Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's hard not to take a glass-half-empty attitude toward President Obama's Iraq speech today -- especially when John McCain is praising his policy and prominent Democrats are criticizing it.
Obama's speech, delivered to Marines at Camp Lejeune, will leave as many as 50,000 US troops in Iraq long after August, 2010. Said Obama:
As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.
McCain was soberly gleeful, and he took a shot at antiwar Democrats in Congress:
The President's plan, as it was briefed yesterday, is one that can keep us on the right path in Iraq. I worry, however, about statements made by a number of our colleagues indicating that, for reasons wholly apart from the requirement to secure our aims in Iraq, we should aim at a troop presence much lower than 50,000.
And McCain added:
I believe that the administration should aim to keep the full complement – 50,000, as briefed by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen – and not succumb to pressures, political or otherwise, to make deeper or faster cuts in our force levels.
The Washington Post rounded up comments from disappointed and concerned Dems, noting that only Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois immediately praised Obama's plan, and adding:
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) echoed the worries of other Democrats who want a faster and more complete withdrawal, saying: "I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can." Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) issued a statement saying he is "concerned" about the level of troops that would remain in Iraq. And Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) said he would "await the justification" as to why the slower pace is necessary.
Marc Lynch, one of the more astute analysts on Iraq, writes on his Foreign Policy blog that Obama's plan -- which apparently will leave most combat forces in place until after the Iraqi national elections -- will force Obama to rush the withdrawal of those forces hurriedly in just a few months to meet the August, 2010, deadline:
Just look at the calender. Iraq's Parliamentary elections have not yet been scheduled and don't even have an electoral law, and according to a number of senior Iraqi politicians probably will not be held until March 2010 (not December 2009). That would then give the U.S. about five months to withdraw the bulk of the dozen combat brigades which would reportedly remain. And then, keep in mind that U.S. officials generally agree (correctly) that the most dangerous period of elections is actually in their aftermath, when disgruntled losers might turn to violence or other destabilizing measures. So the following month will likely not seem a good time either. So that would leave four months to move, what -- 9 brigades? Did someone say precipitous? Good luck with that. And that's assuming, of course, that nothing else risky or destabilizing comes up in April or May 2010 (Kirkuk?) which would make a drawdown at that moment appear risky.
Obama didn't say anything about the US-Iraq accord signed last year that sets a 2011 deadline for the departure of all US forces. Now, of course, that deadline was always seen, by both sides, as (shall we say?) "flexible." Prime Minister Maliki, bowing to the rising nationalist trend in Iraq, made it seem like that he wants American forces to leave, but he doesn't. In fact, his top aides have told people in Washington that they want American troops to remain in Iraq for much longer, as long as they continue to build up Maliki's armed forces.
If you're keeping score, it's Center for a New American Security 1, Center for American Progress, 0. CNAS, the centrist thinktank, urged Obama during the campaign to do exactly what he just announced, while CAP urged Obama to execute a far more comprehensive, and faster, pullout. An intelligent commentary at CAP's web site today, written by Peter Juul, warns Obama that he'd better consider a quicker withdrawal, especially if an Iraqi referendum on the US troop presence votes the US-Iraq accord down in July. Says Juul:
Still, the president must be prepared to conduct a quicker withdrawal, whatever the situation on the ground in Iraq. Why? In order to pass the SOFA through the Iraqi parliament, a provision for a popular referendum by July 2009 was included alongside the agreement. If the referendum rejects the SOFA, the United States will have one year to completely withdraw from Iraq. But Obama's plan doesn't make a sufficient "down payment" on withdrawal prior to the referendum in order to convince skeptical Iraqis that the United States really does plan to leave Iraq on the timetable specified in the SOFA. So it's not outside the realm of possibility that the United States could be forced to make a complete withdrawal from Iraq by July 2010.
Ultimately, it's sad indeed to see the antiwar wing of the Democratic party disheartened by Obama's Iraq policy, while the McCains of the world are cheering. This, truly, is change I can't believe in.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
I can't believe anybody is really surprised.
I don't know the first thing about how to go about the troop withdrawal, which undoubtedly is necessary. But given the hurried, unprepared way we went about getting INTO Iraq, it seems reasonable at least to make sure we do things right on the way out.
I've got it! If we simply re-name the 50,000 combat troops to "peace-keeping" troops, Obama can still say he withdrew 50,000 combat troops and almost arguably "live up to his promise". Fucking brilliant, I know!!
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2009 @ 12:51pm
Well by now I think everyone knows we've been snookered on this Iraq withdrawal and that we are going to have a significant military presence there in perpetuity.
Only question was how many troops he was going to leave there.
The obfuscation is deplorable.
Can't wait to see the "new" plan for Afghanistan.
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 1:03pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2009 @ 12:51pm
I have to agree. I think is the difference between Bush and Obama. Bush went into this war haphazardly with no plan just so he could say he did. Obama is taking measured and calculated steps to get us out not so he can appease a certain group of people but so that he can do it safely. It's the difference between a pragmatist and a zealot.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 1:10pm
It's the difference between a pragmatist and a zealot.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2009 @ 1:18pm
I am in no position to defend one soldier to remain in Iraq for one more day, but Obama is only one man surrounded by millions who want to see him fail. Before blaming Obama for not living up to our expectation for Iraq, let all of us look in the mirror. We allowed the Iraq war to go on by failing to hold the criminal Bush to account. It seems that we have forgotten that the real criminal who got us into Iraq is out somewhere in Texas sticking his finger to our faces. He and his Zionists Neocon friends violated every sacred tenet of our constitution and now we are subsidizing their blissful retirements. Holding the criminals, who got us into Iraq, accountable is an integral part of ending that war.
Posted by CripThink at 02/27/2009 @ 1:41pm
Let's see...
Obama promised 16 months...everybody loved it, except for the Right and the Left who said "Not good enough! Want it NOW!" (despite logistical impossibilities).
McCain promised "end of first term" (January 2013), then various down-playing when that bombed, but rarely committed to anything but Summer 2011.
Obama gets it to 18 months...everybody loves it, except for the Right and the Left who say "Not good enough! Want it NOW!!!"
Yeah, I guess we would have been so much better off if McCain won, huh?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 1:48pm
Posted by CripThink at 02/27/2009 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes Bush & the Neocons got us into the mess. But still, Obama promised out of Iraq early on, and I do think he was deliberately vague on just what that meant. If anything, the situation has stabilized in Iraq vis a vis the situation at time he made that statement circa early 2007. You don't feel that he gave the anti-war crowd just a wee bit of false hope?
Obama promised America.....paraphrasing....'I will always tell it to you straight.' I didn't interpret that statement to mean "eventually."
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 2:00pm
Obama promised 16 months...everybody loved it, except for the Right and the Left who said "Not good enough! Want it NOW!" (despite logistical impossibilities).
McCain promised "end of first term" (January 2013), then various down-playing when that bombed, but rarely committed to anything but Summer 2011.
Obama gets it to 18 months...everybody loves it, except for the Right and the Left who say "Not good enough! Want it NOW!!!"
Yeah, I guess we would have been so much better off if McCain won, huh?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So 50,000 residual troops is your idea of being out in 16....whoops 19 months?
Is that what he said? Or is 50,000 troops your idea of remedy to an on-going logistical impossibility?
McCain loves Obama's plan to stay there indefinitely. Who knows - maybe 100 years or more?
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 2:09pm
I'm not surprised that the anti-war left is both disappointed in the announcement and even more, they are ignoring the greater story today.
President Obama's words sound like victory to me and vindication for President Bush and all who have supported this war.
"As a nation, we have had our share of debates about the war in Iraq. It has, at times, divided us as a people," Obama said. "To this very day, there are some Americans who want to stay in Iraq longer, and some who want to leave faster. But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved."
"And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime -- and you got the job done," the president said. "We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government -- and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life -- that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-02-26-marine_N.htm
And he also left himself room if circumstances dictate to leave troops much longer or even to bring troops back
""Our enemies should be left with no doubt: This plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed," the president said."
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 2:10pm
The audacity to LIE & not keep promises made during the campaign. "Change you can zerox".
Obama just VOTED for the war in Iraq !!
Posted by ZombieNation at 02/27/2009 @ 2:37pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 2:10pm
Give it some time. We will see if Iraq degrades again or if it is okay. You guys love to say victory before the fight is done. Bush did that once and look where it got him.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 2:37pm
Maybe the 50,000 isn't a permanent figure? Maybe that means for some time, but then, it is conditional upon events there? Perhaps, a "better safe than sorry" position, in effect (maybe even the correct one, for now). If things get better, we can always withdraw some more later. To me (and those who opposed the war in the first place), the question of what should we do now (how many troops should stay, etc) can and is separate from the question of, should we have gone to war in the first place. The only way the initial anti-war position (totally correct at the time) might be reconsidered/reassessed is, if in say, 20 years or something, Iraq has become some oasis of democracy, human rights, economic prosperity, etc. Then, it is possible that one might have to consider the theoretical possibility that, perhaps going to war was NOT necessarily a totally bad idea, in the long run. I believe those that opposed this war (such as myself) should be open to that theoretical proposition. But short of that, the question of how many troops should stay there (for now) doesn't really affect the view that this war was wrong and unjustified, which (regardless of how many troops should stay, etc) should never be forgotten. That is, if we hadn't fought this stupid war in the first place, we wouldn't even be having to HAVE this debate – we must never forget that.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 2:40pm
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 2:09pm
Aside from the 3 additional months...it is exactly what Obama promised during the campaign...
and what the Right called "dangerous" and "abandoning the Iraqi people".
