in hell!!
I work for the Dept. of State, who have the responsibility for all aspects of the U.S. Diplomatic presence, in both staffing, and building of U.S. Embassy's around the World. I am familiar with what it takes to staff an Embassy. The following personnel are MANDATORY:
1) U.S. Ambassadore and/or Charges D'affairs, or appropriate designee.
2) Marine Security Guard Detatchment (usually approximately 30-100 U.S. Marines)
3) Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM)
4) Regional Security Officer (RSO)
5) Consular Officer (in charge of U.S. Visa requirements)
6) Vice Consul
7) Political Officer (PO)
8) Commerical Officer
9) Administrative Officer
Other U.S. Diplomatic Personnel stationed at an Embassy are contingent on the needs, for instance, if an "Economic Officer" was needed in order to oversee economic issues between the Host Country and the U.S., one will be appointed.
So, you have to ask, is an Embassy of THIS size really needed in a Country the size of Iraq, a Country with which we have not had strong ties with. Routinely, when the U.S. establishes "diplomatic relations" with a Country, let's take Libya for example, it begins with a U.S. Ambassador, a DCM, and it starts out with a very small staff. As the need dictates, additional staff and presence are added as time goes on. In the case of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, it's immediately starting with the LARGEST Embassy in the World, a clear indication that George W. Bush has far more extensive plans than to just go in to Iraq and restore security before bringing the troops home. There is absolutely NO way that a Country of this size would get an Embassy this large if the U.S. did not have major plans for an increased presence in the Country.
Look at the facts of this. Construction was started two years ago, which means 2005. It would have taken at least a year to draw up the plans for this facility. That takes us to 2004. And, at that time, Bush was saying that our only mission in Iraq was to find, and get rid of, any WMD's. If the United States had no intention of a long term stay in Iraq, they would not have drawn up the plans for such a large complex back in 2003 or 2004. It's clear that the intention of the Bush administration was to go into Iraq and set the groundwork for a long and permanent presence in the oil rich Country. Even if we planned to stay there for many years to come, the need for such a large Embassy is just not there, based on our interests in Iraq (not including oil). But, because of Bush's long term goal of controlling the flow of oil, he saw the need for a large Embassy, staffed accordingly with more then likely a State Dept. employee charged with overseeing U.S. Oil interests in Iraq, a position that will more than likely go to a friend of George W. Bush.
In short, there is absolutely NO way that anyone can justify building an Embassy of this size and magnitude, without first having discussed the long term goals of maintaining a significant Embassy staff within Iraq.
This is a perfect example of how Bush had planned all along to go into Iraq and stay there. And yet, he expects us to believe that he's over there because he's doing the "right thing" and fighting the war on terror? I think not!!
George Bush, may you rot and burn in hell!!
