CNN

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be blowing up in President Obama's face at the same time. This month has become the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Two insurgent attacks there have killed eight more U.S. troops, bringing the October death toll to 58. This follows two helicopter crashes yesterday that killed 14 Americans.

An Iraqi woman and her two little boys survey the damage after a suicide truck bomb struck in central Baghdad over the weekend. The near-simultaneous twin suicide vehicle bomb attacks were the deadliest in the violence-wracked country in over two years.

President Obama is trying to decide whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He is scheduled to meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday.

Here's something else for the president to consider: A foreign service officer and former Marine Corps captain who fought in Iraq has become the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the war in Afghanistan.

Matthew Hoh says he no longer knows why we're fighting; and he thinks the U.S. is asking its troops to die for what is a far-off civil war.

As for Iraq - those two weekend bombings in Baghdad killed at least 155 people, including 20 children, and wounded more than 500 others. Al Qaeda in Iraq has claimed responsibility for these attacks - the deadliest in that country in more than two years.

The bombing of government buildings in Iraq raises some serious questions about Iraq's security and the national elections planned for January. Earlier this week - President Obama repeated America's commitment to withdrawing our troops.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, what's the right strategy?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

People gather at the scene of a massive explosion outside the foreign ministry in a residential area close to the Green Zone in central Baghdad yesterday. (PHOTO CREDIT: ALI AL-SAADI/AFP/Getty Images)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The increasing violence in Iraq is raising new questions about the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Insurgents launched six-bombings that struck Baghdad within an hour yesterday - two of them targeting official buildings. The attacks killed at least 100-people and wounded more than 500-others. It was the deadliest day since U.S. troops pulled out of Iraqi cities on June 30.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is blaming Sunni insurgents linked to al Qaeda in Iraq... and the government is making quick moves to crack down on security.

They're adding more checkpoints in Baghdad, tougher vehicle searches and random security stops. Also - they arrested 11 high-ranking security officials from the Iraqi army and police... detaining them for questioning.

The attacks - followed today by a bicycle bomb at a restaurant killing two more people - are a huge blow to the government's attempt to return life to normal. Al-Maliki had just recently ordered the reopening of streets in Baghdad and the removal of concrete blast walls from the capital's main roads.

Meanwhile - there are worries about what these coordinated attacks say about the Iraqis' readiness to keep the country secure... especially heading into the upcoming elections. It's exactly what everyone feared would start happening once the U.S. role in Iraq was reduced.

Pres. Obama has ordered all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by next August... and all remaining troops out by the end of 2011.

Here’s my question to you: How should the U.S. respond to the escalating violence in Iraq?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Iraqis stand outside a destroyed building the morning after two car bombs were detonated within minutes of each other on the outskirts of Mosul. Nine people were killed and 22 wounded in the blasts that came just over a week after U.S. forces pulled out of Iraqi towns and cities. (PHOTO CREDIT: MUJAHED MOHAMMED/AFP/Getty Images)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

This has been a particularly deadly week in Iraq.

Today was the third day of deadly violence in a row. Bomb blasts and even a drive-by shooting have left 75 people dead and more than 200 wounded across the country. This is the worst violence there since U.S. troops pulled back from major cities on June 30th.

It only took one week for the violence to flare up, and some say it was expected. The U.S. military wanted to keep combat troops in Mosul past the deadline for withdrawal but the Iraqi government said no. There would be no exceptions to the security agreement they had with the U.S.

The State Department also raised concerns following the handing over to Iraqi authorities by the U.S. military of five Iranian officials, who have been held since 2007 for allegedly helping Shiite insurgents. They are seen as potential troublemakers.

There are still 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq but most of them are on bases outside the major cities with only a few assigned in the cities for training Iraqi personnel. All American military forces are scheduled to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Then what?

While some Iraqi's are glad to no longer have U.S. troops patrolling their streets, others fear the kind of violence that has reappeared over the past few days.

Here’s my question to you: What should the U.S. do if violence continues to escalate in Iraq?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Tomorrow marks an historic day for Iraq - the deadline for U.S. combat troops to pull out of its cities - and Iraqis are reacting with mixed feelings. The government has declared it a national holiday, with celebrations and military parades planned.