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 2:46pm
Actually, in a way Oabam saying we need 50,000 validates/legitimizes the anti-war position (the idea we shouldn't have fought this war), because one of the arguments against going to war was, that we would be creating conditions for civil war, for pereanent instability. If one feels we should NOT pull out completely, in order to AVOID that very real possibility (full-blown civl war once we go) that STILL jibes nicely with the original argument AGAINST going to war - that if we do, the instability that will result will result in a permenant occupation to avoid the resultant aftermath of our doing so.
Arguably, Obama's decision validates that portion of the original anti-war position.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 2:46pm
Give it some time. We will see if Iraq degrades again or if it is okay. You guys love to say victory before the fight is done. Bush did that once and look where it got him.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 2:37pm
Are you saying that Obama is wrong?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 2:47pm
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 2:00pm
OneVote,
OneVote,
No disagreement here, remember the one most important sentence in Obama's speech: By 2011 not a single US soldier will remain in Iraq. This is the first unambiguous statement about completely leaving Iraq that I have heard from any US politician so far. This means that no more 50 permanent military bases; and no more occupation. This is a total defeat for the Neocon's Iraq project. Obama has to deal his cards carefully; the military industrial complex and the dark forces of Zionism are waiting for him to make a mistake. Let's focus on cleaning up our Congress and liberate it from the excessive influence of the special interest and AIPAC. This will help Obama make bolder moves in the future.
Posted by CripThink at 02/27/2009 @ 2:58pm
Aside from the 3 additional months...it is exactly what Obama promised during the campaign...
and what the Right called "dangerous" and "abandoning the Iraqi people".
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
What about leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq? Seems like even inside circle Dems like Pelosi are surprised at the gap between promise and current reality. Even Newsweek is calling it a broken campaign promise - and thats mainstream media.
'Still, Obama's reported decision won't appease his fellow Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, majority leader in the House, is already condemning it. "I don't know what the justification is for 50,000 [troops]," she has said. "I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000; a little bit more than a third, 15,000 to 20,000." General Pelosi seeks to run Iraq from her tactical headquarters on Capitol Hill. President Obama, meanwhile, is making the transition from campaigning to governing.'
Excerpt:
"Reality on the Ground"
Despite Obama's announcement of a plan to withdraw U.S. soldiers from Iraq, troops are likely to remain in the country for years.
By John Barry | Newsweek Web Exclusive Feb 26, 2009
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 3:08pm
Crip,
What if we reduce to 50,000 and things deteriorate? Then Obama may "go back" on his word to withdraw completely by 2011.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:11pm
And maybe that will be the right thing to do (and my argument is that if that happens, that will validate the original anti-war argunment as to why we shouldn't go to war).
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:12pm
Are you saying that Obama is wrong? Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 2:47pm
I've never said he was always right. That delusion is something you guys came up with. I have criticized him as well as praised him. Just like I have criticized as well as praised people on the right. You guys just like to insult anyone who disagrees with you by making comments about koolaid.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:16pm
Let's focus on cleaning up our Congress and liberate it from the excessive influence of the special interest and AIPAC. This will help Obama make bolder moves in the future.
Posted by CripThink at 02/27/2009 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
We shall see. We have got alot invested in Iraq, and so prudence should govern Obama's actions. I don't want to see any country exploit instablity in Iraq to their advantage. I am totally on board with purging the neocons and AIPAC from our government. That would be a huge step toward prudence in foreign policy.
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 3:18pm
'Obama's decision, to be announced Friday, to withdraw 90,000 of the 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by August 2010, is a classic example of the gulf between campaigning and governing. Obama campaigned on the notion that Iraq was the bad war, and Afghanistan the good war. His opposition to the Iraq war, and his pledge to withdraw U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his election gave him a critical edge among the Democratic faithful over Hillary Clinton.'
Excerpt:
"Reality on the Ground"
Despite Obama's announcement of a plan to withdraw U.S. soldiers from Iraq, troops are likely to remain in the country for years.
By John Barry | Newsweek Web Exclusive Feb 26, 2009
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 3:23pm
Obama does not want to have "The President Who Lost Iraq" legacy. He is doing the right thing. A residual force for training, support and counter terrorism along-side Iraqi forces is a formula for a stable and successful Iraq. It also puts pressure on Iran to reject radical Islamic influence.
Posted by pyeatte at 02/27/2009 @ 3:24pm
Are you saying that Obama is wrong? Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 2:47pm
I've never said he was always right. That delusion is something you guys came up with. I have criticized him as well as praised him. Just like I have criticized as well as praised people on the right. You guys just like to insult anyone who disagrees with you by making comments about koolaid.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:16pm
I simply asked a question whether you thought he was wrong. Tell me what insult was in my question?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 3:26pm
Well... at least Obamanation MAY have the opportunity to get at least something right during his term, but no one will be holding thier breath. G.W. Bush was right Victory is in sight and all but materialized fully!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 3:37pm
What if we reduce to 50,000 and things deteriorate? Then Obama may "go back" on his word to withdraw completely by 2011.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I got a feeling that this is minimum personal requirement for a military presence in Iraq going forward.
What is the troop strength in Japan and Germany right now.....approximately 40,000 - 50,000 each? Korea is now 25,000 I think, but was about 37,500 a couple years ago. Some shifting of soldiers around for our ME adventures.
But realistically, any military presence is probably going to require troop strength of 25,000 to 50,000.
The statement by some military commanders that we are far from completing our combat mission I think is telling. These commanders believe that various factions are on their best behavior right now hoping that we will leave ASAP.
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 3:38pm
Comanche,
We went to war because we were told Iraq had all these horrible WMDs. That was the reason. If Iraq turns out to be semi-stable (stil to be soon), does that validate the original reason detre? I don't think so!
Unless you want to retroactively change the orignal reason for war!
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:40pm
So, just how deadly is the threat from Al Quaeda tody now that Iraq hostility is all but over? Must have been some connection there not readily apparent to all! Anybody seen Bin Laden lately? Seem to be few emboldened terrorist crusing the world these days considering the "war on terror" that is not even being discussed by the new Pres. or congress. Funny how all that seems so distant?
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 3:53pm
AQ wasn't a threat in Iraq before the war, was it? There was (as the 9/11 Commission Report put it) no "operational collusion" between Saddam and AQ concerning 9/11! So how did taking out Saddam reduce the terrorist threat in any way?
Meanwhile, he's still around in Afghanistan/Pakistan - where we should have stayed focused - not gone off to play Don Quixote in Iraq.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:01pm
Arguably, the war in Iraq has HELPED groups like AQ, thus making us LESS safe - the resultant anger has produced fresh recruits. (Reports have indicated as such.)
As Hosni Mubarek said, on the eve of the war: "if you fight this war, you will be producing a hundred new Bin Ladens."
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:03pm
G.W. Bush was right Victory is in sight and all but materialized fully!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 3:37pm
GW has been saying that for close to 5 years. So even if it is true it has lost all credibility.
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:05pm
Anybody seen Bin Laden lately? Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 3:53pm
"We're going to get [Bin Laden] Dead or alive, it doesn't matter to me." -GW, 12/14/2001
Yeah why has he not been captured yet? Maybe cause we took our eye off the ball and invaded Iraq before we finished our job in Afghanistan?
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:11pm
Extra,
True, they keep changing the definition of "victory" all the time too.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:11pm
"..Terror is bigger than one person..So I don't know where [Bin Laden] is..You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. ...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." GW, 3/13/02.
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:14pm
Extra,
Also, we must never forget, that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch - that he FAILED to protect us from the terrorist threat, as the events of that infamous day revealed.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:16pm
This is a good one too... "The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself"- GW 1/29/03
Brilliant!
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:16pm
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:16pm
Lol.
Thanks for the chuckle, I needed it.
P.S. Keep them coming.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:20pm
Unless you want to retroactively change the orignal reason for war!----Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 3:40pm
Actually that's EXACTLY what the neo-cons do now. Apparently despite "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"?....
none of these fellows even CARED about WMDs...it was just about "saving the Iraqi people from Saddam"!
Oddly, not so much care for the folks in Darfur, though, huh?
(Say that and they go to "We can't do EVERYTHING"...and shift the rationale again!)
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 4:21pm
Isn't it nice to now have a President who can speak in complete sentences?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:22pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:16pm
Right, and there was a PDB that GW failed to pay attention to, "titled Obama determined to strike in US". That Bush supposedly read a month or so before 9/11
But you and I both know it was really Clintons fault for not getting him after the USS Cole incident. Whatever...
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:22pm
Wow, a break in the right-wing propaganda onslaught the the Nation blogs have become of late.
