Interesting Statistics

Another Grim Milestone...

US losses in Iraq and Afghanistan today (3525) are approaching the half way mark (3750) of the military losses during the Clinton years.

It's quite an expansive post with sources and history. Very worthwhile.

What? No Outrage from the Editors?

John Burns, foreign correpondent for the NYT, offers his opinion on Iraq.

And my guess is that history will say that the forces that we liberated by invading Iraq were so powerful and so uncontrollable that virtually nothing the United States might have done, except to impose its own repressive state with half a million troops, which might have had to last ten years or more, nothing we could have done would have effectively prevented this disintegration that is now occurring.

No outrage from the editors at the NYT??? I mean, sure, he didn't say the US could win but, he didn't Blame Bush.

Previously: Post-Pretense

NY Post: A Ban on 'Victory'

What timing: NY Post - A Ban on 'Victory'

Consider correspondent Chris Hedges' infamous 2003 commencement address at Rockford College, where he charged that Americans were becoming "tyrants to others weaker than ourselves," and linked Bush to Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon - whom he said were "carrying out acts of gratuitous and senseless violence."

Nor, as the Web site Timeswatch.org points out, was there any reprimand of correspondent Neil McFarquhar, who last summer also appeared on Charlie Rose's show and at tacked the Bush administration for "rush ing bombs to this part of the world."

"It just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation," said McFarquhar - who, unlike Gordon, did not even offer the disclaimer that his was "a purely personal view."

From the Times, silence.

Sigh

Basic Truths

With President Bush announcing 21,500 additional troops being sent to Iraq in a bid to quell violence in Baghdad emotions on both sides of the argument as to whether or not this is a good idea have run high.

In a piece in the Washington Post today Stephen Hadley speaks a basic truth:

The Baker-Hamilton report explained that failure in Iraq could have severe consequences for our national interests in a critical region and for our national security here at home.

For example, for the Arab Mujahideen, led by Bin Laden, who fought the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, their victory was of monumental importance in terms of legitimacy, recruiting, obtaining funding and, other forms of immaterial support. Further, when the USSR began its collaps about a year later, it lent further support to the Arab Mujahideen narrative. Not only did they, with Allah's help, repel the infidel invader, this led, directly, to the collapse of the atheist communist state.

This narrative drives much of Al Qaeda's ideology today.

Additionally, Mr. Hadley states another basic truth:

It [the ISG] said: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Our military commanders, and the president, have determined just that.

The President's new strategy is in accordance with views espoused by the much touted ISG.

Nevertheless, The US Senate, following the lead of some of majority members, has been harranging about a non-binding resolution opposing the strategy. A strategy which, according to the author of the Army/Marine counter-insrugency manual, contributor to the ISG report, and new commander of MNF-Iraq, requires the additional troops to succeed and is undermined by the resolution which would, in Gen. Petraeus' words, "give the enemy some comfort". Gen. Petraeus, was also unanimously confirmed by the same Senate.

Go Figure.

From under a rock

It's not all that often that Dick Cheney comes out and speaks about something. So, when he does, the subject is likely important and, what he says is probably worth listening to. The question is, is he right?

Cheney says critics of new US Iraq plan play into hands of Bin Laden (AFP - 14/01/2007)

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Vice-President Dick Cheney accused critics of the administration's new strategy in Iraq of playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden and global terrorism.

Oh my, this is going to be a fun article.

Cheney said withdrawing forces from Iraq rather than the troop "surge" announced this week by President George W. Bush would be "the most dangerous blunder" possible.

Hmm. Well, that doesn't seem to be something one could agree with on face value. But, that's just his assertion, he still needs to back it up. And he better.

"They are convinced that the current debate in the Congress, that the election campaign last fall, all of that is evidence that they're right when they say the United States doesn't have the stomach for the fight in this war against terror," he said.

"Bin Laden doesn't think he can beat us. He believes he can force us to quit," Cheney said, citing US military setbacks in Lebanon and Somalia that led to US withdrawals from those countries.

"He believes after Lebanon and Somalia, the United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war and Iraq is the current central battlefield in that war, and it's essential we win there and we will win there," he said.

"They're convinced that the United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us," he said.

In this point, according to many analysts and authors Cheney is 100% correct. For example, Michael Scheuer (wikipedia). In his works, Scheuer documents, using Bin Laden's own words, how he sees the U.S. as a paper tiger or, a weak horse. Scheuer also shows how Bin Laden is attempting to portray himself as the strong horse to attract supporters.

So, by looking at the issue of how the conflict in Iraq is resolved from the perspective of the Al Qaeda narrative, Dick Cheney would appear to be spot on.

International Perspective

A view from the UK on President Bush's plan for Iraq and 'the media' response.

Whatever else you might say about Bush, there can be absolutely no doubt that he - and the bulk of the American people - are genuine in their desire to see democracy functioning in Iraq – and the rest of the Middle East, for that matter.

You really do have to wonder why it is, therefore, that such a noble objective should have the left-wing media – typified by our own Guardian - spitting with rage at the prospect the United States taking what might be decisive action against the terrorists who would see anarchy, misery and death.

You can read the whole thing here. The author continues on to tell us:

The proximate reason for the newspaper's ire, of course, is that - in opting for a troop surge - Bush has "ignored the message of the mid-term elections" and the Guardian's Democrat (i.e., left-wing) chums. Bush, it screeches, "has also ignored the Iraq Study Group, Congress, his own top generals" and, horror of horrors, "most world opinion".

There you have it people. A US president, leader of the most prosperous and dynamic country in the world, a country which has achieved its status by driving its own agenda - is not listening to the opinion of the people who neither elected him nor pay US taxes. Now isn't that a bummer!

Now, between you and me, a lot of people "over here", that is, the 10 sq miles surrounded by reality that is Ithaca, NY would say, that's right, we didn't elect him. Remember those bumper stickers? "Don't elect him in 2004 either!"? Drivel.

But those folks aren't objective enough to see his point. I hope some of you reading here are and will read the rest of it here: EU Referendum - Both can't be wrong.

No Sineman, Ithaca Journal

Sineman is still on hiatus and my attention has been drawn to a recent opinion letter in the Ithaca Journal. I think reproducing it here falls under Fair Use.

My purpose is criticism and comment. This blog is non-commercial. I will reproduce the letter in its entirety (sans the author's identity) but, it was published in the weekend edition and it's currently 6:43 PM on Sunday. My reproducing the letter at this date and time will not affect sales of the Ithaca Journal. As to the internet aspect of the letter, I certainly won't reduce traffic to the Journal website. If anything, and if I actually had readers, I would increase traffic to the site thereby increasing revenue for the Journal.

I think I'm safe from any legal action under copyright law.

The letter is titled "Bush's 'holy' laurels" (bold is my emphasis)

A caller to C-SPAN wondered why we don't use overwhelming force in Iraq as Japan and Germany were submissive to our will after Hiroshima and Dresden.

Talk about comparing apples and oranges! Japan and Germany attacked others. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet has lost three quarter of a million of its citizens to post-invasion violence while another two million have given up homes and careers to seek safety in other countries.

When asked how he felt after the election Bush said he felt like Noah in the flood. Noah! The rescuer of life on earth! Bush indeed feels he is the apple of God's eye and it is his business to bring about the End Times, so a profane thing like an election is unlikely to sway him. He says he is listening to critics, but their words follow a direct path into his ears and then out. Why ponder, debate and analyze our dilemma when you can rest on your holy laurels?

The next two years will be a true test of the separation of power and the will of the people as Bush digs in his heels and the Democrats and the voters who gave them their slim majority endeavor to confront his unchanged course hiding behind changed rhetoric.

Ok. It is true that Japan and Germany attacked others. The insinuation is apparently that Iraq, under Saddam, did not. Remember now, Iraq, under Saddam, invaded Iran. Invaded Kuwait. Gassed Kurds. And slaughtered Shiites.

Given the US history of intervention around the world, each of those four instances is justification enough. Taken together?

750,000 dead. 655,000 dead according to the study published in the Lancet in 2006 right? It was 100,000 by the same researchers in 2004. In 2004, according to the United Nations, it was 18,187-29,299 (page 54 of the Analytical Report).

In the 2006 Johns Hopkins study 1,800 households were studied. In the UN report, 21,000+ were studied. A bit of a difference eh?

Also, from the UN report:

The question asked in ILCS was formulated and posed
in a relatively standard way typical to large surveys
and censuses (UN 1983). The question underestimates
deaths, because households in which all members
were lost are omitted. It is therefore common within
demographic studies to use a correction for this,
based on a number of assumptions derived from
stable population theory (UN 1983). This has not been
attempted here, as it is unlikely that the assumptions
are satisfied. It is not common to make this correction
in epidemiologically oriented studies, and this was
not done in the Roberts et al. study.

In other words, Roberts et al. made assumptions that the UN thought unwise and made "corrections" that the UN didn't. To be fair, this was in 2004. I'm sure things were different in 2006 (rolleyes).

The remainder of the letter mocks President Bush's faith. Have fun with that. Don't try it in say...Iraq.

You Be The Judge

Still following the evolution of the Iraqi governing coalition. Today, I read a handful of reports, all published within an hour, from three different sources, with very different characteristics.

First the NYT reports:
Iraqi Factions Try to Undercut a Plan to Isolate Extremists 10:15 AM

The NYT tells us that:

Several Iraqi political groups on Thursday maneuvered to undercut an American-backed initiative that would create a multisectarian bloc intended to isolate extremists like the Shiite cleric and militia leader Moktada al-Sadr.

But, then they go on to tell us there's one group and how the rest of parliment will never be able to meet their new demands (not bothering to mention them). Oh, and the negotiations have stopped.

The report then goes on to tell us:

• SecDef Gates visited Iraq to discuss sending more troops.


• 38 bodies were found.


• Three bombs were set off.


• Saddam's trial was adjourned until Jan. 8.


• Sadr's maneuvering, has some control over Maliki, has paralyzed the gov't, and might rejoin the talks.


• Then back to Gates.


• Then back to more troops.


• Then a dig at the incompetent Iraqi troops.

Wow. That was a, confusing, mouthful. So, the point is, the NYT asserted that Iraqi Groups were undermining the talks and then didn't back it up. There's one group according to their own report.

And all of this is followed up with gloom and doom, talk of more US Troops, and incompetent Iraqi support.

Second, the BBC:
Iraq Shia press for Sadr return 10:12 AM

This reports describes attempts to convince Sadr to re-enter the political process during ongoing talks in Najaf with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most prominent Shia cleric in Iraq.

No mention of ongoing talks by the NYT eh?

Iraq tribes 'taking on al-Qaeda' 10:18 AM

The tribal chiefs in the Iraqi province of Anbar joined forces in September in an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda...

"We are fighting the terrorists because they have caused the violent chaos in the country, the instability. They are killing innocent Iraqis and killing anyone who wants freedom and peace in Iraq," he explained...

The sheikh said some of the al-Qaeda fighters and weapons came from neighbouring Arab countries, Syria and Saudi Arabia mainly, but some were from more distant Arab countries and from Afghanistan.

No mention of anything like this in that expansive NYT piece eh?

Third, and finally, the TimesOnline:
Shia leadership agrees deal over sectarian killers 11:12 AM

Two of the senior Shia political leaders in Iraq agreed in principle to crack down on death squads within their own ranks yesterday. The rival Shia factions struck the deal in an attempt to salvage the country from collapse, said Haidar al-Abadi, a Shia MP in the Dawa party, who is close to Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister...

Last night a delegation was on its way to the shrine city of Najaf intent on convincing the anti-Western cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the widespread killing of Sunnis, to join the crackdown. Officials close to Hojatoleslam al-Sadr said he had agreed to rejoin the Iraqi Government.

Although the two parties are agreed on the need for a crackdown, the accord could easily fall apart if Hojatoleslam al-Sadr cannot be persuaded to back it and if Sunni parties fail to take similar steps.

According to the TimesOnline, major Shia parties agree (sans al-Sadr), who agrees but will probably only play if the Sunnis do. No droning on about dooma and gloom. No hints at more troops, no digs at the poor, incapable Iraqi troops. The Times sticks to the story at hand.

Conclusion (or, Questions):
1) What's the political landscape in Iraq relative to the governing coalition?

While it's not crystal-clear, it seems fairly promising. Sure there's some posturing. The fundamental questions is, what will Sadr do?

2) Why the dramatic difference in reporting?

...

Related:
Groundwork
What Next?

Groundwork

Following up on What Next with regard to the groundwork being laid for the deployment of additional troops to Iraq: Has everyone (Iraqi politicians) signed onto "Bush's" plan for isolating extreme elements of the society?

Two articles today provide some insight:
New US defense chief weighs reinforcements on Iraq visit (AFP)
Top Shiite Cleric Is Said to Favor a Coalition for Iraq (NYT)

From AFP:

Hadi al-Ameri of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), described this idea as "madness".

"Any attempt to exclude Sadr's movement would be a strategic error," he warned. "How could you exclude the Sadr movement when the prime minister is working for national reconciliation?"

Instead, Shiite officials from the coalition parties said a delegation would meet Sadr and urge him to restate his support for the political process.

al-Sadr has paralyzed the government since Bush's meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan. Why would he rejoin the government now?

Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq sounds distinctly Iranian to me...which is a bit worrisome.

From NYT:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 19 —Iraq’s most venerated Shiite cleric has tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists, particularly the powerful Shiite militia leader Moktada al-Sadr, Iraqi and Western officials say...

Mr. Maliki has expressed strong interest in the coalition but wants initially to welcome all political parties into its fold rather than to limit membership, Iraqi and Western officials say. That would provide additional political cover for any break with Mr. Sadr.

The prime minister’s [al-Maliki] proposal, Mr. Hamoudi said, "is to start with a very wide door and gradually close it."

So, while different groups publicly express strong support and some reservation for the coalition I see a lot of agreement here on specifics. Including, critically, the approach to dealing with al-Sadr. Invite him in, give him a chance...when he rejects it, which I assume he will (why shouldn't I?), the beefed up American force can finally confront his militia head on.

Is that what our troops are going to do?? If not, they shouldn't go.

Nature

Some may wonder, why debate all the Shiite this and Sunni that? Why are we even there at this point? Why don't we just leave? There are many reasons, Maj. Ben Connable illustrates some of them for us in his NYT piece.

A War That Abhors a Vacuum

THE niceties are up for debate: phased or partial withdrawal from Iraq would entail pulling troops back to their bases across the country, or leapfrogging backward to the nearest international border, or redeploying to bases in nearby countries.

But whatever the final prescription, the debate must include a sober look at the street-level impact of withdrawal. What will become of Iraqi villages, towns and cities as we pull out? Although past is not necessarily prologue, recent experience in Anbar Province may be instructive...

Read the rest

What Next?

Well, the sineman would seem to be on vacation. He's placed a white board on his fence with some markers. Passers-by have written various foolish things on it. None of which are worthy of comment. And he hasn't posted on his blog in quite a while.

So, what next? Well, President Bush is talking of sending more troops to Iraq. The NYT tells us about it. Quotes some Generals advising caution and then describes the latest attack in Baghdad. I have to say, they do a rather poor job of framing the issue...

It's understood that the Iraqi capital is the focal point of the insurgency in Iraq. At this stage the Shiite militias have the Sunnis backed into a corner, and are holding the government hostage. That is, the al-Maliki government needs al-Sadr's votes to remain in power as Prime Minister and therefore, cannot act against him. Additionally, there's Al Qaeda. Some Sunni groups have thrown in with Al Qaeda as a means of survival, others for theological or political reasons. They're a minority, 25 of 31 Sunni tribes in Anbar province have signed a pact against Al Qaeda.

Still framing here...Bush isn't just "throwing" troops into this. He recently met with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, an Iraqi Shiite leader, and Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni vice president of Iraq. Now we're done framing.

Is President Bush building support for al-Maliki? Or, building support for his replacement? To coincide with the infusion of additional troops. Is it wise to stick with al-Maliki (as it seems to me that we will)? Why? Why not?

Of course, there's no word on what was actually discussed during the talks. Did both parties "sign on" to "the plan"? If we're talking of sending more troops one would have to think so.

With al-Sadr isolated, how will he react? Will he back down and opt for national reconciliation? Or, all out civil war? Is that why we're sending more troops? Are we assuming he'll opt for war?

If anybody would like to offer some ideas, feel free. Someone recently commented that I'm "opinionated". Well, ok, maybe. But I am respectful and do listen and believe it or not, I do consider other points of view. Sineman can vouch for me ;)

Isolating al-Sadr

Last night my wife and I were talking about Iraq and why al-Sadr was such an important person. His armed force aside, he's in control of 30 seats in parliment. The Prime Minister (to date) has relied on his support to stay in power and keep the government together.

So, I suggested that, given the ISG's dismissal of partitioning Iraq, perhaps the purpose of president Bush's meetings with Shia and Sunni leaders from Iraq was to build support for Maliki to a point at which he would no longer have a need for al-Sadr's votes. Originally I thought maybe they would be discussing partition or a conference as I describe here.

The NYT is reporting that the talks with Bush were part of an effort intended to build a coalition to isolate al-Sadr.

Assuming the effort meets with success. Once al-Sadr is politically isolated one would presume that he would "sue for terms" by joining the reconciliation effort and play to the part or, lash out.

With our planning to send more troops to Baghdad...what do you think commanders on the ground anticipate?

Mark Steyn on the ISG

The Iraq Study Group report has certainly caused a lot of controversy of late. I actually think it's a faily decent way of airing policy debate in public. Sadly, it's by so shamelessly over-hyped by the media and mischaracterized that it's essentially a wash.