Many Iraqis say they're glad to see Americans gone... that they will feel freedom and liberation. But, others aren't so sure... One Baghdad resident says she feels "fear and horror"... and says many Iraqis will be "afraid of each other." Others say they have come to depend on U.S. troops.

More than six-years after the invasion - the U-S says Iraqi forces are ready to take control of security in the cities. We'll see soon enough. The last 10 days have seen several bomb attacks and assorted violence which has left more than 200 Iraqis dead and hundreds more wounded. Iraqi and U.S. officials had warned of an expected rise in attacks around this withdrawal date.

After the handover - U.S. forces will have to get permission from Iraq to go into cities or carry out operations in urban areas. There will be a small number of U.S. troops remaining in cities to train and advise Iraqi forces - but most of them will be in bases outside city limits.

There are about 131,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq. Most are supposed to leave the country by next summer, with all forces gone by the end of 2011.

Here’s my question to you: What is life likely to be like in Iraq without the presence of U.S. combat forces in its cities?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

A top diplomat recently said the war in Afghanistan will be a "long, difficult struggle." A US military raid recently destroyed 270 homes and displaced hundreds of families. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Just in case President Obama doesn't have enough worries at home with the economy, one of his top diplomats is now warning that the war in Afghanistan will be "much tougher than Iraq."

Richard Holbrooke - the special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan - insists that there's no "magic formula" and that it will be a "long, difficult struggle." Holbrooke knows a thing or two about dealing with conflict, he's got a long resume that includes negotiating an end to the war in Bosnia.

The president has made it clear that Afghanistan will be a top priority and his administration is deciding whether to send another 30,000 troops there, which would almost double the current troop strength.

Speaking at the same meeting as Holbrooke, General David Petraeus said there's been nothing easy about Afghanistan. He described the country's many needs - ranging from ground troops to intelligence, surveillance, special ops, you name it. There are high expectations that Petraeus can mirror the progress he made in Iraq.

The U.S. is also calling on the international community to step up its role in the war-torn nation.

Although Afghan President Hamid Karzai acknowledges security problems - he says they've had success in areas like roads and health care. Mr. Karzai insists his country is not a "narco state" or "failed state." It's probably worth noting that he's up for re-election this summer.

Meanwhile, a new poll of the Afghan people shows support for Mr. Karzai's government, the U.S. and NATO plummeting - so President Obama has his work cut out for him.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when one top diplomat says the war in Afghanistan will be "much tougher than Iraq"?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs report that battlefield injuries and deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased significantly. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

An article by the group Truthout sheds light on a true national tragedy.

The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs report that battlefield injuries and deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are up, way up.

According to data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the group Veterans for Common Sense, the number of veteran patients now stands at more than 400,000, up from 263,909 in December 2007.

Mental illness, mainly post traumatic stress disorder, is the diagnosis for 45% of them.

Lawmakers have helped some. the Dignity for Warriors Act was passed, which gives veterans up to five years of free health care for military-related conditions.

But getting adequate health care and compensation is still a problem, according to Truthout.

Bob Filner, Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee released a statement asking for veterans to be considered in the stimulus bill. It's a request that is beyond reasonable.

He said, "We can invigorate the economy by modernizing the 153 existing V-A medical facilities, repairing veterans' cemeteries, constructing new V-A hospitals, addressing the claims backlog, and investing in vocational rehabilitation for our returning combat veterans."

According to Filner, the House version of the bill includes $1-billion for veterans while the Senate allots $3.94-billion. We'll see what passes in the end.

Here’s my question to you: Why doesn’t this country do a better job of taking care of its veterans?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Like father like son. Just as President Bush's father will forever be remembered for throwing up on the Prime Minister of Japan at a state dinner in Tokyo, so will this weekend's video of our beloved President follow him for the rest of his days.

An Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at President Bush yesterday while he was holding a press conference in Iraqi with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. It was a deliberate insult directed at President Bush. For Muslims, sitting with the soles of your shoes facing someone or hurling them at someone is a sign of contempt.

The reporter, who works for an Egyptian based television network, yelled "This is a farewell... you dog!" in Arabic. He was put in jail where he remains while Iraqi officials decide whether or not he'll face charges for assaulting an official.

As for President Bush, he made light of it and announced to reporters that the shoes were a size 10.

