2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The American Public is constantly told that the U.S. presence in Iraq is, although violent at times, a positive one. If this is true, why are the Iraqi?s who work with the U.S. military in Iraq targeted? By whom? My first question, which I hope both Bruns and Houzan will be able to answer, is whether or not the U.S. presence is in fact positive and if, as was stated yesterday in the hearings, sustainable progress is being made.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context