Nice :)
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:28pm
"I'm an optimist because I believe that I'm right. I'm a person at peace with myself. It was our turn to face a serious threat to peace." -GW Conversation with Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, Crawford, Texas, February 22, 2003
and can't forget this one, "I think war is a dangerous place. Washington, D.C. (May 7, 2003)"
or these two "The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example." June 2003 26[27][28]
"I'm the master of low expectations... I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." aboard Air Force One (June 4, 2003).
I will miss the depressing humor that GW provided us all.
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:30pm
Mask,
One thing I can't completely figure out is, why exactly DID we, really, fight this war? There seems to be no final definitive answer. (I mean the REAL reason, not the various shifting ones offered by war supporters).
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:30pm
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:30pm
Hilarious! Lol. Wow. You know, with the focus now on our new President, I think I had actually started to forget what a total, utter, waste of space the previous President really and truly was. Not just what a BAD President he was, but also, what a total boob he was, what an ignoramus, what a buffoon, what a dope, what an imbecile.
Thanks for reminding me (and also, admittedly, what fun it was to - deservedly - make fun of him.)
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:35pm
What is "IT"?
Obama's Iraq plan ain't, what?
Let's understand something boy and girls: Iraq has left the Left with doodoo on its hands and face.
It opposed the ejection of a fascist dictator. It then touted as "the resistance" a fascist insurgency which openly proclaimed its hostility to democracy, freedom of religion, free speech, etc. The Left's "freedom fighters" were "resisting" a democratic govt which 10.5 million Iraqis elected at the risk of their lives. Yet the Left demanded the US withdraw and leave that country and people to the tender mercies of fanatics who crashed exploding cars into crowds of civilians.
And then, at the war's nadir, when President Bush undertook the Surge, the Left, and not least Obama, declared it would do more harm than good, wrote the war off as impervious to a military solution and demanded withdrawal, post haste.
Moreover, it flourished these demands in the name of America's values. Our values were indeed at stake. Seldom have democracy, free speech, religious toleration been so bluntly challenged as in Iraq.
Not only did the Left demand America abandon a fight for its most fundamental values, it sought a defeat whose geopolitical consequences would have been incalculable. It would have inspired countless new insurgencies across the most strategic spot on earth. Friendly regimes may well have been toppled, and the entire region lost to Islamists. The Left preferred that to the Bush administration being vindicated.
And its most stalwart and most idiotic elements, specimen like Dreyfuss, still cherish that hope. They are indignant at President Obama preferring to support US interests as against the Left's abiding thirst for an Iraqi debacle.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/27/2009 @ 4:35pm
A mental midget who could barely speak the language.
This might be my favorite all-time Bush quote: "the question is, is our children learning?"
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:37pm
Extra,
Didn't Presidential historians just have a symposium, in which they voted shrub something like 38th out of 43 on the all-time list, something like that? (Best to worst Presidents.)
I think at the end of my prayers every night, I'm going to start ending with: "and thank you God, that George Bush is no longer our president."
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:41pm
Any news yet on where the Bush "Presidential Library" is going to be located?
It must be hard to find a building that can accomodate three books.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:43pm
How to start.
You can't lay down and do nothing because excitable people might react. We all wish we had started "creating a thousand new-" Hitlers much sooner.
Yes, WMDs were the reason for the invasion, but the neocons did have a grand strategy for making the Mideast a friendlier place. This strategy had its roots in liberalism, was a continuation of Clintonian foreign policy, and most of its intellectual supporters were ex-leftists.
Clinton had Bin Laden handed to him on a platter and let him go.
That said, should we have gone in? I don't know. One thing - we were already there.
Obama's plan sounds OK to me, here are some potential problems. If the 50,000 are going to be non-combat troops, what are they going to do? "Train" the IA? So Army cooks are going to train the IA. The training going on is already a joke. Combat arms units handpick the soldiers they consider useless and send them to higher to "train" the Iraqis. (I was there, not in one of the training units, but friends of mine were.)
Some of you may not believe this, but from my experience, many civilians in the Triangle would rather see us than the all Shiite IAs, who are far less disciplined, and more inclined to start shooting everything in sight when their convoy takes a hit.
I think Bam is essentially calling the Left's bluff on Afghanistan.
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 4:50pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:43pm
Lol, I don't know. Maybe they could use a magazine stand or a 5 graders locker. Oh! I know, one of those new public bathrooms that self cleans and charges 50 cents to use. They could be the reading material.
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:52pm
Gang,
I think the war was wrong - on that I'm clear. But I do agree that, to some extent, the question (as to whether we should have gone to war or not) has become somewhat irrelevant to the issue of what to do NOW. I disagree about it being consistent with Clintonism though - for example, I don't think Gore would have gone to war in Iraq if he'd been elected in 2000 (of course some say he was elected in 2000). However, in another sense, it is always completely relevant, that basic question of whether we should have or not. In that, for example, we would not be here right now, arguing over what to do now, if we hadn't. In that sense, it is always totally relevant - plus, if you think it was wrong (as I do), then we can't just sort of FORGET that, put it aside. If you beoieve we fought a war that shouldn't have been fought, if you believe that our govt lied to us as to its need and neccesity, if you believe that it was illegal and made a bad gloabl situation worse, if you believe that it reulted in an increase in anti-western terrorists, if you believe it cost us needed international support that we had in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, if you believe all these things - as I do - then that is very serious stuff! We can't just shrug our shoulders and say, in effect, "oh well."
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 5:02pm
So the President lied to us and fucked us over - no biggie!
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 5:04pm
As Hosni Mubarek said, on the eve of the war: "if you fight this war, you will be producing a hundred new Bin Ladens."
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Might have been true to some extent, but I think they all got killed so the rest no longer intrested in virgins just crawled back under thier rocks with thier book of doom to read some more!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 5:11pm
Oddly, not so much care for the folks in Darfur, though, huh?
(Say that and they go to "We can't do EVERYTHING"...and shift the rationale again!)
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Rhwanda now there was a Clinton picnic compassionate loving Undemocrats really showed their stuff on wasn't it!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 5:15pm
But you and I both know it was really Clintons fault for not getting him after the USS Cole incident. Whatever...
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 4:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yea, there is nothing a guy who watched Islamic terrorist kill Americans for 8 yrs could have done to stop 9-11 or all the other acts before. It was the guy who had it for less than 8 months whos at fault! Keep trying to sell that one.
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 5:18pm
FDR43,
OK, but if you claim to "know," that they knew, that were not any WMDs, sorry I don't believe you. Hell, Rumsfeld probably still had the sales receipts for some of that stuff.
So we could have pulled out the AF and watched Hussein gas the Kurds again, or escalate the hanky panky with the fascist elements in Palestine, or invade Kuwait again. Was there a pretty outcome for Iraq?
Why can't you realize oil-thirsty, water-boarding war criminals are not the only people who want something other than a do-nothing strategy about the Mideast's gangsters, jihadists, and fascists?
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 5:20pm
Oil, don't you just love that one! Where did the U.S.A. pump it all too? Funny we kept having a shortage of it and high gas prices, now where did all that oil go that we supposedly fought the Iraq war over? There must be a conspiracy theory somewhere to explain Oil disappearing!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 5:26pm
FDR- I completely agree with you. I was never for the war, even when everyone and their aunt was convinced that Saddam had WMDs. I personally did not care if Saddam had more WMDs than the ones we gave in the 80s. Iraq had never threatened the US. They were effectivley militarily castrated due to the embargo and our control of their air space. I had supported the invasion of Afghanistan and was concerned that we needed to finish what we started there before further straining our military with a separate war. Invading Iraq never made any sense to me. If as Hugo states above the reason was to remove a dictator, personally that is not our job, we don't have the resources or apparently the moral highground to be the worlds police force.
That said we now need to do what needs to be done to get out and minimize the repurcussions of our actions. Both in terms of the cost to tax payers and stability for the people of Iraq.
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 5:35pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 5:18pm
Or we could blame Reagan for funding Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, if Reagan had not funded him to begin with he never would have been a problem. But Bushes failure to take seriously his notification that an attack on US soil was being planned, is purely the fault of Bush and the people around him at the time.
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 5:51pm
Cccomfo1,
You said above "...... Bush went into this war haphazardly with no plan just so he could say he did..... "
Don't forget, President Bush went into the war so as to remove Saddam from power, too.
The Saddam who everybody before the war (including Democrats and Saddam's own generals) believed had WMD, the Saddam who did not come clean with his weapons programs as he was required to do, the Saddam who was planning to re-start his WMD program once he was off of the hook, the Saddam who certainly would have gotten that WMD in the hands of terror groups, the Saddam who seemed to enjoy causing instability in the Middle East, and the Saddam who ran his own people through shredding machines if the mood suited him to do so.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/27/2009 @ 5:55pm
IRAN:
Leaving troops in Iraq serves the second purpose of maintaining a threatening presence on Iran's flank. This will, I think become the primary purpose of our force in Iraq.
Iran is a real cause of concern and this retains one of our "sticks" in place for almost 3 more years. At the same time, we will be increasing the size of our force on Iran's 2nd flank and hopefully placing that force in a more powerful and secure position than they are now. In other words, our Afghan force will become considerably more threatening.