Questions have been raised about the seemingly delayed Secret Service response and why the man was able to throw his second shoe after throwing the first, but President Bush apparently waved off Secret Service officers at first.

Thousands of Iraqis rallied in support of the reporter's actions. Some said he shouldn't have thrown his shoes at President Bush in the presence of the Iraqi prime minister.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say about our image when a foreign reporter throws his shoes at President Bush?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Oil burns at a refinery in Basra, Iraq. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

While you're paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, think about this.

Iraq could end up with an $80 billion surplus thanks to its oil exports. $80 billion. Remember how we were told Iraq's oil money would pay for the war? We've spent more than $700 billion of our money including almost $50 billion to rebuild Iraq, and we haven't seen a dime of their oil money for our efforts.

U.S. auditors report that Baghdad had a $29 billion budget surplus from 2005 to 2007, and with the price of crude oil just about doubling in the last year, the surplus for 2008 is expected to hit as much as $50 billion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to pour money into Iraq for reconstruction, repairs to their oil infrastructure, electricity, water and security. How much has Iraq spent? In the last 3 years, they've put less than $4 billion towards similar services.

Senator Carl Levin says it's inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis could pay for themselves. Duh.

Of course Congress continues to approve one spending bill after another for Bush's war despite the Democrats' promise to end the war's funding in 2006.

Here's the bureaucratic explanation for the screwing the American taxpayer is getting. The Treasury Department says the U.S. is working with Iraqis to fix the issue and they believe "progress is being made". What a joke. Progress is Iraq writes the United States a check.

Here’s my question to you: What should be done about Iraq's potential $80 billion oil surplus?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Army soldier of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division patrols in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad, Iraq. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Iraqi government is finally making its voice heard, and it's not the message the White House was hoping for.

Baghdad is saying there will be no security deal with the U.S. unless it includes a timetable for withdrawing our troops from their country.

This puts the Bush administration in a delicate position. The U.N. mandate that allows American troops to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year. Pres. Bush has long opposed a firm timetable, but he also wants the Iraqi government to stand on its own. President Bush himself has said in the past that he would go along with the Iraqi government's wishes.

U.S. officials now say Iraq has the right to determine its future, but once again insists that a timeline would be a bad idea. Resistance from the Iraqi government will probably make it difficult to finish those negotiations by the end of this month, like the administration wanted.

It might mean that a long-term deal won't be worked out until the next president comes into office. Some believe that the two countries might end up working out a short-term deal.

But, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that Iraq is standing its ground here. A poll conducted this spring showed that 72% of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. forces, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki can't ignore that fact.

Some experts say that al-Maliki may be trying to show his people that he's tough enough to stand up to the U.S. After all, he doesn't want to lose support from Iraqis to the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, one of his chief rivals. The prime minister's words might also be meant for Iran, who doesn't want the U.S. to use Iraq as a launching pad from which to attack them.

Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. agree to Iraqi demands for a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

An Iraqi army soldier stands guard at a checkpoint in the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq.(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Now is not the time for President Bush to negotiate a long-term security agreement with Iraq – that's the message from lawmakers in both Iraq and in the U.S.

More than 30 Iraqi lawmakers who represent parties making up a majority in the Iraqi parliament sent a letter to Congress last week. They said they will reject any agreement that "is not linked to clear mechanisms" obligating U.S. troops to leave "with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters."

The Associated Press reports that Iraqi officials familiar with the negotiations warn that a deal is unlikely to be reached before President Bush leaves office unless the administration lets up on some of its demands that Iraqis see as giving U.S. troops way too much freedom and stepping on Iraq's sovereignty.

Here at home, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are accusing President Bush of trying to tie the hands of the next president when it comes to Iraq. The four senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee sent a letter saying the administration hasn't consulted with them on this agreement and that the need for legislative approval "remains an open question."

For its part, the administration insists that this agreement is not a treaty and so it doesn't need to be approved by the Senate. More of the same from George Bush. Do whatever you want whether the people think it's a good idea or not. Officials say the deal won't commit U-S troops to staying in Iraq, won't create permanent bases, and won't pledge to protect Iraq if invaded. Here's the problem: the U.N. mandate that authorizes U.S. presence in Iraq expires in December.

Here’s my question to you: Should President Bush be negotiating a long-term security agreement with Iraq?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »