A War We Just Might Win

[Wabash]

By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Published: July 30, 2007

Washington

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.

But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).

In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.

[Wabash]

Published: July 30, 2007

(Page 2 of 2)

In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.

The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.

In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.

Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.

In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?pagewanted=2&n=Top%2fNews%2fWorld%2fCountries%20and%20Territori es%2fIraq&_r=1

[Wabash]

In addition to the above....

the Drive By Media said yesterday on TV that the war in Iraq is PART of the War on Terror!

Furthermore, 3 different people from different sources said how we CANNOT leave Iraq now.

Ignacious and Gloria Borger are having more truthful discussion.
Michael Duffy said basically the same thing, agreeing with the other two...all on the Chris Matthew's Show.

They are finally acknowledging the truth of what is happening in Iraq!

Under Clinton, the US fulfilled the prophecy of bin Ladin..."hit America hard and they will run away"...

Under George Bush, we have NOT run away. Geo. Bush has had a plan all along to ferret out these terrorist and IT IS WORKING!!!!

The media is now shifting gears to support the surge...watch and learn liberal grasshoppers!!!!

[Sweet Tart]

Did you call me a grasshopper? :para :no

[Ringo]

The right leaders, the BEST generals, and most of all the committment and desire to succeed, and the hopefully desire by the Iraqi's to rid their Nation of Terrorists or CBS-NBC Insurgents!

Now for some BALLS in DC and duct tape for OUR Traitors in ConGress and even more progress might be achieved!

[Wabash]

The right leaders, the BEST generals, and most of all the committment and desire to succeed, and the hopefully desire by the Iraqi's to rid their Nation of Terrorists or CBS-NBC Insurgents!

Now for some BALLS in DC and duct tape for OUR Traitors in ConGress and even more progress might be achieved!

AMEN Brother!:ohyeah

[April15]

Too little too late. Game over.

[Wabash]

Too little too late. Game over.

NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!

The second Busiest airbase in the World? The military base north of Bagdad, 15 square miles...27,500 landings a month, one landing every 2 minutes!!!!!!!

The largest US Embassy being built in Bagdad!

NEWS FLASH folks: WE ARE NOT going anywhere! Even if the Demos win in '08, we(the USA) are not leaving!
The liberal rhetoric is Bullshit!!!

[Wabash]

That would be the Balad Airbase...from Newsweek April '06 edition...

The US OWNS the air space over Iraq!

Figure 10 years minimum!

[toxic]

The US OWNS the air space over Iraq!
Figure 10 years minimum!

That is the same mistake Dumsfeld made. When the other country (not our enemy in this case) doesn't have an airfarce, sir superiority doesn't matter.

In fact, guys that fly 10,000 ft over the battlefields (chAirForce) or sit on a love boat 5 miles out at sea (navy), have little to no impact on the outcome of a guerilla war.

That is why Bush, Dumsfeld, McCain and the other chickenhawks have no idea how to fight this war.

BTW, if you think staying their 10 years will be a US victory, perhaps you should consider the cost of several $Trillion$ USD to do that.

Bin Laden's goal was to backrupt America, the GOP plans to hand him his goal on a silver platter.

[toxic]

The right leaders, the BEST generals, and most of all the committment and desire to succeed, ...

About 70 Generals have come out openly against Bush's approach to the war, including torture, troops stength, non-surge, etc. What Generals are you talking about???

Plus Iran declared they support Bush policies today.

Iran supports:
1) The US training and arming Shite death squads.
2) The US rebuilding the Shite infrastructure.
3) The eventual conversion of Iraq to a Shite Theocracy.
4) Iraq becoming one of Iran's best allies to destroy Israel.

[April15]

NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!

The second Busiest airbase in the World? The military base north of Bagdad, 15 square miles...27,500 landings a month, one landing every 2 minutes!!!!!!!

The largest US Embassy being built in Bagdad!

NEWS FLASH folks: WE ARE NOT going anywhere! Even if the Demos win in '08, we(the USA) are not leaving!
The liberal rhetoric is Bullshit!!!

NEGATIVE!

[April15]

That is the same mistake Dumsfeld made. When the other country (not our enemy in this case) doesn't have an airfarce, sir superiority doesn't matter.

In fact, guys that fly 10,000 ft over the battlefields (chAirForce) or sit on a love boat 5 miles out at sea (navy), have little to no impact on the outcome of a guerilla war.

That is why Bush, Dumsfeld, McCain and the other chickenhawks have no idea how to fight this war.

BTW, if you think staying their 10 years will be a US victory, perhaps you should consider the cost of several $Trillion$ USD to do that.

Bin Laden's goal was to backrupt America, the GOP plans to hand him his goal on a silver platter.

If I was religious I would give you an AMEN.

[Wabash]

That is the same mistake Dumsfeld made. When the other country (not our enemy in this case) doesn't have an airfarce, sir superiority doesn't matter.

In fact, guys that fly 10,000 ft over the battlefields (chAirForce) or sit on a love boat 5 miles out at sea (navy), have little to no impact on the outcome of a guerilla war.

That is why Bush, Dumsfeld, McCain and the other chickenhawks have no idea how to fight this war.

BTW, if you think staying their 10 years will be a US victory, perhaps you should consider the cost of several $Trillion$ USD to do that.

Bin Laden's goal was to backrupt America, the GOP plans to hand him his goal on a silver platter.

Nope!
The aircraft coming in are supplying the ground troops more then doing airstrikes....
I see you have a bias toward the Air Force and Navy.
We will be there even if Hillary wins...she knows the score, they ALL know the score..it's just Demo rhetoric!

[Rockin Rodney]

About 70 Generals have come out openly against Bush's approach to the war, including torture, troops stength, non-surge, etc. What Generals are you talking about???

Plus Iran declared they support Bush policies today.

Iran supports:
1) The US training and arming Shite death squads.
2) The US rebuilding the Shite infrastructure.
3) The eventual conversion of Iraq to a Shite Theocracy.
4) Iraq becoming one of Iran's best allies to destroy Israel.

It appears that General Petraeus(SPELLING?) has the confidence of the troops and has in more than one instance told the Iraq PM whats what! I can't even call these people guerilla fighters, as they are basically cowards who use IED's against innocents without prejudice.

I hope a solution is found and I have confidence in our Fighting men & women and pray for them each night!

[issac the dragon]

Well, if Clinton knows the score, vote for her.

The mightiest army in the history of the world attacks a country with no air force, and the army surrenders in 5 days, and four years later we still haven't won the war. It will take at least ten more years. What is wrong with this picture?

[April15]

Well, if Clinton knows the score, vote for her.

The mightiest army in the history of the world attacks a country with no air force, and the army surrenders in 5 days, and four years later we still haven't won the war. It will take at least ten more years. What is wrong with this picture?Bush, rummy, cheney, pnac.

[bluedog]

If I was religious I would give you an AMEN.

You would complain about several trillion dollars spent on a war to defend the US, but on the other hand it is ok to spend 10 trillion dollars in a failed attempt to buy our way out of poverty, when really the "only" thing purchased with the 10 trillion dollars as been votes.