I have heard nothing about this said by The President or his administration. Many of us are profoundly disappointed by The President's announcement today. As with other things, however, his style is to go for a "twofer" whenever possible and it's difficult to be patient about his approach.
I personally believe that he is trustworthy, both regards his intentions and his judgement. Of course he will make errors. But I do not think he will make big ones.
Don
Don Krieger Pittsburgh, PA
Posted by DonKrieger at 02/27/2009 @ 6:12pm
Posted by sjchermak at 02/27/2009 @ 5:55pm
Doesn't change the fact that he started this war haphazardly with no plan. Entering a war in that manner gets American troops and innocent civilians killed. I don't care WHY you enter a war. You enter it with something resembling a plan. We enter WWII after having been bombed by the Japanese. We still came into it with a plan. You can try to atone for Bush's haphazardness all you want. But there have been man more pressing situations under which we have entered wars and we still didn't do it haphazardly.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:15pm
Posted by sjchermak at 02/27/2009 @ 5:55pm
This by the way is funny. We attacked a bankrupted country who didn't have WMDs and didn't have the money to reconstitute it's program. We then took Saddam out of power which destabilized the entire region, gave all the power to Iran and aided in INCREASING terrorist activity in the entire middle east. The middle east was MORE peaceful before we went in specifically BECAUSE everyone was afraid of Saddam.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:18pm
Posted by sjchermak at 02/27/2009 @ 5:55pm
Are you suggesting that we commit American troops to policing the ENTIRE Middle East for the next 50 years?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:18pm
Oil, don't you just love that one! Where did the U.S.A. pump it all too? Funny we kept having a shortage of it and high gas prices, now where did all that oil go that we supposedly fought the Iraq war over? There must be a conspiracy theory somewhere to explain Oil disappearing!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 5:26pm
Bingo, Rio. The idea wasn't to pump the oil - it was to control the oil. Had Saddam decided to damage US corporate interests, he could have flooded the market, driving down prices and profits. The other idea was to enrich companies like Halliburton with no-bid contracts. That worked pretty well for Cheney's old company, I'd say. The subsequent denationalization of Iraqi oil had to be a factor. And, of course, the ancillary benefit of Bush realizing his dream of being a war president, with the political capital he saw arising out of that, as well as an opportunity to shred Constitutional guaranties. At any rate, the oil never disappeared - it simply never appeared.
Posted by jmusolino at 02/27/2009 @ 6:21pm
Are you suggesting that we commit American troops to policing the ENTIRE Middle East for the next 50 years? Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this was precisely the reason Bin Laden attacked us.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2009 @ 6:22pm
like JFK, Obama is learning on the job. Kennedy got burned in the Bay of Pigs. he showed that he learned a lesson in the Cuban Missile crisis, where he ignored the chiefs and his sec of D. and charted his own course, thanks be to god.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2009 @ 6:25pm
You could blame FDR and Ike for liberating the death camps. Without those refugees there probably would not have been an Israel. Some of them jihadis don't like Israel.
Or you could blame whoever the British governor of the American colonies was in the 1740s, for standing idly by while Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab formed his alliance with the House of Saud.
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 6:25pm
He was speaking to the soldiers (marines). He wanted to tell them that they had fulfilled their mission. Not that their mission was stupid and unnecessary in the first place, which he and we know it was. It is bringing some honor to our leaving, which is important actually. We don't want it to be like Viet Nam, with people clinging to the last heliocoptor. I think his plan is careful and prudent. The announcement today means it is over. It's the logistics of getting out. He also said, "between 35 and 50 thousand. Who knows? Maybe it will be less. And all of them will be out by the SOFA date. I believe him.
Posted by jonnirae at 02/27/2009 @ 6:27pm
as well as an opportunity to shred Constitutional guaranties
Posted by jmusolino at 02/27/2009 @ 6:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
1.So where are the American Citizens claiming their constitutional rights were being violated? Funny there are NONE! So that is just a leftist LIE!
And so the imaginary oil war is still being fought by conspiracy theorist and the evil oil corporations are somehow profiting from NO Iraq oil but drilling everywhere in the Persion gulf all while pursuing offshore drilling domestically in some short of shell game. Who writes this stuff?
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 6:33pm
none of these fellows even CARED about WMDs...it was just about "saving the Iraqi people from Saddam"!
Oddly, not so much care for the folks in Darfur, though, huh?
(Say that and they go to "We can't do EVERYTHING"...and shift the rationale again!)
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 4:21pm
It's the left that has consistently abandoned Darfur. It was the Bush Administration that called it genocide when the UN refused to do so.
It is Christian organizations that have been leading the way for a decade now in bringing some relief there.
As to Iraq, it was always about both the WMD and freeing the people. Bush stated so and a little document from 1998 called the Iraq Liberation Act
SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
you do remember that law pushed by the Democrats in Congress and signed into law by Clinton?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 6:52pm
I was never given the impression by our heroic president that he would sort of end the war in eighteen months let alone two and a half years. I think the political phrase is slippage. I can understand that the man, not having military experience, would be impressed by our warriors, but I wish that he had followed his first instincts. Iraq has become a massive diversion for other countries to use to bring our country to its knees and it is working magnificently. NPR had a story this morning about a bus load of rich Chinese touring California looking for foreclosed homes to buy. I don't mean Chinese Americans, I mean that these were Chinese citizens from China. Their economy, for all the propaganda to the contrary, is growing at 10 percent while ours is in the flush. W e have to go to a Marxist economy , hat in hand, to bail us out, and we are still hemorrhaging billions getting hundred of our kids killed and permanently injured in wars based on white man egos and pure arrogance. W e can't win a war against suicidal fanatics with drones blowing up wedding parties.
Posted by julien38 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:54pm
"As to Iraq, it was always about both the WMD and freeing the people. Bush stated so and a little document from 1998 called the Iraq Liberation Act"
When did it matter what a politician told us? Just because Bush said so means nothing. Obama says a lot of things that you call lies. Why is it any different when it's Bush saying it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:56pm
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2009 @ 6:22pm
Emile,
Do you think Bin laden wanted us to do what we have done? That is not a rhetorical - is it pssible that part of his grand scheme/plan was to draw us (the U.S.) directly into ground wars and kill our soldiers and bleed us dry economically and have the tide of public opinion in the Arab/Msulim world turn against us,, thus increasing recruits for his jihadist army, thus leading to further destabilization, and the regimes he hates (such as the Saudis) possibly falling as a result?
Is that possible, that he thought it out like that? I don't know, but whether he did or didn't that maybe what is actually happening.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:58pm
In other words, we may have played directly into his hands.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:59pm
"As to Iraq, it was always about both the WMD and freeing the people. Bush stated so and a little document from 1998 called the Iraq Liberation Act"
When did it matter what a politician told us? Just because Bush said so means nothing. Obama says a lot of things that you call lies. Why is it any different when it's Bush saying it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:56pm
Ok dense one. US law officially has been to remove Saddam Hussein since 1998. Bush was not president then. the law was pushed by the Democrats in Congress along with the Clinton administration who encouraged it's passage and then signed it into law.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 7:00pm
Though that goes against conventional wisdom, which states that Bin Laden never, in his wildest dreams, imagined that the U.S. would respond to 9/11 by going to war in Afghanistan, let alone (unnecessarily) in Iraq!
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 7:01pm
Isn't imperial overreach what did in ancient Rome?
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 7:12pm
True, they were talking about, in the abstract, getting rid of Saddam, as a sort of ideal. But very few were calling for all-out armed invasion of Iraq as a way to get rid of him and his regime, before the spring of 2002.
That's when he suddenly morphed into thei huge and overwhelming threat requiring all-out invasion/war.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 7:31pm
Colin Powell stated this, explicitly.
I clearly remmeber him saying, sometime in 2001, that war against Iraq was unnecessary, and unwise.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 7:33pm
Of course, he started singing a different tune in 2002.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 7:40pm
True, they were talking about, in the abstract, getting rid of Saddam, as a sort of ideal. But very few were calling for all-out armed invasion of Iraq as a way to get rid of him and his regime, before the spring of 2002.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 7:31pm
So laws are abstract?
and history does not back up your contention
1997
The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the "White House decided to prepare the country for war.
1998 A few days later, on February 7, Clinton, joined by Prime Minister Blair, devoted his Saturday radio address to Iraq. Noting the two were speaking from the same room where FDR and Churchill "charted our path victory in World War II," Clinton told Americans that we now face "a new nexus of threats, none more dangerous than chemical and biological weapons, and the terrorists, criminals and outlaw states that seek to acquire them." He warned that "Iraq continues to conceal chemical and biological weapon[s]," "has the "missiles that can deliver them" and "has the capacity to quickly restart production of these weapons."23
On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed public law 105-235, "Iraqi Breach of International Obligations," which had passed the Senate unanimously and by a vote of 407-6 in the House.34 Among the law's findings: "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security." It concluded:
"Resolved ... [t]hat the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 7:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 7:00pm\
Again you can insult all you want. However it doesn't mean that Bushes reason for going in was not oil or revenge or something else. Just because Congress once said they wanted to take down Saddam it doesn't mean that that was why Bush did what he did. It just means you take his word because he's Republican and you criticize Obama because he is a Democrat. Ok partisan, hypocritical and dense one?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 7:57pm
Once again, what is lacking is boldness. Like the bank bailout, like the stimulus program, like tax changes, have way there measures. Don't know if this is a lack of political courage, but in each case the policies don't go anywhere far enough or completely enough. Domestically we could find ourselves stuck with high unemployment, cycles of slow growth and recession for a long time, and an inefficient overly expensive "zombie" financial system.
What this administration will move quickly into is Afghanistan and Pakistan which has always been easier to get into than leave.
There is little more important now than an independent progressive movement. There is an angry quiet out there wishing for change and waiting for results. If the left doesn't provide it a voice, others will.
Scary.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 02/27/2009 @ 8:04pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 7:00pm
You are basically saying that you can read George Bush's mind and that because Congress said it was their intent that George Bush meant it when he said that. I am just doing this to show that you are being ridiculously partisan in claiming that because George Bush said something it must be the truth even though we constantly here you call Obama a liar without any proof.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 8:04pm
1998 again from the Clinton Administration
On December 8, National Security Advisor Berger delivered an address at Stanford University on U.S. policy on Iraq. He stated:
"As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in which to invest.
"Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on commerce and cooperation.
"For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear. Saddam's history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them."
Posted by antisocialist at 02/27/2009 @ 8:04pm
Is that possible, that he thought it out like that? I don't know, but whether he did or didn't that maybe what is actually happening.
Posted by FDR43 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:58pm
See Marching Toward Hell; Michael Scheuer. Yes - entirely possible, and according to this former CIA ME expert, very probable.
Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2009 @ 8:06pm
Cccomfo1,
You say Saddam didn't have WMD (which we know now after the fact) and you say essentially his neighbors in the region feared him.
Why did they fear him? Because they thought he had WMD, as did everybody else, including Democrats.
I believe he did have money to start his weapons programs again. Saddam was benefiting from the Oil for Food corruption. The country, the Iraqi people, were suffering, but Saddam personally was doing just fine.
As far as going in haphazardly, I do not believe that was the case. I believe the effort was intended that we go in, take out Saddam quickly, and then turn over things quickly to the Iraqi people.
This was done so that the U.S. would not be perceived to be conquerors and dictators. We apparently were concerned about world opinion, some of which was against our effort in Iraq, and Arab opinion.
The Arab world does not like the fact that we support Israel (which is the right thing to do) and we were probably concerned about agitating the Arab world if we went in with a massive force and occupation.
It turns out a more massive invasion and occupation would probably have been better in the long run.
However, I don't agree we did not have a plan. What I identified was the plan, and it had an element of logic to it.
Sometimes, mistakes have been made in war strategy in history, and when that happens you pick up and move on. Essentially, that is what President Bush did, and with the surge we turned it around.
The fact that our initial efforts did not work well does not mean we should not have gone in to Iraq in the first place. That would have been a mistake, the consequences of not taking Saddam out would have been worse than what has happened since 2003.
Posted by sjchermak at 02/27/2009 @ 8:23pm
Posted by sjchermak at 02/27/2009 @ 8:23pm
Why did they fear him? Because they thought he had WMD, as did everybody else, including Democrats.
No, they feared Saddam because he was batshit crazy. I also love that Republicans like to use that "including Democrats" line like it's a stumper or something. I am a man without a party so I don't really care if the Democrats thought so or not. They are politicians just the same which means they can't be trusted.
"I believe he did have money to start his weapons programs again. Saddam was benefiting from the Oil for Food corruption. The country, the Iraqi people, were suffering, but Saddam personally was doing just fine."
You can believe all you want but multiple sources have said after the fact that his program was all but dismantled and would have taken 15 to 20 years to even restart. By the time his country got a nuke we would know, judging by the fact that you have to test them.
"As far as going in haphazardly, I do not believe that was the case. I believe the effort was intended that we go in, take out Saddam quickly, and then turn over things quickly to the Iraqi people."
This is not true either. To think that we could go into Iraq and then easily turn the country over to the people IS haphazard. If you thought that was an intelligent solution then I am glad you are not the head of a country. You can't dismantle an entire country then just leave. If Bush actually thought this then he's dumber than the left says he is.
Most of the people involved with the planning in Iraq have said the same thing, that they went in without a plan, especially without a plan for withdrawal.
Continued.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 8:34pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 5:15pm
And what exactly did Dubya do about Darfur, RIO?
(Silent running mode about to begin!)
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 8:35pm
"The Arab world does not like the fact that we support Israel (which is the right thing to do) and we were probably concerned about agitating the Arab world if we went in with a massive force and occupation."
Right and wrong is a matter of perspective. My point being that our support of Israel is wrong to Arabs who have been pushed out of their homes by Israel or who have lost family or friends to Israeli bullet or bombs. Just like you think it's wrong if say I came in and pushed you out of your house.
"The fact that our initial efforts did not work well does not mean we should not have gone in to Iraq in the first place. That would have been a mistake, the consequences of not taking Saddam out would have been worse than what has happened since 2003."
I love this line too by the way. Republicans LOVE this one. What would the consequences have been? You guys love to say that Iraq would have secretly acquired a nuke. You don't SECRETLY make nukes. If you are making a nuke everyone knows about it, why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO TEST THEM. I think people will notice the massive mushroom cloud in the desert and say hmmmmm, I think something is up. Saddam did not have nor was close to getting a nuke. And if we really wanted to justify ourselves we should have waited until the evidence was there instead of going in on guess work.
Those idiots have admitted to not having a real plan in the beginning. It had nothing to do with diplomacy. They have never cared what Arabs thought of us why would they care now?
I know you for some reason are so partisan you can't admit to the faults of a Republican but they have admitted it so maybe you should too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 8:39pm
Posted by sjchermak at 02/27/2009 @ 8:23pm
Read this carefully...and see two things-
1. Suddenly it was because "Saddam was an evil dictator" (not WMDs, not "ties to Al Qaeda'0....but, again, that begs the question "Why not Darfur then?" (Which will bring up EVEN MORE reasons, like "violated 17 UN resolutions" (from guys who care nothing for the UN or its resolution)).
2. SJCHER admits Bush's initial war plan was a mistaken one. Look-
"As far as going in haphazardly, I do not believe that was the case. I believe the effort was intended that we go in, take out Saddam quickly, and then turn over things quickly to the Iraqi people."
followed by "Sometimes, mistakes have been made in war strategy in history, and when that happens you pick up and move on."
Now, the question to SJ is...if the plan was prone to error "early on"...why did you trust Bush on the "ultimate outcome"....i.e. a "peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq"??!???!??
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 8:39pm
There are plenty of reasonable beefs with the Iraq war on both sides. The blood-for-oil theory just makes the left look silly.
What would you geniuses have done, seriously? I suspect nothing.
The Left always hated Bush for his bio and his aesthetics. It's always style over substance for you cool kids. And y'all are as quick to abandon your liberal values and apologize for some noble, third-world fascist as you are to scream bloody murder when some Christian in Albequerque tells a fag joke on youtube.
Over the years the Left and the counterculture have embraced Stalin, Stalin+Hitler, Charles Manson, The Hells Angels, Jim Jones, the Weather Underground, Huey Newton's gang, the PLO, the BLA, SLA, ALF, IRA. You salivated over Eldridge Cleaver when he denigrated James Baldwin, one of the great American writers, with the most vicious homophobia on record. You flew the Sandinista flag while they massacred the Miskito. You made it racist to have any honest discussion about how to save the ghettoes you've never been to.
You're going to say something about the Klan and that the Pig does bad stuff too. Good luck trying to find klan apologists on the right-wing websites the equivalent of this one.
Seriously, tell me how YOU would defend liberalism from the most reactionary forces on the planet, by slandering Ayaan Hirsi Ali? who has more courage than the entire readership of this magazine, which subsists on the donations of upper east-side leftist parasite hedge-fund managers. By ejaculating over tales of Hitchens getting jumped by Lebanese Christian Fascists?
You have the power now. The drooling idiot masses that you despise will expect you to use it to do more than just throw darts at the last guy, no matter how unpopular he was.
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 8:54pm
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 8:54pm
Sound like a typical right wing brainwashed idiot. The right is just as bad as the left. Until you understand that I feel sorry for you.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 9:04pm
Why am I an idiot, or even a right-winger? Because I criticize the Left's hypocrisy?
The Bush presidency was a disaster. The way he handled the response to 9/11 is hard to call (not for you).
I was in Iraq, dodging IEDs, while Wall Street was robbing the store so that when me and the homies got back we would NEED Obama to extend our unemployment benefits. I hate Republicans.
Here's the difference. I understand that stranger things have happened in history than the bizarre spectacle of a no-IQ, silver spoon, wannabe cowboy finding himself front-and-center of the fight between beardo reactionary misogynist scumbags and our libertine, tranny-porn-loving, anything goes culture, a culture that I love, and would die for.
I want to know. What do you think we shoud do? (The "you" is plural as in the accusatory "you people")
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 9:25pm
The drooling idiot masses that you despise will expect you to use it to do more than just throw darts at the last guy, no matter how unpopular he was.--------Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 8:54pm
Just a test of your honesty....
are you saying that the Right didn't blame Clinton for anything that "Bush inherited"?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2009 @ 10:10pm
I don't understand your point. Every president "inherits" some doodoo from the previous occupant, as they all inevitably belong to either of two lame parties endlessly competing in a Franco-style vs. Peron-style Capone-off.
What I want to know is what the Left thinks the proper response to Jihad Inc. was/is/will be. Ultimately, getting that right wil be more important than throwing the many steel-toed shoes of condemnation at the cowboy, no?
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 10:29pm
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 10:29pm
Gangraped,
It is not clear whether you were gang-raped by some Iraqi Bedouins, or gang-raped some; but is surely seems that something bad got into your fa**ken head.
Look into the mirror next to you Pal; you are no Fa**cken angel. Before you start claiming the moral high ground shit; go and read some elementary book on American History. Have you forgotten that your patriot pals have murdered 2 million Vietnamese for no harm done to America by Vietnam, just to fill your insidious lust to skim some rubbery milk from their trees? Don't tell me that the Vietnamese were Jihadists you nut head. Right Wingers amassed fortune sending idiots like you to fight their wars, for oil and for the corporate fat cats. In South America your compatriots at the CIA ravaged the poor and even raped catholic nuns so Chiquita Banana, which fit your size, can be imported cheaply. So, you better set your Budweiser aside and sober up before spitting your garbage fume about the left. I bet you don't know a sh*t of what you are talking about.
Posted by CripThink at 02/27/2009 @ 11:28pm
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 10:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thanks Crippledthinker for demonstrating the intellectual depth and truth of leftist extremism for gangpapist! I'll just bet he see much more clearly the great gulf that resides between reasoned rational rightwing thought and myopic paranoid incredulus unfounded theorums that abound on the left.
The guy was in Iraq for God knows how long serving his country's fellow citizens and as usual (like Nam and Korea) the left sure shows its true charactoristic lack of compassionate sensitivity and caring for the highest cause. (ie. he was willing to lay down his life if called upon for others)
Funny how Crippledthinker duplicates the left Nam soundtrack perfectly!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 11:46pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 11:46pm
comanche,
Why don't you stick to your passion defending the misdeeds of your Zionist Army, the murderers of the stone-throwing kids? A fellow like you should be the last to defend our soldiers in Iraq; it was your Neocon mafia who sent them there in the first place. I wonder what would you say about the Israeli sinking of our Navy Ship the USS Liberty where 34 of our sailors died and 74 wounded. I wonder how much remorse a fellow like you harbors about those dead and wounded Americans.
Posted by CripThink at 02/28/2009 @ 12:04am
Crip,
Ya, I'm not going to judge the average poster here on what you just said. (Thanks Comanche.) But damn! Do you really think we're all rapists?
And Why all the right-wing nutjob stuff, I said I hate the Republicans.
As for Vietnam, that's a long conversation bub. In short, I do think that the well had been poisoned at that point in the Cold War by Old Europe's crumbling racist empire, and our own apartheid back here at home. If we had only been a third way, a power the liberation struggles could have plugged into as an alternative to the USSR and Mao. If only.
But we weren't. We failed to be that. JFK figured the NVAs would be worse than the French imperialists. Communism does have a nasty history, Crip.
America, and the West, have done bad stuff Crip. Human history is ugly. That doesn't mean the freest country in the world, which was indispensable in stopping the two most murderous ideologies of the last century should lay down and die in this one
Posted by gangpapist at 02/28/2009 @ 12:06am
Posted by CripThink at 02/28/2009 @ 12:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
So far as I know Israelis didn't serve in Iraq, but they did do a heck of a job bombing Saddams reactors out of existence making life easier for the world and later on our troops! Thanks Israel!
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/28/2009 @ 12:15am
Posted by gangpapist at 02/28/2009 @ 12:06am
gangpapist,
You seem to be a reasonable man; my objective wasn't to offend you. I love this country as much as you do; but I do feel that I belong to the human family as well. While I do appreciate and understand our soldier's predicament in Iraq; I do believe that those who went there were as much victims as the Iraqis. Attacking the left is definitely not the answer to our problems. Look at our financial mess, how much is the left to do with this financial disaster? Those bastard financiers are turning us against each other ideologically while stealing our wealth, retirements, and dignity. How many times should we allow ourselves to be bitten by the ruling elite, big oil and big business before we sober up? I understand wars as a mechanism to defend our homeland. It is not to go across the glob shedding blood for a banker or an oilman who takes my job and yours to China the next day.
I wish you the Best.
Posted by CripThink at 02/28/2009 @ 12:32am
Crip,
I don't love the Pig. I don't love capitalism (though unfortunately bourgeois democracy seems to be the best system we can come up with).
My belief is that ideology is even more dangerous than greed. Greed kills for profit. And a profit can be found in either side of any war. For Death-cult ideologies, like the one that attacked us on 9/11, murder isn't the means to an end, it is the end.
I would gladly fight those ideologies and their friends, even if some Texan stands to make a tidy sum off a no-bid contract.
Posted by gangpapist at 02/28/2009 @ 12:53am
Posted by gangpapist at 02/28/2009 @ 12:53am
gangpapist,
Yes, but the ideologues you want to fight were never in Iraq until we went in. Our invasion of Iraq made them cross over there. Even the Texans admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with the Jihadists or 9/11; however, the Texans never denied that they went there for the tidy sum off the no-bid contract and a bit more.
Posted by CripThink at 02/28/2009 @ 01:09am
Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 ...
"Yes, WMDs were the reason for the invasion,"
Actually, the reason is because the "Greeks" are still pretty much but (as the general ignorance exhibited here testifies to) children … but "time" is short, so let us go with the following, shall we?
WMD's? Really? Because "Clean Break" written in 1996 (by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and others - Institute for Advanced Strategic and Policy Studies) and is therefore by definition predates 9/11 by five years;
1) the destruction of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority
2) inducing the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq …
3) launching war against Syria after Saddam is overthrown
There's more (… Iran, Russia always the end goal ...) but I think you et the picture. And there are other documents going back even further (decades, in point of fact) in time, having pretty much the same result, the balkanization of the M.E. breaking it up into smaller and smaller non sovereign feudal preserves. But like I said I think you get the picture. And that is more enough for starters in any case.
"OK, but if you claim to "know," that they knew, that were not any WMDs, sorry I don't believe you."
Know? There is no evidence that they cared … let alone knew.
"but the neocons did have a grand strategy for making the Mideast a friendlier place."
Sarcasm, mere ignorance, or bullshit that's still funny.
"The Left always hated Bush for his bio and his aesthetics."
Really? That's all it was? You're hanging out with the wrong left, I think. There are some who saw him coming all the way from Prescot …
You've made some interesting points overall, though not without shadows …
Posted by V at 02/28/2009 @ 01:45am
drop the ...is... if you will
Posted by V at 02/28/2009 @ 01:48am
also "more enough" should be "more than enough."
Posted by V at 02/28/2009 @ 01:56am
Extraneous 5:35pm said:
>> Invading Iraq never made any sense to me.<<
A for candor, F for judgment.
Iraq was invaded after defying her 1991 promises to the US and UN, refusing to make herself transparent to the inspectors and withholding information on her WMD for 12 years.
In that time Saddam became the darling of the Arab street, the hero of the Left, admired openly or covertly by all anti US elements from France and Russia to Arab tryants itching for their own WMD. They all saw America's stumbling in the face of Saddam's contumacy as proof that the US had become a piper tiger that could be ignored and outflanked. Powerful as she was, she was seen as lacking the will and nerve to unilaterally defend her interests with naked might. The invasion was the answer.
Invoiced of all that had been sold to Iraq since the 1970s were gathered. Subtracting what Iraq had expended in war and what the inspectors had destroyed, left a significant arsenal. Saddam refused to say what he had done with the missing materiel. All the intelligence services of the world and Hans Blix as well, believed he retained a significant WMD arsenal. For Bush to have ignored that conclusion would have been treasonous. That this never made sense to you, is your admission of feeble mindedness.
Removing that tyrant was our job as the only superpower. We needed to show our teeth to establish that certain protocols must be heeded and promises to the US cannot be flouted, and that America's word means something.
That the Left and much of the world were so infuriated by our invasion and ejection of a mass murdering, fascist regime, proved just how fervently they had bet on a musclebound US giant, and how disappointed they were by proof of America's continuing puissance.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/28/2009 @ 02:11am
Extraneous 5:35pm said:
>> Invading Iraq never made any sense to me.<<
A for candor, F for judgment.
Iraq was invaded after defying her 1991 promises to the US and UN, refusing to make herself transparent to the inspectors and withholding information on her WMD for 12 years.
In that time Saddam became the darling of the Arab street, the hero of the Left, admired openly or covertly by all anti US elements from France and Russia to Arab tryants itching for their own WMD. They all saw America's stumbling in the face of Saddam's contumacy as proof that the US had become a piper tiger that could be ignored and outflanked. Powerful as she was, she was seen as lacking the will and nerve to unilaterally defend her interests with naked might. The invasion was the answer.
