Quote :

"Q:In Iraq, it's not new that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has wanted to take control of his own country. But there's always been this gap between his assessment of his abilities and American commanders' saying he's not up to it. As president, faced with that difference between what he says he can do and what the commanders say he can do, how would you choose between them? A:Iraq is a sovereign country. Not just according to me, but according to George Bush and John McCain. So ultimately our presence there is at their invitation, and their policy decisions have to be taken into account. I also think that Maliki recognizes that they're going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective. Q: You've been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions? A: I do think that's entirely conditions-based. It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now. "

- http://www.newsweek.com/id/148986

7/26/2008 8:05:27 PM

so like any good politician, Obama has a clear grasp of the obvious, and he refuses to be pinned down to a timetable. he basically hasn't said anything of real substance.

I can understand why some people -- then "anti-war crowd" especially -- are disappointed, and the Obama haters are going to throw this in their faces.

I personally would be tempted to roll my eyes and say "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" ... but the fact is i have always understood this to be the case, and said as much since Kerry supporters wanted him to proclaim that we would "leave Iraq" immediately, or on some scheduled timetable.

the fact is, we've created a huge power vacuum. we've broken a sovereign nation and destabilized and already-volatile global region.

the fact is, we can't just leave without regard to future security of the region. I've been quoting Colin Powell -- on here, and to everyone I know -- since before this war ever began:

Quote :

"Iraq: you break it, you own it" --Colin Powell, early 2003 (pre-war) "

well we broke it.

and by "we" i mean ultimately Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, et. al., as the architects, then the US Congress by their acquiesence, and the American people by indirect implication.

the architects of this failed, immoral, and illegal war -- from Bush/Cheney on down -- ought to be prosecuted as war criminals.

of course that will never happen.

so in the meantime, the only thing we can do is fix what we broke, to the best of our ability or at least to the point of diminishing returns.





[Edited on July 26, 2008 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2008 10:39:21 PM

Quote :

"I personally would be tempted to roll my eyes and say "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" ... but the fact is i have always understood this to be the case, and said as much since Kerry supporters wanted him to proclaim that we would "leave Iraq" immediately, or on some scheduled timetable."

but at least he admits that we should leave Iraq at some point. In the 2004 election, you couldn't so much as say "We should not stay in Iraq for eternity" without being labeled a cut-and-runner

7/26/2008 11:03:49 PM

^^ Obama's been saying this but without using the word "conditions" for a few months now though (which is about as long as I knew he existed).

I think that's a unique aspect of Obama's style, is that he says a lot of stuff without committing to anything explicitly (and how could he really), but giving a vague idea of where he's going.

7/26/2008 11:17:13 PM

Ofcourse, he's a democrat. His policies shift with the wind.

7/26/2008 11:56:00 PM

Quote :

"the architects of this failed, immoral, and illegal war ..."

Quote :

"Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost BAGHDAD - The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago. Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080727/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_winning_the_war;_ylt=ApKK8kf40_gZhDZJ3yUF4fKs0NUE

7/27/2008 12:14:54 AM

yeah, that's great.... really it is. and i hope it lasts once we bring our standing troop level below 150,000 but please forgive me if i'm not completely flush with enthusiasm just yet

but, even so.. I'm still gonna ask: at what cost, is this relative "peace"? at what cost to american and iraqi lives, and taxpayer return on this $1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) dollar investment (so far)



and it still doesnt even take into effect that the whole rationale for this "preventative war" -- Bush's personal war-of-choice -- was based on a stack of lies.




not that it even fucking matters. The next "American Idol" season will be ramping up soon.

7/27/2008 12:28:59 AM

Was that the same of stack of lies that Clinton used to justify numerous bombing campaigns and missile strikes on Iraq during the 90s? I'm not defending anyone, I just think it's silly to act like there was no friction with Iraq over WMDs before W. showed up.

7/27/2008 12:35:20 AM

have i ever suggested there was "no friction with Iraq" before Dubya the Deficient? hardly. have i said, and continue to say, that Iraq was -- by all reasonable metrics -- effectively and completely containted? yes.

but if you REALLY want to go the "b-b-but Clinton Did It!!!" route, we can go there.

so let's start with Iraq during the Clinton years... with UN approval the multinational coalition (ie the US with cheerleaders) responded to a few incidents:

Iraq violating no fly zones ---> US shoots down a couple aircraft
Iraq building restricted armaments ---> US missile strikes some factories

result: no american lives lost. didnt spend any more money than would have been spent on military harware R&D anyhow.



now, what happened in Iraq during Bush years....

yeah, well, im just gonna stop here and say that your analogy fails.







[Edited on July 27, 2008 at 1:40 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2008 1:35:21 AM

That was a question, not an analogy.

7/27/2008 5:54:22 AM

what are you still doing up?



[Edited on July 27, 2008 at 5:56 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2008 5:55:20 AM

I think Obama's new position is a better one, but not necessarily a smarter one politically. He got propelled where he is in large part because of his opposition to the Iraq war, and his move to the center on this and other people seem to be alienating a core part of his base that may be small but is also incredibly energetic.

7/27/2008 1:25:19 PM

good point, about the incredibly energetic supporters becoming alienated ... but it's not like this energy has anywhere else to go. theres no alternative.

the only negative outcome i could see is that the energy dissipates, the elitist whites stay home, and the minorities don't go vote just like they wouldn't have anyhow.

which would thrill the disenchanted nose-holding evangelical McCain "base" to no end.

7/27/2008 1:42:00 PM

Quote :

"but it's not like this energy has anywhere else to go. theres no alternative. "

There's a lot of talk about it dissipating, although so far that's been anecdotal (newspaper and magazine articles where a handful of liberal kids get all deflated, and some of the really liberal ones threatening not to vote).

7/27/2008 4:40:37 PM

this isn't a new position

7/27/2008 5:29:01 PM

Quote :

"but if you REALLY want to go the "b-b-but Clinton Did It!!!" route, we can go there."

I didn't say that at all. The point is that the intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq predates the Bush administration and was enough of an issue for the previous administration to act on it, and even sign into law a new policy pursuant of regime change. At several points in the 90s war seemed imminent but was narrowly avoided. To call Iraq "Bush's personal war-of-choice" is a bit myopic.

7/27/2008 6:25:32 PM

^ what's myopic is asserting that our relationship with Iraq didn't change from Clinton's years to the time we invaded. A LOT changed. There was more than enough evidence before we invaded to suggest Saddam wasn't a threat, that we now know was actively concealed by the Bush administration. That's what makes it Bush's war, he clearly didn't go about it honestly. A for something as costly in both lives and money as war, it's a very damnable offense, I think.

7/27/2008 7:04:47 PM

Quote :

"what's myopic is asserting that our relationship with Iraq didn't change from Clinton's years to the time we invaded."

I never asserted that it didn't change. However, pretending that friction between Iraq and the west didn't appear until W. came along is just silly.

7/27/2008 7:18:23 PM

While I'm sure some in the far end of the anti-war camp may be disappointed and will bitch about it, I think Obama's approach is both rational and more intellectually honest. That being said, I think most of the anti-war camp will still support Obama because even if he doesn't meet his promise of withdrawing within 16 months, he still has made it clear that he wants to withdrawal from Iraq, the sooner, the better. McCain hasn't said nearly as much.

In all honesty though, McCain or Obama, I think that a massive American draw down in Iraq is inevitable in the near future. Iraq really has made a tremendous amount of progress over the last year or so, and the government, while far from perfect, is now strong enough to seriously negotiate with the various factions as well as enforce its will across the nation. Even if the current troop levels aren't sustainable, the current numbers just aren't needed as much as they were before. There is now a small but functioning Iraqi military and police that is starting to step up and take its proper role within the state.

7/27/2008 11:39:45 PM

Quote :

"However, pretending that friction between Iraq and the west didn't appear until W. came along is just silly"

so far, you're the only one who's ever suggested this. where do you even get this idea that people think such a thing?

let me go even further: anyone who thinks that tension with Saddam appeared overnight after GWB was elected is a fucking retard.

okay, are we happy now? so what is your point with this? is this your attempt at a red herring? surely you can do better.

Quote :

"There is now a small but functioning Iraqi military and police that is starting to step up and take its proper role within the state."

i hope so, but unfortunately I still remember the last time we were told this. We pulled out a few troops , and told them to hold the wheel for a moment... and then they damn near drove the whole train right off the cliff.









[Edited on July 28, 2008 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ]

7/28/2008 12:33:17 AM

I'm happy. In fact I'm going to bail before we go in another circle.

<3 joe_schmoe

7/28/2008 12:47:03 AM

darn. i feel like i could jerk all night.

7/28/2008 12:54:29 AM

There are a lot of people out there who seem to think that Bush just made up the idea Iraq possessed WMD's in order to sell his war.

Based on this statement:

Quote :

"and it still doesnt even take into effect that the whole rationale for this "preventative war" -- Bush's personal war-of-choice -- was based on a stack of lies."

... you sound like one of them.