The first and foremost "JOB" specified in the constitution in relation to what the federal governments duty is, would be that of "NATIONAL SECURITY". Without nothing to secure there is no need for social programs, lets place the plow back behind this mule where its proper place is, according to the constitution.

This is what I perceive the problem to be with the liberals in this country in their dissonantly with the on-going war is not the lives lost, as espoused. The simple fact is, in other wars after the extended time we have been engaged in open hostile actions there has been a "smaller" number of casualties of US troops.

But time after time the left brings up the subject of monies spent, yet they accuse the conservatives of being tight fisted with the purse strings. The truth is, the left deem all the monies spent on this conflict as monies that could be spent on some wasteful social program here in the states. Another attempt at legislating power by providing some benefit to their power base for continued support. This is the only reason that the left has any political power "at all", they grab of the peoples purse strings and manipulate the flow of funds that come forth by the number of votes they receive. They even have people voting against their moral values of Christianity by proxy of their votes, all to keep the purse strings open, it just shows what God some really worship. BD

[toxic]

It appears that General Petraeus(SPELLING?) has the confidence of the troops and has in more than one instance told the Iraq PM whats what!

If you don't support Maliki or the democracy that put him in office, what are we doing there. Maliki doesn't want Petraeus helping the Sunnis. Who goes?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800736.html


I can't even call these people guerilla fighters, as they are basically cowards who use IED's against innocents without prejudice. ...

They are doing exactly what I would expect them to do. Killing collaborators and their families. I would do the same thing if a powerful Muslin nation invaded my neighborhood, and some neighbors surrendered and then aided them.

[April15]

You would complain about several trillion dollars spent on a war to defend the US, but on the other hand it is ok to spend 10 trillion dollars in a failed attempt to buy our way out of poverty, when really the "only" thing purchased with the 10 trillion dollars as been votes.

The first and foremost "JOB" specified in the constitution in relation to what the federal governments duty is, would be that of "NATIONAL SECURITY". Without nothing to secure there is no need for social programs, lets place the plow back behind this mule where its proper place is, according to the constitution.

This is what I perceive the problem to be with the liberals in this country in their dissonantly with the on-going war is not the lives lost, as espoused. The simple fact is, in other wars after the extended time we have been engaged in open hostile actions there has been a "smaller" number of casualties of US troops.

But time after time the left brings up the subject of monies spent, yet they accuse the conservatives of being tight fisted with the purse strings. The truth is, the left deem all the monies spent on this conflict as monies that could be spent on some wasteful social program here in the states. Another attempt at legislating power by providing some benefit to their power base for continued support. This is the only reason that the left has any political power "at all", they grab of the peoples purse strings and manipulate the flow of funds that come forth by the number of votes they receive. They even have people voting against their moral values of Christianity by proxy of their votes, all to keep the purse strings open, it just shows what God some really worship. BD

Your analysis is faulted. To many null factoids.

[Ringo]

Well, if Clinton knows the score, vote for her.

The mightiest army in the history of the world attacks a country with no air force, and the army surrenders in 5 days, and four years later we still haven't won the war. It will take at least ten more years. What is wrong with this picture?

Because we didn't Blitzkrieg the place like Hitler, as we knew their were many innocent civilians! We probably thought that the Iraqis would mobilize somewhat better into a fighting force, which didn't happen!

We ddin't realize that the Terrroists would have as many ALLIES in Congress as they do, led by Murtha, Ried, Pelosi, Durbin, Shumer, Boxer, Kerry and other Progressive assholes!

War is not fought PC and the BIGGEST mistake ever made was allowing the Media into cover a War, as they are so damned stuip and in some cases Traitorous, they get people killed, including themselves!

When we went in for Desert Storm, there was a Plan, it worked very well, as we thought the Iraqi's would be better Soldiers and would put up a fight, but we also knew that beating Iran in an 8 year battle, had drawn down these Soldiers under duress to Saddam!

Many factors Issac, but Political is not one of them!!

[Trueblue]

In a democracy, the media covers the war. If you want a country where the media lies about government matters, move to Red China.

[Ringo]

If you don't support Maliki or the democracy that put him in office, what are we doing there. Maliki doesn't want Petraeus helping the Sunnis. Who goes?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800736.html




They are doing exactly what I would expect them to do. Killing collaborators and their families. I would do the same thing if a powerful Muslin nation invaded my neighborhood, and some neighbors surrendered and then aided them.

Oh 5 to 10 yr old kids are collaborators? If they are used as zappers, like the VC did in Nam, they STILL would not be collaborators, just VICTIMS of COWARDS!

I look for Malaki to be replaced, and he doesn't have the power to rid the Country of this General! Now when I took boot and Infantry training, we were never taught to kill innocents in the name of guerilla or Urban Warfare, were you?

[Trueblue]

Oh 5 to 10 yr old kids are collaborators? If they are used as zappers, like the VC did in Nam, they STILL would not be collaborators, just VICTIMS of COWARDS!

I look for Malaki to be replaced, and he doesn't have the power to rid the Country of this General! Now when I took boot and Infantry training, we were never taught to kill innocents in the name of guerilla or Urban Warfare, were you?

And who is it that will decide who replaces him?

[bluedog]

Your analysis is faulted. To many null factoids.

My analysis is an "opinion" based on facts, there are no specifics as presented. It was never intended to persuade anyone with facts, it was used in the formant of an open question in hopes of gaining insight as to what makes someone think that national defense must take a back seat to social programs that cater to only 10% of the population when the entire nation is under attack. BD

[VRWC]

The mightiest army in the history of the world attacks a country with no air force, and the army surrenders in 5 days, and four years later we still haven't won the war. It will take at least ten more years. What is wrong with this picture?

That is not an accurate assesment in my opinion. Undoubtedly, we won the "war."(depending on your definition) What we failed to plan for and win, was the peace.

What I find scary is that we are constantly fighting the peace, instead of what I would call the war.

[toxic]

Oh 5 to 10 yr old kids are collaborators? If they are used as zappers, like the VC did in Nam, they STILL would not be collaborators, just VICTIMS of COWARDS!

In Vietnam, children were killed by the VC. A young teenage mother and todder were shot down in front of me. It is burned into my memory. You could say it was crossfire, but you'd also have to say they were very bad shots.

The VC also captured small villages and kept the women and children hostage, while the men were sent on sucicide missions against us. If they didn't go on the sucicide mission, their wife and children were killed. Actually, mothers would sometimes be sent on the missions too.


Now when I took boot and Infantry training, we were never taught to kill innocents in the name of guerilla or Urban Warfare, were you?

I am not talking about training or actions as an "indifferent" occupation Army. I'm talking about foreign troops and tanks running down my street. An occupation Army that kicks in my door in the middle of the night, like our troops are now doing in Iraq.

I would kill the troops, any collaborators, their families, pets and burn their houses to the ground. This is my country ... land of my birth. No one would do to my family and neighborhood, what we are now doing to the Iraqis.

Saavy?

[bluedog]

In Vietnam, children were killed by the VC. A young teenage mother and todder were shot down in front of me. It is burned into my memory. You could say it was crossfire, but you'd also have to say they were very bad shots.

The VC also captured small villages and kept the women and children hostage, while the men were sent on sucicide missions against us. If they didn't go on the sucicide mission, their wife and children were killed. Actually, mothers would sometimes be sent on the missions too.




I am not talking about training or actions as an "indifferent" occupation Army. I'm talking about foreign troops and tanks running down my street. An occupation Army that kicks in my door in the middle of the night, like our troops are now doing in Iraq.

I would kill the troops, any collaborators, their families, pets and burn their houses to the ground. This is my country ... land of my birth. No one would do to my family and neighborhood, what we are now doing to the Iraqis.

Saavy?

So, the others foreigners that are there, placing bombs in the market places and killing women and children are "freedom fighters" and should be left to make direct influence upon these people, of course after they have evicted the real "criminals" the american soldiers? BD

[toxic]

So, the others foreigners that are there, placing bombs in the market places and killing women and children are "freedom fighters" and should be left to make direct influence upon these people, of course after they have evicted the real "criminals" the american soldiers? BD


The other foreigners there placing bombs are SAUDI ARABIANS Sunnis, just like the 911 terrorists. They are the ones that do not want the Shite Central Government to survive.

As Iran said yesterday, they support George W. Bush's efforts to arm and train the Shite death squads. Iran also supports the USA rebuilding Iraq and making them Iran's greatest ally in the Mideast to destroy the Zionists. Iran reiterated what has stated by US politicians, the Saudis are the ones killing Americans.

Eviction of the "real criminals" is accurate in many cases. Our troops have the worst political leadership in our nations history. Kicking in doors at night, torturing and carelessly bombing weding parties, is no way to win a battle.

Rumsfeld, a limp dick pilot, used the "kill" word more loosely than any real soldier I have ever met. Those that think such behavior is smart, are infant children who have no experience.

[toxic]

I think the real question remains:

Who is our enemy in Iraq?
Iraqis, Shite, Sunni, Kurd, Saudi foreign figher?

If we don't know until they shoot at us, and we keep changing who our ally is, we have been defeated by our own President.

'If we pulled out tomorrow, Iraq would be overrun with Iraqis.' - Pat Buchanan

[April15]

My analysis is an "opinion" based on facts, there are no specifics as presented. It was never intended to persuade anyone with facts, it was used in the formant of an open question in hopes of gaining insight as to what makes someone think that national defense must take a back seat to social programs that cater to only 10% of the population when the entire nation is under attack. BD
Still null!

[issac the dragon]

The media are ignoring the two men’s records. Pollack authored a pre-war book, which he described as “the case for invading Iraq.” Similarly, prior to the invasion, O’Hanlon predicted “a rapid and decisive” victory. thinkprogress.org.

both men are and were war supporters. The rest is bs.

[issac the dragon]

Oxam International reported yesterday on research from the UN.The report says that about 4 million Iraqis, many of them, are in dire need of food aid. 70% of the country lacks access to adequate water. 90% of the country's hospitals lack basic medical and surgical supplies.

Unemployment and hunger are particularly acute among the homeless who are left on their own.

We are using the country of Iraq to fight a war in, and using them as our sacrificial lambs. We are willing to starve them, kill the, let them die from lack of medical care, and deprive them of the most fundamental of human rights. And we are doing this for a supply of cheap oil for our SUVs.

[issac the dragon]

And yes, that is a liberal rant. The terrorist are indigenous people who want the US and England to get out of the ME and to stop exploiting their natural resourses for our own, not their benefit. Amazing! We wouldn't mind one bit if they came here and did the same thing to us.

[issac the dragon]

Mullen Calls For ‘Eventual Drawdown’ Of U.S. Forces In Iraq, Concedes Little ‘Political Progress’ »
During his Senate confirmation hearing today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs nominee Navy Adm. Michael Mullen argued that without political and economic progress, “no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference” in the war in Iraq. “[P]rudence dictates that we plan for an eventual drawdown and the transition of responsibilities to Iraqi security forces,” he said. In questioning later, he conceded, “there does not appear to be much political progress” in Iraq. thinkprogress.org

[Wabash]

Oxam International reported yesterday on research from the UN.The report says that about 4 million Iraqis, many of them, are in dire need of food aid. 70% of the country lacks access to adequate water. 90% of the country's hospitals lack basic medical and surgical supplies.

Unemployment and hunger are particularly acute among the homeless who are left on their own.

We are using the country of Iraq to fight a war in, and using them as our sacrificial lambs. We are willing to starve them, kill the, let them die from lack of medical care, and deprive them of the most fundamental of human rights. And we are doing this for a supply of cheap oil for our SUVs.

If the above is a biased liberal rag, I'd like a lot more independent info.

And yes, that is a liberal rant. The terrorist are indigenous people who want the US and England to get out of the ME and to stop exploiting their natural resourses for our own, not their benefit. Amazing! We wouldn't mind one bit if they came here and did the same thing to us.

If it weren't for the US and Europe, these 7th Century farmers would be in the stone age! Good for us to go in and get those wasted resources! The stone age guys can benefit if they didn't have pagan religious beliefs and solidified stigmas! The ones you see speaking on TV and seemingly educated were educated here or in Europe...they are the progressives, the rest are Neanderthals!
Mullen Calls For ‘Eventual Drawdown’ Of U.S. Forces In Iraq, Concedes Little ‘Political Progress’ »
During his Senate confirmation hearing today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs nominee Navy Adm. Michael Mullen argued that without political and economic progress, “no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference” in the war in Iraq. “[P]rudence dictates that we plan for an eventual drawdown and the transition of responsibilities to Iraqi security forces,” he said. In questioning later, he conceded, “there does not appear to be much political progress” in Iraq. thinkprogress.org

Remember first off that this guy is a bureaucrat...He is correct about the political progress, we are dealing with stone age people!

[toxic]

US Envoy says Saudi Arabia is undermining Iraq!

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/29/ap3963985.html

WASHINGTON - The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Sunday that ally Saudi Arabia was undermining efforts to stabilize Iraq. ...

Khalilzad, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, said an opinion column he wrote for The New York Times this month accusing U.S. allies of pursuing destabilizing policies toward Iraq referred in part to Saudi Arabia.
...

[Yellowdogtexan]

Poor Wabby. The author of this puff piece has now backed away from it. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/02/ohanlon-begins-backpedaling-from-op-ed/Just a few days after writing about the progress he saw in Iraq, Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon claims that if the situation remains as it is currently, he could not “write another Op-Ed” declaring success:In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. O’Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. “Ultimately, politics trumps all else,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don’t see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”Unless there is a poliical solution to this problem, the war in Iraq is lost. Even wabby's own source is against his silly analysis.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Opps. It appears that even Defense Sec. Gates is now not happy with the progress in Iraq on the political front. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/world/middleeast/02cnd-military.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sloginDefense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today that he was discouraged by the departure of the major Sunni Arab bloc from Iraq’s coalition government, and noted that the Bush administration may have misjudged the difficulty of achieving reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian factions.

In one of his bluntest assessments of the progress of the administration’s Iraq strategy, Mr. Gates said: “I think the developments on political side are somewhat discouraging at the national level. And clearly the withdrawal of the Sunnis from the government is discouraging. My hope is that it can all be patched back together.”

He made the remarks to reporters traveling on his plane as he returned to Washington after a three-day trip to the Middle East, which included stops in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates but not to Iraq.

Mr. Gates said little to indicate whether he would recommend a shift in the administration’s strategy next month, when officials are planning to review the results achieved by sending nearly 30,000 additional American troops to Iraq in an effort to secure Baghdad.

When the Bush administration decided to send the additional troops, he said, “we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust, and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation, which, let’s face it, is not some kind of secondary issue.”

He was referring to the failure of Iraq’s parliament to pass legislation governing the distribution of oil revenue, to set a timetable for provincial elections or to ease work restrictions on former Baath party members — measures that the Bush administration considers crucial for reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite Arabs in Iraq.
The author of the puff piece that is the source of this thread has backed off his claims and has stated that progress on the poltiical front is needed. Today's events has shown that there has been and will likely not be any progress on the political front now that the Sunnis have pulled out of the govt.

[issac the dragon]

Bush became a failure when he didn't quit after he brought the government down. It took England 150 years to get Iraq in the condition that it could never come together to form a strong government amoung it's factions. Bush and hin naive cowboys just couldn't get that through their thick skulls. The next president hopefully will have a functioning brain.

[bluedog]

Bush became a failure when he didn't quit after he brought the government down. It took England 150 years to get Iraq in the condition that it could never come together to form a strong government amoung it's factions. Bush and hin naive cowboys just couldn't get that through their thick skulls. The next president hopefully will have a functioning brain.

Yes and Iran fought Iraq to a standstill for years, and the US marched through them in only weeks. The only major problem has been winning the peace due to the micro-management of the politicians. I like what Fred Thompson had to say in a casual off the record conversation, as reported by a 3rd party. When asked his response to how he would handle the war effort. Bring all the military commanders together and look them in the eye and tell them to take names and kick ass, nothing more than, if you need anything let us know. That my friends is how you "win" any conflict, by letting the people that know how, do what they know how to do. And get the hell out of the way, until needed. BD

[Trueblue]

Rumsfeld attempted to micromanage the war. He wasn't very good at it.

[bluedog]

Rumsfeld attempted to micromanage the war. He wasn't very good at it.

The greatest mistake was dismissing Saddam's military, and allowing them back into a turbulent society with arms, when they could have been put to use, from the start and paid by us. This would have reflected much more a picture of a liberating force than an occupying force. BD

[Yellowdogtexan]

The greatest mistake was dismissing Saddam's military, and allowing them back into a turbulent society with arms, when they could have been put to use, from the start and paid by us. This would have reflected much more a picture of a liberating force than an occupying force. BDI think that the biggest mistake was bush ignoring the Pentagon and invading without an adequate number of troops. There was no planning for the occupation afterwards and that allow the insurgency to grow into a full blown civil war.

[bluedog]

I think that the biggest mistake was bush ignoring the Pentagon and invading without an adequate number of troops. There was no planning for the occupation afterwards and that allow the insurgency to grow into a full blown civil war.

There should have been no occupation after words...there was plenty of manpower with the technologies that we have, the fault was due to not allowing our forces to stabilize and secure the country through "Marshal Law". There should have been a military government set up on a temporary basis and the Iraqi military should have been engaged to help. Once the country was secure a civil government should have been put into place and our constitution used by proxy until such time as a national election could be held and simple amendments be made to take into consideration the cultural ideologies of that region. There was no need of political involvement for perhaps the first year after the actual war was over. The military should have been "allowed" to call all the shots, as they were the ones with their feet on the ground and in direct view of what was needed. BD

[toxic]

I think that the biggest mistake was bush ignoring the Pentagon and invading without an adequate number of troops. There was no planning for the occupation afterwards and that allow the insurgency to grow into a full blown civil war.


I agree, but would go back one step further to:
- ignoring the evidence then were no WMD, and
- not using diplomatic channels to negotiate (Saddam made offers).

Everyone seemed to have the fantasy, that there would be no negotiation and compromise at the end of the war.

From my experience, it is absurd to imagine a war ending without negotiation and compromise. Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, ... Yes, even WWII. I think were were just so isolated in communications, the average citizen was not aware of the diplomacy.

Use diplomacy before war, it is much cheaper in lives and treasuury, than after the war.

[bluedog]

I agree, but would go back one step further to:
- ignoring the evidence then were no WMD, and
- not using diplomatic channels to negotiate (Saddam made offers).

Everyone seemed to have the fantasy, that there would be no negotiation and compromise at the end of the war.

From my experience, it is absurd to imagine a war ending without negotiation and compromise. Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, ... Yes, even WWII. I think were were just so isolated in communications, the average citizen was not aware of the diplomacy.

Use diplomacy before war, it is much cheaper in lives and treasuury, than after the war.

But the representatives of the house, held no responsibility to investigate this action before "voting" to place our troops in harms way? Even though they are the "only" ones that have the right to "authorize" armed force actions? Now the fault rests entirely upon this administration. And none with the house or the "previous" administration" that cut our "covert" CIAs budget by some 30%, the most important part of dealing with any threat of terrorism? Wow, that George Bush sure is stupid is he not? It makes me "chuckle" to think that people are really that stupid, to believe things the way they are presented for political gain. Again, thanks for the laugh. BD

[Yellowdogtexan]

It makes me "chuckle" to think that people are really that stupid, to believe things the way they are presented for political gain. Again, thanks for the laugh. BDWhat makes me laugh are the idiots who are too stupid to realize that bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq. The facts and intelligence was fixed to justify this stupid war. bush lied to the american public to justify this war in order to get the man who tried to kill his pa-pa.

The bushies are trying to delay the phase II Senate Intelligence Committee report on the misuse of intelligence and lies told by bush to sell the war but the facts are out there. I would be glad to bury you with the facts that showed that bush lied if you wish.

BTW, the claim that Congress had access to the same information as bush and was given all of the facts in order to vote on the war in Iraq is incredibly stupid. I seriously hope that you are not dumb enough to believe such claim.

[issac the dragon]

No way the Senate or House had the information. It was all classified. Hell, Congress cannot even find out what the plans are for an emergency that affects the governments ability to operate. Bush has his daily menu classified.

[bluedog]

What makes me laugh are the idiots who are too stupid to realize that bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq. The facts and intelligence was fixed to justify this stupid war. bush lied to the american public to justify this war in order to get the man who tried to kill his pa-pa.

The bushies are trying to delay the phase II Senate Intelligence Committee report on the misuse of intelligence and lies told by bush to sell the war but the facts are out there. I would be glad to bury you with the facts that showed that bush lied if you wish.

BTW, the claim that Congress had access to the same information as bush and was given all of the facts in order to vote on the war in Iraq is incredibly stupid. I seriously hope that you are not dumb enough to believe such claim.

And thus by the the proxy of their votes showed just how "stupid" and gullible you people on the left are? And you want to run the entire country? After openly admitting that you are to stupid to know the truth? And this would make you a better leader how? Now I am more confused than ever. BD

[toxic]

But the representatives of the house, held no responsibility to investigate this action before "voting" to place our troops in harms way? Even though they are the "only" ones that have the right to "authorize" armed force actions? Now the fault rests entirely upon this administration. ...

I agree, the responsibility rests on GW Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS.

Actually, Congresses roll is limited. They authorized the used of force if we were attacked again. I think some in Congress assumed that Bush had an ounce of brains and would use the authorization as a THREAT ONLY, as intended. Many others knew he was going to attack and voted for it anyway.

Only those like Senator Byrd and Fingold are guiltless.

I have often wondered if it wouldn't be better if someone nuked Wash DC, so some patriots could start over just using the Constitution as a guide.

[issac the dragon]

That's a novel idea.:electric

[toxic]

Issac the dragon,

Have you visited this site?
http://www.wrapped-in-the-flag.com/

[VRWC]

I think some in Congress assumed that Bush had an ounce of brains and would use the authorization as a THREAT ONLY, as intended. Many others knew he was going to attack and voted for it anyway.


Obviously you have not read the AUMF. Had you read it, you would realize, that it was not intended only as a threat, and did not qualify it by saying only if we were hit again.

It is Congress that authorized, yet they are blameless in your eyes. BD is right, if they really are that stupid, they are not qualified to run this government.

[bluedog]

What I find amusing also it that they blame our lack of "intelligence" and place this blame totally on this administration. Yet just who was it that placed limits of how our law enforcement agencies could "communicate" by interdepartmental methods? Who cut the fundings for our covert surveillance capacity by up to 30%? Who had the mastermind in custody behind bars....and due to apparent apathy of his "ability", would not take the responsibility for his confinement? Who deemed Saddam an international terrorist and placed blame upon the republican administration that was in power for this by not "removing" this "threat to world peace"? Why of course it was Mr. Internet before the first Clinton/Gore administration......yet Mr. Saddam suddenly became a "non-terrorist" without any "past" connection to terrorism at all when George the 2nd took power, I guess that Saddam must have found religion during the Clinton Administration despite the open "threat" by Mr. Clinton to bring about "swift" and "harsh" action by all means needed if Mr. Saddam did not comply with any of the UN resolutions of letting the inspectors do their job. Some just have "Selective" memory and look at the world through the political talking points of the day. BD

[toxic]

Obviously you have not read the AUMF. Had you read it, you would realize, that it was not intended only as a threat, and did not qualify it by saying only if we were hit again. ...


It was reasonable to assume it to be sabre rattling, but many Senators and Representatives did not realize what a arrogant asshole Bush was.

Yet, 23 Democrat Senators and 133 Democrat Representatives did realize Bush was an asshole and voted against it.

I applaude them, who would have thought that Bush would have used this document as another Tonkin Gulf resolution to start a major war.

[VRWC]

who would have thought that Bush would have used this document as another Tonkin Gulf resolution to start a major war.

I don't know, maybe....everybody that read it. Read the thing, it isn't filled with ifs and buts, etc, it plainly says authorize force.

[bluedog]

It was reasonable to assume it to be sabre rattling, but many Senators and Representatives did not realize what a arrogant asshole Bush was.

Yet, 23 Democrat Senators and 133 Democrat Representatives did realize Bush was an asshole and voted against it.

I applaude them, who would have thought that Bush would have used this document as another Tonkin Gulf resolution to start a major war.

Looking at history through rose colored glasses again? This action was in fact started by the first gulf war and was legally authorized by UN resolutions for the breach of Post Conflict Agreements....and in no way compares to the Police Action taken in SE Asia, as this is an authorized and Declared War and constitutionally the house has a duty to fund any needs of the executive branch, by the proxy of their vote and authorization, like a signature, both binding and absolute. The only way, legally for them to "Stop" this funding would be to take legislative action to deem the conflict "settled". An action I am sure they will take if they want to be open and honest with the American Public. BD

[toxic]

... Who deemed Saddam an international terrorist and placed blame upon the republican administration that was in power for this by not "removing" this "threat to world peace"? ... .....yet Mr. Saddam suddenly became a "non-terrorist" without any "past" connection to terrorism at all when George the 2nd took power, I guess that Saddam must have found religion during the Clinton Administration

Apparently you don't understand what happened.

Republican President Reagan sold Iraq and Iran a shitload of our BEST missile, biological and gas weapons systems. Our military was scared shitless during Bush Sr's Gulf War I, that they would be used against us.

Clinton treated Iraq and Iran cautiously as the potential remaining threat of most of that equipment expired. I would expect that Clinton had some of the equipment destroyed covertly.

Dickhead Bush Jr, tried to pretend that 20 year old bio's and gas was still a threat. Hans Blick proved Bush was full-of-shit before we invaded. Bush wanted the inspectors OUT so they could not prove what was apparent to the whole world.

[Yellowdogtexan]

And thus by the the proxy of their votes showed just how "stupid" and gullible you people on the left are? And you want to run the entire country? After openly admitting that you are to stupid to know the truth? And this would make you a better leader how? Now I am more confused than ever. BDNo, you are just plain ignorant (being confused would be a vast improvement in your case). Again, you evidently are too stupid to realize that bush lied and fixed the facts and intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. This was not negligence or lack of funding but was intentionaly and out right decite.

Votes obtained by fraud and lies are normally void and so many in Congress believe that the Iraq war authorization should be voted on again based on facts instead of lies and fixed intelligence.

I am sad that so many bush supporters are too stupid to realize that bush lied and fixed intelligence to sell the war. This was not as a result of mistakes but was part of a deliberate pattern of lies and fixed intelligence. The bad intelligence was not due to any lack of funding but due to the premediated plan of the bushies to get the US into a war with Iraq no matter what the costs. As a result of such stupidity, Bin Ladin (the guy who really attacked the US) was allowed to escape and Al Qaeda has been allowed to reconstitute in Pakistan to its pre-Sept. 11 effectiveness.

If you want to discuss fixed intelligence, I wll be glad to play. As I noted the Sentate Intelligence Committee Phase II report is being held up by the bushies but the facts are out there. If you look at each and every claim made by bush, there is clear evidence that such claim was based on intelligence that the bushies knew was bad.

Just for grins, lets talk about the mobile weapon labs claim. The bushies knew that the sole source for such claim was one drunk (codename Curveball) held by the German (who the the US had never talked to) and that the German intelligence agencies debriefing Curveball told the US that this guy was a liar and was not to be trusted. The bushies disregarded the warnings of the Germans and Sec. Powell used such silly and baseless claim before the UN. Heck a senior CIA official tried to stop Powell but his urgent warning was ignored.

Again, the fact that bush supporters are too stupid to realize that the war in Iraq was based on lies is sad.

[toxic]

. . . in no way compares to the Police Action taken in SE Asia, as this is an authorized and Declared War and constitutionally the house has a duty to fund any needs of the executive branch . . .

If you really believe that, you had better star wearing a tinfoil hat.

It is exactly lick SE Asia.
No declaration of war.
Funds can be cut anytime.

[toxic]

I don't know, maybe....everybody that read it. Read the thing, it isn't filled with ifs and buts, etc, it plainly says authorize force.

Huh? Force was authroized uder specific conditions, only after diplomatic channels failed. Diplomacy never was attempted and Saddam was asking for meetings.

What Iraqi threat had emerged against the USA?? Even Israel said Libya was 5-10 years closer to having WMD that Iraq.

What Iraq threat would justify an invasion and decades of warfare and expense??? Iraqis were poor and starving to death. We had destroyed their water purification system.

While Bush was authorized to enforce UN resolutions, the UN NEVER AUTHORIZED THE USE OF FORCE. To try and claim a 1991 resolution is applicable is nonsense. The UN was unconvinced of WMD and was on hold.

[bluedog]

If you really believe that, you had better star wearing a tinfoil hat.

It is exactly lick SE Asia.
No declaration of war.
Funds can be cut anytime.

Much like the "imaginary" crimes of this administration....just where all the bodies buried that the house has brought down? Six months of non-stop prosecution and all they can do is come up with dry hole after dry hole. Facts speak for themselves and are far superior when competing with "opinion". BD

[toxic]

Much like the "imaginary" crimes of this administration....just where all the bodies buried that the house has brought down? Six months of non-stop prosecution and all they can do is come up dry hole after dry hole. Facts speak for themselves and are far superior when competing with "opinion". BD

Much of the evidence exists now. Every Cabinet and Agency appointee of Bush has written a book about facade of lies and abuses.

I think Howard Dean and Rahm Emanuel are politically smarter than you and me. They only expose as much as the sheeple are ready to understand and accept. They act when they have the public's attention only. I think the next burst of expose will be in about a year, just prior to the election.

I'm still hopeful that gallows will be built in the Mall in Wash DC, for a public hanging of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

[bluedog]

Huh? Force was authroized uder specific conditions, only after diplomatic channels failed. Diplomacy never was attempted and Saddam was asking for meetings.

What Iraqi threat had emerged against the USA?? Even Israel said Libya was 5-10 years closer to having WMD that Iraq.

What Iraq threat would justify an invasion and decades of warfare and expense??? Iraqis were poor and starving to death. We had destroyed their water purification system.

While Bush was authorized to enforce UN resolutions, the UN NEVER AUTHORIZED THE USE OF FORCE. To try and claim a 1991 resolution is applicable is nonsense. The UN was unconvinced of WMD and was on hold.

Yes thats why there were 14 resolutions on record stating just how pleased they were with compliance of Saddam. And this administration was authorized under UN mandate to take whatever actions thats were needed to come into compliance with the cease fire conditions. As the facts speak for themselves, we are there, we are engaged and some post facto hindsight is "moot". And we well remain there as long as it takes to "complete" what was started. As the house merely presents "bravado" as an attempt to persuade the public, they will not stop funds without committing political suicide in the 08 election. BD

[Yellowdogtexan]

Obviously you have not read the AUMF. Had you read it, you would realize, that it was not intended only as a threat, and did not qualify it by saying only if we were hit again. Have you read it? You really should understand the issue before you post (sort like your claim that Scooter Libby was not convicted of obstruction of justice). Here is a relevant portion of this resolution. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Here is the bogus certification that bush sent to congress to justify the invasion of Iraq under that resolution. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. I point out that Iraq was not involved in the attacks on Sept. 11 and that in fact Iraq was in compliance with UN resolutions. Iraq had disarmed and had reported correctly that it had no WMDs. The UN inspectors were doing their job until bush kicked out of Iraq and were on their way to verifying Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions. bush's whole case for invading Iraq was based on fixed intelligences and facts which is why bush could not allow the UN inspectors to complete their mission.

The war in Iraq was based entirely on lies and fixed intelligence. If bush cared about the truth, he would have let the UN inspectors complete their mission.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Yes thats why there were 14 resolutions on record stating just how pleased they were with compliance of Saddam. And this administration was authorized under UN mandate to take whatever actions thats were needed to come into compliance with the cease fire conditions.Again, your ignorance of the facts and the law is consistent. You are again WRONG. The relevant UN resolution (No. 1441) did not authorize bush to invade Iraq. Such resolution was clear that it was up to the UN Security Council to decide if Iraq was in compliance and bush was not authorized to invade Iraq by any UN resolutions.

One must understand what the UN actually authorized and contrary to your silly and ignorant claims, the UN had not authorzed the use of force in Iraq. Let me give you an article that may explain this in terms that a layperson may understand. http://www.slate.com/id/2079746/goes on to say that such a breach "will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below." Paragraph 12 is the kicker. It declares that the Security Council will convene to hear the U.N. inspector's report, "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."

The resolution then "recalls, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of the continued violation of its obligations."

There is some subtle but quite deliberate finessing here. Yes, Iraq "will face serious consequences," but non, the enforcement will not be automatic. The matter must first be taken up by the Security Council, which will "consider" not just "the situation" (vague enough) but also "the need for full compliance." Full compliance, in other words, is not necessarily required. It will be considered "in order to secure international peace and security." This provision doesn't mandate action. Instead it allows a question: Which will more likely promote "peace and security"—going to war or continuing the inspections (however limited the results of the latter may be)?

[Yellowdogtexan]

While Bush was authorized to enforce UN resolutions, the UN NEVER AUTHORIZED THE USE OF FORCE. To try and claim a 1991 resolution is applicable is nonsense. The UN was unconvinced of WMD and was on hold.Good post. You are correct and the silly conservatives are WRONG here. The UN had not authorized the use of force and any claims to the contrary are just plain ignorant.

[issac the dragon]

They will just keep on saying it. Cheney does. Why shouldn't they.

[Yellowdogtexan]

They will just keep on saying it. Cheney does. Why shouldn't they.The war in Iraq was based on lies. The republics believe that if they keep repeating these lies over and over again, people will accept these lies as the truth. Judging from this thread there are some posters who just plain ignorant about the facts and these posters have accepted these lies as being true. It is very sad when you see ignorant comments about the UN authorizing the invasion of Iraq being made by posters when such statement is simply not true.

[Dano]

How many more U.N. resolutions would it take to convince you?

Idiot.. (acceptable, according to the Q).

[Yellowdogtexan]

How many more U.N. resolutions would it take to convince you?

Idiot.. (acceptable, according to the Q).Before you expose your ignorance, you may want to read the resolutions in question. UN Resolution 1441 was clear that the invasion of Iraq was not authorized and that only the Security Council could determine if Iraq was in compliance. Anyone who claims that the invasion of Iraq was justified by UN resolutions really should read those resolutions.

[issac the dragon]

That's right. The UN did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. It was illegal, like everything else Bush has done.

[Dano]

Public Law 105-235
105th Congress


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 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.

Approved August 14, 1998.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=publ235.105&directory=/diskc/wais/data/105_cong_public_laws

[April15]

Public Law 105-235
105th Congress


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 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.

Approved August 14, 1998.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=publ235.105&directory=/diskc/wais/data/105_cong_public_laws

And Iraq changed it's tune. 4.5 years later no such resolution was made.

[sparks]

How many more U.N. resolutions would it take to convince you?

Idiot.. (acceptable, according to the Q).

:Q

:teehee

[Yellowdogtexan]

Public Law 105-235
105th Congress
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=publ235.105&directory=/diskc/wais/data/105_cong_public_lawsYou do realize that this is not an UN resolution.

The last resolution that the bushies claim justified the invastion of Iraq was No. 1441. The trouble is that this resolution did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1114-03.htmThe U.N. Security Council, in its unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, declares in Article 14 that it "decides to remain seized of the matter." This is diplomatic language for asserting that the Security Council alone has the authority to determine what, if any, action to take regarding current or future Iraqi violations of their resolutions.

The U.N. Charter declares unequivocally in Articles 41 and 42 that the U.N. Security Council alone has the power to authorize the use of military force against any nation in noncompliance of its resolutions. It was the insistence by France, Russia and other nations that any alleged Iraqi violations be put before the Security Council to determine the appropriate response that delayed for seven weeks the adaptation of the U.S.-sponsored resolution.

Originally, the United States insisted upon the right of any member state to unilaterally attack Iraq if any single government determined that Saddam Hussein's regime was violating the strict new guidelines. The U.N. Security Council categorically rejected the U.S. demand to grant its members such unprecedented authority to wage war. Instead, the resolution adopted insists that any alleged violations be brought forward by the inspection teams consisting of experts in the field, not by any member state. At such a time, according to the resolution, the Security Council would "convene immediately in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance."

Why, then, has the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress and the media disingenuously reinterpreted the resolution? Apparently, President Bush has been determined for some time to go to war regardless of the level of Iraqi compliance but -- given that public opinion polls indicate a majority of Americans would support a war against Iraq only if there was U.N. approval -- he needs to claim U.N. authorization.

Lacking such authorization, he and his congressional and media allies have decided to claim that the United States has such authorization anyway. This is the same as the lies told by the bushies about the link between Sept. 11 and Iraq. If you tell the same lie enough times, some idiots will believe it. Here the claim that the UN Resolutions authorize the US invasion of Iraq is a lie but there are some idiots who believe this stupidity.

[Dano]

You do realize that an act of congress trumps anything 'resolved' by the United Nations....

We don't answer to them - yet.

[Trueblue]

You do realize that an act of congress trumps anything 'resolved' by the United Nations....

We don't answer to them - yet.

We all know that.

However, that being the case, the Bushies ought not to rely on UN resolutions to justify their case.

[Yellowdogtexan]

You do realize that an act of congress trumps anything 'resolved' by the United Nations.....Your ignorance is amusing. We are a party to the UN Charter which as a treaty is on equal footing as any federal law. Again, you are being an idiot by pushing a claim that is stupid and wrong. The claim by bluedog that the various UN resolutions authorize the US to go to war in Iraq was stupid and wrong.

The law/sense of congress resolution that you cited did not authorize the invasion of Iraq which is why Congress passed a separate authorization (I posted a link to this resolution earlier on this thread). The real war authorization resolution (as compared to thing that you posted) required bush to certify to some issues and it is clear that bush lied in such certification.

[bluedog]

Your ignorance is amusing. We are a party to the UN Charter which as a treaty is on equal footing as any federal law. Again, you are being an idiot by pushing a claim that is stupid and wrong. The claim by bluedog that the various UN resolutions authorize the US to go to war in Iraq was stupid and wrong.

The law/sense of congress resolution that you cited did not authorize the invasion of Iraq which is why Congress passed a separate authorization (I posted a link to this resolution earlier on this thread). The real war authorization resolution (as compared to thing that you posted) required bush to certify to some issues and it is clear that bush lied in such certification.

The thing that is amazing is the "FACT" that we are there and now with the surge "working" and a total victory looming all this back seat nay saying well prove to be just, back seat where it belongs. The only way for liberals to enjoy success if for this country to suffer in some way, this this way people like yelllowcowarddog there cheer leads everytime an american soldier gets killed or wounded, or everytime it looks like the economy will take a slight decline, it does not matter that all this is bad for the country they put partisan politics above the good of this nation as long as they perceive some gain as been made that will effect this administration
in a negative fashion is perceived as good. So what we have is "double" incentive to defeat the commies like him, the fact that he wants harm to come to this nation at the expense of our soldiers, or national interest and the fact that its fun watching them "squirm" with the good new coming out of Iraq. The more "negative" sour grapes that come from him and people like him, the better the nation is doing. As clearly they place more importance upon "European" interests and the UN with its one world order than they do our national interest and regardless of what some ambulance chasers such as Edwards or Yellowcoward opine, terrorism is more than a bumper sticker its an opportunity for the liberals to have success that is why they "cheer" for them so much. BD

[toxic]

The thing that is amazing is the "FACT" that we are there and now with the surge "working" and a total victory looming all this back seat nay saying well prove to be just, back seat where it belongs. The only way for liberals to enjoy success if for this country to suffer in some way, this this way people like yelllowcowarddog there cheer leads everytime an american soldier gets killed or wounded, or everytime it looks like the economy will take a slight decline, it does not matter that all this is bad for the country they put partisan politics above the good of this nation as long as they perceive some gain as been made that will effect this administration in a negative fashion is perceived as good.

Clearly, you don't understand what is going on. Please consider how the following activities conflict with each other:
1) Anbar Sunnis, who were killing Americans a month ago, are now being armed and trained by us and killing AlQueda Saudis, who are also Sunni.
2) Sunnis walked out of the Iraqi Parliment a few days ago.
3) We are arming and training Baghdad Shites death squades who kill Sunnis.
4) Shites are aligning with Iran now and will become great allies before and after we leave.
5) Sunnis will align with Saudi Arabia period.

The only traitors to America and our servicemen are the idiots who wanted an unnecessary war and continue to claim success is just a month away. Troops are dying only because of this foolish war. The Neo-Cons who started it with stupid claims that troops would be home in a couple months are the same type of chickhawk idiots that made the same claim before the US civil war.

We still plan to see gallow built on the Wash DC mall where the leaders of the chickenhawks will be publicly executed for treason and high crimes agains the people and government of United States.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The only way for liberals to enjoy success if for this country to suffer in some way, this this way people like yelllowcowarddog there cheer leads everytime an american soldier gets killed or wounded, or everytime it looks like the economy will take a slight decline, it does not matter that all this is bad for the country they put partisan politics above the good of this nation as long as they perceive some gain as been made that will effect this administration
in a negative fashion is perceived as good. So I take it that you have abandoned the silly and wrong claim that the UN authorized the invasion of Iraq and will now engage in the normal tactic of accusing anyone who lives in the real world of being against the troops and being against the interests of our country. Sorry, but you were wrong and were called on it.

As for the normal bullshit of claiming that anyone who lives in the real world and who does not believe that the Iraq war is working is against our troops, you are again wrong and do not know what you are talking about. Again, this war has made the US less safe. In addition, contrary to your fantasy, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. The surge is not working and in fact if you had read any news, you would know that the bushies are no longer claiming that the September briefing by Patreaous will be definitive or binding.