Invoiced of all that had been sold to Iraq since the 1970s were gathered. Subtracting what Iraq had expended in war and what the inspectors had destroyed, left a significant arsenal. Saddam refused to say what he had done with the missing materiel. All the intelligence services of the world and Hans Blix as well, believed he retained a significant WMD arsenal. For Bush to have ignored that conclusion would have been treasonous. That this never made sense to you, is your admission of feeble mindedness.
Removing that tyrant was our job as the only superpower. We needed to show our teeth to establish that certain protocols must be heeded and promises to the US cannot be flouted, and that America's word means something.
That the Left and much of the world were so infuriated by our invasion and ejection of a mass murdering, fascist regime, proved just how fervently they had bet on a musclebound US giant, and how disappointed they were by proof of America's continuing puissance.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/28/2009 @ 02:11am
Regarding Jihad Inc., for all of their percieved power, they actually receive little support from Arab populations. This is a pretty week tiger that can be knocked out by: getting Isreal to stop its illegal settlement activities and return to its pre-1967 borders; demand that the Arab League recognize Isreal and eliminate attacks on same; reduce US ground presence in ME, extremely offensive to the population (read the Koran to understand this); reduce our dependence on ME oil; stop our blind support of leaders in places like Saudi Arabia unless they show more respect for human rights (enabled by previous point); bring soft power to bare on the issues in ME to reestablish the US credibility as an honest broker; bring law enforcement tools to the table to de-fund and confound the wackos: problem solved!
These are difficult to achieve by any measure, yet with the exception of the last point, GW ignored and/or failed every other point, choosing instead military attack, handy profits for his buddies, and dead American heroes. And his methods on the law enforcement side unnecessarily threatened our image and our constitution. The damage this has done to our economy, our social fabric, our international standing, our civic culture and our brave military has been monumental. That's where the true failure lies.
Radicals can only exist in an environment that radicalizes/terrorizes their potential supporters. The neocons never understood this. Average folks are just little people to them. Pawns, nothing more. Trickle down economics, compassion, attention, even understanding, all for trickle up profits.
Remember GW holding the Saudi King's hand? Pretty much sums it up. Probably gave a BJ when the cameras were off. Yeeecchh! I just threw up a little bit....
Posted by Dwight Wall at 02/28/2009 @ 04:03am
That the Left and much of the world were so infuriated by our invasion and ejection of a mass murdering, fascist regime, proved just how fervently they had bet on a musclebound US giant, and how disappointed they were by proof of America's continuing puissance.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/28/2009 @ 02:11am | ignore this person | warn this person Conservative estimates are that we have killed 90,000 innocent civilians. I have seen credible estimates as high as 76o,ooo. The WMD mantra is/was a pure lie told to idiots with no time to research the truth. I'm just surprised that it is still being pushed out there.
Posted by julien38 at 02/28/2009 @ 05:50am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/28/2009 @ 02:11am
I do not know which is worse, getting paid to essentially contaminate a progressive blog ... or to be so intellectually underdeveloped, ignorant, and dysfunctional, as to actually believe what you purport to believe.
God help you in any case.
Posted by V at 02/28/2009 @ 10:19am
proof of America's continuing puissance.
you actually mean pissance.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2009 @ 10:25am
It's 34 months, not 19:
I am very disappointed by The President's announcement yesterday that we will retain a very significant force in Iraq till the end of 2011. This is contrary to what he repeatedly asserted during his presidential campaign. There he promised a 16 month drawdown at the end of which he would leave a small force to guard our embassy and perform other comparable security tasks. 35,000-50,000 troops is far more than is needed for these tasks.
With regards the deadlines he stated of Aug 31, 2010 and Dec 31, 2011, the latter of these is already in place in the Status of Forces Agreement President Bush signed with Iraq. In addition, the SOFA presents June 30, 2009 as the latest date by which all of our forces must have withdrawn to "agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated ..."(Page 16) The SOFA is online at: http://publicservice.evendon.com/SOFA-17Nov2008M.htm
The President did not mention the advantage of maintaining a significant force in Iraq as an aid to our diplomatic efforts aimed at Iran. Nor did he mention any changes in plan may have been forced by the recent decision by the Krygystan government to eliminate our base there.
I am inclined to trust The President. But he has clearly reneged on his campaign promise of 16 months. This is 34 months, not 18 as he stated. I am offended and concerned.
Don Krieger, Ph.D. Retired - University of Pittsburgh
Posted by DonKrieger at 02/28/2009 @ 10:52am
We allowed the Iraq war to go on by failing to hold the criminal Bush to account. It seems that we have forgotten that the real criminal who got us into Iraq is out somewhere in Texas sticking his finger to our faces. Posted by CripThink at 02/27/2009 @ 1:41pm
This is a great point. We as Americans stood idly by while the former President and the Congress both Republican and Democrat allowed this occupation to occur. We should all be ashamed. Myself included. Where were the people in the streets when it became apparent that this was a lie? Why didn't we have the balls to hit the streets and try and stop it? The people are just as much to blame as the rest. Maybe more so, as we should be the keepers of truth.
All the young men and women that have died in this debacle have died for no Noble cause. They died to line the pockets of greedy war profiteers like Haliburton, KBR, Exxon, General Dynamics, General Electric, Blackwater and numerous others. And the ones still to perish in this horror will die for nothing more except maybe their brothers and sisters in conflict.
And the end result will likely play out like Shakespeare. With no democracy in Iraq. But only a pro Iran government ran by and even more ruthless strongman than Saddam.
I fear there is no happy ending to this tragic story..
Posted by chaoszen at 02/28/2009 @ 10:55am
And now are we to sit idly by again and let the same thing happen in Afghanistan? Just because there is a new guy in town?
Hasn't anyone learned by now that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans ram it in all the way and that Democrats whisper in your ear that they will only put it in halfway and give you a reach around?
Posted by chaoszen at 02/28/2009 @ 11:09am
Posted by DonKrieger at 02/28/2009 @ 10:52am | ignore this person | warn this person
what would McCain have done.
the events the Iraq war will be remembered for have not yet happened.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2009 @ 1:38pm
emile duBois: And you and chaoszen are no doubt praying it all fails. BTW, it was and still is a very noble cause.
Posted by pyeatte at 02/28/2009 @ 2:00pm
Again you can insult all you want. However it doesn't mean that Bushes reason for going in was not oil or revenge or something else. Just because Congress once said they wanted to take down Saddam it doesn't mean that that was why Bush did what he did. It just means you take his word because he's Republican and you criticize Obama because he is a Democrat. Ok partisan, hypocritical and dense one?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 7:57pm
you're really being an idiot.
The position of the US govt has been consistent from Clinton to Bush-something you will not acknowledge (the facts)
Secondly, where is your proof that Bush was not being consistent.
third, I have not criticized Obama on foreign policy at all. In fact, just the opposite. I have been supportive of his actions and statements so far.
The lie is about him knowingly contradicting the facts on his non taxcuts. That is the only area in which I have accused him of lying.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:13pm
Or we could blame Reagan for funding Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, if Reagan had not funded him to begin with he never would have been a problem. But Bushes failure to take seriously his notification that an attack on US soil was being planned, is purely the fault of Bush and the people around him at the time.
Posted by Extraneous at 02/27/2009 @ 5:51pm
Another leftwing myth. We never funded Bin laden. It has been thoroughly debunked over and over.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:15pm
This by the way is funny. We attacked a bankrupted country who didn't have WMDs and didn't have the money to reconstitute it's program. We then took Saddam out of power which destabilized the entire region, gave all the power to Iran and aided in INCREASING terrorist activity in the entire middle east. The middle east was MORE peaceful before we went in specifically BECAUSE everyone was afraid of Saddam.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/27/2009 @ 6:18pm
perhaps one of the dumbest posts ever about the Middle East.
Why don't you ask the question that the last sentence poses.
Why was everyone afraid of Saddam if he didn't have WMD and didn't have the money or capability of reconstituting them?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:19pm
He was speaking to the soldiers (marines). He wanted to tell them that they had fulfilled their mission. Not that their mission was stupid and unnecessary in the first place, which he and we know it was. It is bringing some honor to our leaving, which is important actually. We don't want it to be like Viet Nam, with people clinging to the last heliocoptor. I think his plan is careful and prudent. The announcement today means it is over. It's the logistics of getting out. He also said, "between 35 and 50 thousand. Who knows? Maybe it will be less. And all of them will be out by the SOFA date. I believe him.
Posted by jonnirae at 02/27/2009 @ 6:27pm
So, you're saying that he lied to the Marines and the nation (since this was a national broadcast)?
And if someone like yourself could "figure out" that he lied, none of those Marines would also figure out that he was lying to them?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:23pm
Why was everyone afraid of Saddam if he didn't have WMD and didn't have the money or capability of reconstituting them?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:19pm | ignore this person
You don't need WMD to terrify your neighbors. I mean, israel terrorizes it's neighbors and they don't have any WMD....ooops!