Sure, Bush & Co manipulated the data, selectively emphasizing some evidence while ignoring everything that indicated otherwise. They got Colin Powell up there sharing information that was known to be questionable. They pressured the CIA to find stuff that just wasn't there, and played on our fears by exaggerating the risks when their case for war seemed lacking. But the idea that Iraq possessed WMD's was not a new one, and not one that Bush just made up.

The "b-b-b-b-but Clinton did it!" defense is simply pointing out that Clinton was working with the same false information that Hussein was actively trying to stockpile WMDs, a fact that many people ignore when calling for Bush's head.

[Edited on July 28, 2008 at 12:57 AM. Reason : 2]

7/28/2008 12:56:22 AM

Quote :

"But the idea that Iraq was attempting to possess WMD's was not a new one"

there, i fixed it for you. only a couple words, but a very important distinction.

look, i know Iraq was not our friend. but neither is Iran, neither is N. Korea, and neither is any number of African and Asian countries. All of whom can be said to be "attempting" or "wishing" to acquire strategic weapons. All of whom have "bad people" in their government, and all of whom can be said to have ill wishes upon the West in general, and the US in particular whatever. this is old news.

the point here is that, Bush I at the end of his administration started the policy of "containment" and it was followed almost to the letter by Clinton for 8 years. And it was entirely successful.

only when GWB and his neocon flunkies with the PNAC siezed power, did it all of a sudden go from containment to the urgent need to launching a "preventative war"

PREVENTATIVE WAR.

do you understand what that means? do you understand how it is distinct from launching a "pre-emptive" war?

and the planning for this preventative war started at the highest levels right after the inauguration. fully SIX MONTHS BEFORE the attacks on NYC and DC occured.

this whole thing was a premeditated, preplanned "war of choice". there are many facets to the whos, hows and whys, but a large part of it is war profiteering. a lesser part of it is settling an old family feud.

all of it needs to be investigated for war crimes, and crimes of high treason by officials.








[Edited on July 28, 2008 at 1:15 AM. Reason : ]

7/28/2008 1:08:38 AM

^ Yeah, you're goddamned right Hussein's Iraq "was not our friend"--nor was it a friend to anyone else except rogue nations and terrorists, you fucking buffoon. You throw the word "treason" around so casually--someone ought to put your stupid ass on trial for treason.

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard

Quote :

"(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned. The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW [chemical weapon] effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:

Examples of CW use by Iraq:

Quote :

"Use in Iran-Iraq war, 1983-1988 August 1983 Haij Umran Mustard , fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish casualties October-November 1983 Panjwin Mustard, 3,000 Iranian/Kurdish casualties February-March 1984 Majnoon Island Mustard, 2,500 Iranian casualties March 1984 al-Basrah Tabun, 50-100 Iranian casualties March 1985 Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun, 3,000 Iranian casualties February 1986 al-Faw Mustard & Tabun, 8,000 to 10,000 Iranian casualties December 1986 Um ar-Rasas Mustard, 1,000s Iranian casualties April 1987 al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun, 5,000 Iranian casualties October 1987 Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent, 3,000 Iranian casualties March 1988 Halabjah& Kurdish area Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Kurdish/Iranian casualties April 1988 al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Iranian casualties May 1988 Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties June 1988 Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties July 1988 South-central border Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties Use in Southern Iraq against the Popular Uprising, 1991 March 1991, an-Najaf - Karbala area Nerve agent & CS, Shi’a casualties not known. These are selected uses only. Numerous other smaller scale CW attacks occurred."

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush

Quote :

"U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a 'firm and commensurate' response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April. The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said. Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: 'We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people.' Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving 'compelling evidence' from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was 'directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

Quote :

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them."

Quote :

"I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (APPLAUSE) And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

--President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union Address, Jan. 27, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

"We are determined to deny you the capacity to use [WMD] again"--and that's exactly what President Bush did. And before it's all said and done, Bush is going to look like a fucking genius--because he's responsible for creating a democracy in the Middle East! The fucking Middle East!!!1

Despite the smugness of the European socialists, the cries of "OH NOES! TREASON!" from the metropolitan nancy-boys (like you), the sophistry of the academics, and the venomous hate spat from every far-left kook and loon from Chappaqua to Chula Vista, the war at issue happened--and I thank God for it. The world is a much safer place without Saddam and his regime plotting against the United States, organizing terrorist actions, and oppressing and murdering their own people.

Piss off.

7/28/2008 3:04:32 AM

you're a lunatic, you know that? i mean, completely and utterly stark raving mad.

get help.



[Edited on July 28, 2008 at 11:42 AM. Reason : ]

7/28/2008 11:23:40 AM

Bomb every country. Nuke everyone. Kill the mud people. This is are country.

7/28/2008 11:27:54 AM