You've heard the press say it's a damning critique of the president's policy. But, have you heard this?

We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the
President: an Iraq that can "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend
itself."

ISG, Pg 40

I'm a fan of Mark Steyn's writing. I recently read this latest book America Alone. I don't always agree with everything he says. But often I find something that seems a bit too far out there...something that seems like pure hyperbole...only to find out later that he was, in fact, using someone elses words or, entirely correct or, indeed sometimes, wrong.

Nevertheless, you have to admire his writing:

Well, it seems Iraq is to come under something called the "Iraq International Support Group." If only Neville Chamberlain had thought to propose a "support group" for Czechoslovakia, he might still be in office. Or guest-hosting for Oprah.

Read it all.

Rebirth: A Constructive Idea

On August 15, 2006 in a post titled A Constructive Idea I cited the Dayton Accords as an example of ethnic conflict, resulting from the downfall of a dictatorial regime, being solved with reasonable success.

Today, the NYT released a memo from Donald Rumsfeld, dated November 6, 2006, outlining potential changes to current policy in Iraq. (article, text of memo)

The memo contains a number of options which, under any circumstances, we must adopt. For example,

Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq...

Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

Last, and considered 'below the line' or, less attractive, he says "Try a Dayton-like process".

I would note that President Bush met with the Iraqi Prime Minister and Jordanian King this week. Next week, Pres. Bush is meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a Shiite leader. In that piece, it's reported that:

Next month, President Bush is scheduled to meet with Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni Arab vice president and leader of the most powerful Sunni Arab party, a senior administration official said.

The last piece, the Kurds, are not directly involved in the sectarian violence in Iraq. Their part of the country has been and continues to be relatively peaceful. One would presume they would attend any conference with a simple request. However, we should not presume. We should treat them as an equal party in any talks.

Are we building up to a conference of Iraqi leaders? Dayton like? Or, is the President trying to do it 'on the fly'...shuttling messages back and forth between parties? Time will tell. Surely it would be a good step to get Sunni and Shiite leaders in the same room. With a common goal.

for all his faults

For all President Bush's faults, at least he knows who the bad guys are.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Wednesday that she feels it is "sad" that President Bush continues to blame Iraqi insurgent violence on al Qaeda.

"My thoughts on the president's representations are well-known," Pelosi said. "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again."

Somebody please tell me where the 9/11 Commission discussed the issue of Al Qaeda inciting sectarian violence in post-war Iraq. Thought so. Tell me again why this lady should influence the national dialogue? agenda?

Oh, and to address the substance of Pelosi's assertion: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29434212.htm

DUBAI, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Iraq's al Qaeda wing on Wednesday condemned Pope Benedict's visit to Turkey as part of a crusade against Islam...

Make a sentence with these words: Denial, River, Egypt.

So, take this, add it to my previos post, the Murtha fiasco, the Hastings debacle...and you know why I find it so hard to vote for most democrats.

Friends, Not

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28diplo.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — As President Bush and his top diplomats try to halt the downward spiral in Iraq and Lebanon, they seem intent on their strategy of talking only to Arab friends, despite increasing calls inside and outside the administration for them to reach out to Iran and Syria as well.

And with good reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28military.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

People need to understand that Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, are not "our friends". The countries do not work with us to achieve mutual interests. They work against us to achieve their own interests. What are our interests? Peace, stability, generally representative goverments, each of these has an economic strain as well. What are Iranian interests? Nuclear Weapons, eliminating the Zionist Entity, regional hegemony, theocracy.

Digging for a Plan

I went digging around for specifics on 'a plan' for dealing with Iraq from a leading Democrat other than stay the course or cut-and-run. I found one in a transcript from NewsHour:

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself.

Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.

So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.

The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

Sigh. So, apparently, according to Iraqis and others in the region, our being in Iraq is not making America safer. Is that credible?

We are not bringing stability to the region. If preventing a democratically elected government from falling prey to Al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias isn't in the aid of stability I don't know what is.

She wants us to redeploy outside of Iraq. I'm sorry but, that's newspeak for withdraw.

Redeploy outside of Iraq. At the same time disarm the militias. Boys and girls, we're leaving now, as we do, would you please pass your guns and IEDs to the left and front of the class? Thank you kids, yes, that's very good...Good luck with that.

And this part: The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

What does he mean? He's said it repeatedly and it was given to you as background as part of this question. And by the way, victory is *not* subjective. Last time I checked, Madame Pelosi is an elected representative in the US House of Representatives. She took an Oath of Office. Perhaps she needs a refresher?