Posted by stpwarsnow at 02/28/2009 @ 4:23pm
I want to know. What do you think we shoud do? (The "you" is plural as in the accusatory "you people") Posted by gangpapist at 02/27/2009 @ 9:25pm
I think we should separate ourselves from the region entirely. Maybe if we stopped forcing our will on the Middle East they would stop hating us so much and just go back to killing each other.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/28/2009 @ 4:25pm
perhaps one of the dumbest posts ever about the Middle East. Why don't you ask the question that the last sentence poses. Why was everyone afraid of Saddam if he didn't have WMD and didn't have the money or capability of reconstituting them? Posted by antisocialist at 02/28/2009 @ 2:19pm
Actually my statements we perfectly true. We destabilized the Middle East when we went in and handed over the bulk of the power to Iran. You can call it dumb all you want but I can cite tons of examples from officials saying the same thing. AQ didn't move into Iraq until after we went in. Yours was the dumbest post ever because you didn't bother making a point. You just insulted like you usually do. Again very noble coming from a pastor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/28/2009 @ 4:27pm
It would take some 540 sorties, to use military parlance, using airliners to get every single American out of Iraq, comfortably, in less than 2 weeks (do the math). The US needs to get out now and apologize to the world, and to Iraq in particular. Then it needs to pay an international consortium to fix everything it destroyed in that country and to carry off all the US military hardware left behind. The consortium could hire the world's largest aircraft, the Antonov 225 for the moving job, which would take, how long? A year? Two? Whatever the Antonov couldn't haul could be put on Dutch and Norwegian ships. Now, that would be "change"!
Posted by RBouret at 02/28/2009 @ 8:32pm
I think we should separate ourselves from the region entirely. Maybe if we stopped forcing our will on the Middle East they would stop hating us so much and just go back to killing each other.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/28/2009 @ 4:25pm
That's an idea espoused by some on the left and the right that may have some merit. I'm far from convinced that either party has what it takes to make that happen, i.e. ween ourselves completely off of ME oil.
I don't agree that the true jihadis would stop hating us. They would still have Muslim kids downloading Beyonce, god bless 'em. And death cults don't need any bonafide provocation. What the hell did the German Jews really do?
Posted by gangpapist at 03/01/2009 @ 12:31am
1..So where are the American Citizens claiming their constitutional rights were being violated? Funny there are NONE! So that is just a leftist LIE! And so the imaginary oil war is still being fought by conspiracy theorist and the evil oil corporations are somehow profiting from NO Iraq oil but drilling everywhere in the Persion gulf all while pursuing offshore drilling domestically in some short of shell game. Who writes this stuff?
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/27/2009 @ 6:33pm
Rio, what part of warrantless wiretapping, harassment of dissident groups, imprisonment without charges, torture, rendition, and the sending of American kids to their deaths for a lie without a declaration of war strike you as anything but the shredding of Constitutional guaranties?
Imaginary oil war? What do you suppose Cheney and his oil company pals were talking about that required withholding from the very people for whom Cheney supposedly worked - you know, the American people? But you're right, Rio - after all, the oil companies have been losing a ton of money, haven't they? Who writes your stuff? Limbaugh?
Posted by jmusolino at 03/01/2009 @ 01:50am
hello antisocialist, it does not follow that people being afraid of saddam means that he had capacity for WMDs. children are afraid of boogeymen lurking in their closets, that doesn't mean the boogeyman is really there.
Posted by canaro71 at 03/01/2009 @ 4:39pm
I don't agree that the true jihadis would stop hating us. They would still have Muslim kids downloading Beyonce, god bless 'em. And death cults don't need any bonafide provocation. What the hell did the German Jews really do? Posted by gangpapist at 03/01/2009 @ 12:31am
But they would be much more contained and they would gain many fewer followers. If we left that region and stopped killing their children there would less reason for normal people there to hate us, which is what truly bolsters the ranks of their followers. This is why you can't defeat terrorism or fanaticism, by fighting them we accidently kill innocent people which they blame us for and then gain more followers.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/01/2009 @ 9:35pm
julien38 wrote:
>>Conservative estimates are that we have killed 90,000 innocent civilians. I have seen credible estimates as high as 76o,ooo. <<
You accept the disparity between 90,000 and 760,000 as credible.
Your illogic goes on to ignore that there was a civil war with Iraqis killing one another. Clearly, most of those civilian casualties were suffered at the hands of insurgents and militias.
Furthermore, early in the war the Iraqi soldiers abandoned their uniforms, but not their arms. Many thus died fighting in civilian clothing and were registered as such.
It is interesting that you are pained by the civilian casualties that followed our invasion, but not by the huge dying that preceded. According to the UN and Amnesty Int'l Saddam put 300,000 Shia civilians into mass graves. More than 100,000 Kurds were killed by him, including with poison gas dropped on the city of Halabja. You ignore that in the years before the invasions Saddam periodically cleaned out his prisons with mass exectutions. An estimated 20,000 died in that way, yearly. His endless brutality which caused soccer players to fear for their lives when they lost an int'l match doesn't interest you. The million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers who died as a result of Saddam's invasions of Iran, don't bother you. Tens of thousands died in his invasion of Kuwait from where he dragged hundreds into Baghdad dungeons, from where they never emerged. You don't care about that, or about the elimination of the Marsh Arabs.
You consider all who would have died had the US not put an end to that ferocious regime because you admired that tyranny, you were a fascist collaborator. Your grief for the dead that followed the Baathists and Islamist counterattack, is pure hypocricy.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/01/2009 @ 10:47pm
julien38 wrote:
>> The WMD mantra is/was a pure lie told to idiots <<
I am one of those "idiots".
My post summarized why it was reasonable to assume Saddam had WMD. Explain what is idiotic in those assumptions.
I think, concluding in the face of evidence that Saddam did not have WMD was idiotic and irresponsible.
The Israelis, for one, were convinced that Saddam retained a massive arsenal of rockets with chemical warheads. Accordingly they distributed gas masks to every member of their population. On the eve of the war they ordered the public to activate the costly chemical pouches of their masks. That anticipation of Iraqi WMD cost Israel over $100 million. Were idiots preparing against a danger reasonable people should have known, did not exist?
In 1939 Einstein wrote President Roosevelt that a 1938 experiment in the Kaiser Wilhelm institute suggested the possibility of a powerful nuclear chain reaction weapon. Since the Nazis were likely to pursue such a possibility, Einstein urged FDR to do the same.
He did and illegally used billions of dollars Congress had appropriated for other purposes on the secret Manhattan Project.
After the war it turned out that the Germans had not seriously pursed those WMD. Did that make Roosevelt an idiot, a scoundrel, a criminal?
No, it made him a responsible leader who did not want to risk an enemy getting the drop on the US, her friends and interests. He preferred egg on his face, than the US caught with her pants down.
That was also President Bush's situation, opnly he had much better reason for his suspicions than Roosevelt. And like FDR he was right to act on a worst case scenario. Those like you who say he was not, are the fools and the scoundrels.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/01/2009 @ 11:00pm
.....you can't defeat terrorism or fanaticism, by fighting them we accidently kill innocent people which they blame us for and then gain more followers.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/01/2009 @ 9:35pm
For such a young person, you sure accept defeatism readily...you best not open your own bike shop for another decade.
I suggest you readup on the progress in Iraq since we upped the ante. The BEST and possibly only way to defeat terrorism and fanaticism is through anniliation! Co-opting the softer elements among them, or any enemy, is a time-honored traditionalist approach as well....the hard core, kill them!
Posted by Happy at 03/01/2009 @ 11:55pm
<i>Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/01/2009 @ 11:00pm </i>
Uh, I think Germany WAS technically pursuing WMD. Wasn't Heisenberg part of that project? Then again, I guess I could be wrong; uncertainty and all :D
Posted by Thrawn at 03/02/2009 @ 10:25am
Thrawn at 10:25am said:
>> I think Germany WAS technically pursuing WMD. Wasn't Heisenberg part of that project? Then again, I guess I could be wrong; uncertainty and all <<
Heisenberg had miscalculated the amount of fissile material that would be required for a sustained chain reaction. He thought it would take most of Germany's industrial capacity and in any case, the result would be huge. He showed Niels Bohr a sketch of what amounted to a nuclear power reactor much too large to fly or even put on a ship, and hence not useful as a weapon.
After the war his defenders gave out that Heisenberg made that mistake deliberately, because he, unlike the reckless Allied scientists, refused to create the bomb. There was even a play some years ago buying that argument.
The reality is that Heisenberg, while no Nazi and no anti-Semite, was a fervent German patriot. He wanted Germany to win the war. His miscalculation was genuine.
After Germany's surrender the British had him, Hahn, von Weizsaecker and other top German scientists in bugged manor (Farm Hall), when the Hiroshima bomb was announced. The amazement of the German's at the news was recorded. The next day Heisenberg came back and explained to his colleague that he had reworked his calculations and showed them how it was done.
Years later, on a trip to the US, Heisenberg was in a gathering where Richard Feynman,who had worked at Los Alamos under Oppenheimer, publicly rebuked him for having served Hitler.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/02/2009 @ 5:07pm