I like the real world. Facts and the truth are far more comforting than lies and a make believe world where we are going to win the war in Iraq. Again, this is a civil war and we can not "win" unless political solutions are reach. The fact that the Sunnis pulled out of the govt. and the Iraqi Parliment has not passed any of the laws required to satisfy the benchmarks and the fact that the Iraqi parliment is on vacation for the rest of August shows that a policial solution is not likely. Open your eyes and look at the real world.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Even the bushies are backing away from their support of the current Iraqi government. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/06/confidence-maliki/Now it appears the Bush administration is allowing its confidence in Maliki to slip. At the State Department briefing this afternoon, spokesman Sean McCormack repeatedly refused to assert that the administration now has “confidence” in Maliki:QUESTION: Do you still think that al-Maliki is the right guy to lead this…

MCCORMACK: He is the person that was elected by the Iraqi people. And it was decided upon among the leadership of the various political factions he would be the prime minister. […]

QUESTION: But do you think — you’re not as vested in most places like you are in Iraq. So are you still confident in al- Maliki’s leadership?

MCCORMACK: Look, there’s a lot at stake, absolutely, for the Iraqi people, for the future of the Middle East. And Prime Minister Maliki is the person that was elected by the Iraqi people to lead Iraq. And we’re working closely with him. […]

QUESTION: It’s kind of conspicuous that you’re not willing to say that you’re confident in him, even if you’re standing by his side.

MCCORMACK: You know, again, it’s not a matter of getting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from the United States government or any other government. Ultimately, this government has to act on behalf of the Iraqi people.The fact that the administration is backing away from Maliki is a concession that the premise of its “surge” strategy is failing. Back in January, when he first announced the escalation, Bush explained that purpose of increasing U.S. forces was to help advance Iraqi political transition and national reconciliation.The surge strategy is based on there being some sort of political solution that allows the Iraqi government to eventually stand on its own. That political solution does not appear to be happening with all of the Sunni members of such govt. boycotting the current Iraqi govt. and the Iraqi Parliment taking the month of August off.

[Yellowdogtexan]

As to the original editorial or puff piece that is subject of this thread, it is interesting to note that one of the people who traveled with the authors of this puff piece disagrees with the concept that the surge is working and that things are getting better in Iraq. http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=3994It is scarcely surprising that my perceptions of a recent trip to Iraq are different from that of two of my traveling companions and those of several other recent think tank travelers to the country.

From my perspective, the US now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq. It cannot dictate Iraq’s future, only influence it, and this presents serious problems at a time when the Iraqi political process has failed to move forward in reaching either a new consensus or some form of peaceful coexistence. It is Iraqis that will shape Iraq's ability or inability to rise above its current sectarian and ethnic conflicts, to redefine Iraq's politics and methods of governance, establish some level of stability and security, and move towards a path of economic recovery and development. So far, Iraq’s national government has failed to act at the rate necessary to move the country forward or give American military action political meaning.It is also interesting to note that even John McCain is not sure that the US can win in Iraq. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/08/mccain-not-sure/“I’m not positive we can win this fight,” he told about 150 people at a $50-a-person fundraiser in a Highland Township barn. “But I believe we’re winning. The Anbar province is dramatically better and Baghdad has some neighborhoods that are much more secure.”McCain staked his whole political future on the success of the surge and for him to have doubts is telling.

[bluedog]

So I take it that you have abandoned the silly and wrong claim that the UN authorized the invasion of Iraq and will now engage in the normal tactic of accusing anyone who lives in the real world of being against the troops and being against the interests of our country. Sorry, but you were wrong and were called on it.

As for the normal bullshit of claiming that anyone who lives in the real world and who does not believe that the Iraq war is working is against our troops, you are again wrong and do not know what you are talking about. Again, this war has made the US less safe. In addition, contrary to your fantasy, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. The surge is not working and in fact if you had read any news, you would know that the bushies are no longer claiming that the September briefing by Patreaous will be definitive or binding.

I like the real world. Facts and the truth are far more comforting than lies and a make believe world where we are going to win the war in Iraq. Again, this is a civil war and we can not "win" unless political solutions are reach. The fact that the Sunnis pulled out of the govt. and the Iraqi Parliment has not passed any of the laws required to satisfy the benchmarks and the fact that the Iraqi parliment is on vacation for the rest of August shows that a policial solution is not likely. Open your eyes and look at the real world.

No you do a fairly good job of self defining, and I simply put my "opinion" in the mix with yours, as nothing that you state is backed by factual information, just left wing blogs to further support opinion with opinion, and it goes in circles with repeated propaganda. When the truth is....The US is engaged in a Legal and Authorized conflict that was duly confirmed by the proper methods as outlined under US and International Law. With any objections from the "less than noble" opposition being moot at this point in time, and I find it quite entertaining to watch "characters" such as yourself who are so self absorbed in self described importance try to deflect, misdirect and confuse the public.

But the truth again, shines through the layer of "bull shit" that you try to spread, as the American public is finally beginning to take notice to the unethical manner in which political power is chosen above National Interest thus the 14% overall rating for the poor job performance in the house, and a dismal 3%(according to Zogby) for their effort on Immigration Reform. Keep up the good work, as the perfect storm is approaching at just he correct time, finding the Liberals of this Nation once again standing on the "wrong side" of history, with this defeatist attitude and unethical political grandstanding in the halls of congress, 08 well be here before you know it and the house has more to lose than this current "lame duck" administration....Good luck with your communist propaganda, you will need it from the looks of the poles. BD

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is a great editorial written by some non-coms who know what is really happening on the ground. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ex=1345176000&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rssVIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework.....

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

[Wabash]

The thing that is amazing is the "FACT" that we are there and now with the surge "working" and a total victory looming all this back seat nay saying well prove to be just, back seat where it belongs. The only way for liberals to enjoy success if for this country to suffer in some way, this this way people like yelllowcowarddog there cheer leads everytime an american soldier gets killed or wounded, or everytime it looks like the economy will take a slight decline, it does not matter that all this is bad for the country they put partisan politics above the good of this nation as long as they perceive some gain as been made that will effect this administration
in a negative fashion is perceived as good. So what we have is "double" incentive to defeat the commies like him, the fact that he wants harm to come to this nation at the expense of our soldiers, or national interest and the fact that its fun watching them "squirm" with the good new coming out of Iraq. The more "negative" sour grapes that come from him and people like him, the better the nation is doing. As clearly they place more importance upon "European" interests and the UN with its one world order than they do our national interest and regardless of what some ambulance chasers such as Edwards or Yellowcoward opine, terrorism is more than a bumper sticker its an opportunity for the liberals to have success that is why they "cheer" for them so much. BD

Well stated!!

Clearly, you don't understand what is going on. Please consider how the following activities conflict with each other:
1) Anbar Sunnis, who were killing Americans a month ago, are now being armed and trained by us and killing AlQueda Saudis, who are also Sunni.
2) Sunnis walked out of the Iraqi Parliment a few days ago.
3) We are arming and training Baghdad Shites death squades who kill Sunnis.
4) Shites are aligning with Iran now and will become great allies before and after we leave.
5) Sunnis will align with Saudi Arabia period.

The only traitors to America and our servicemen are the idiots who wanted an unnecessary war and continue to claim success is just a month away. Troops are dying only because of this foolish war. The Neo-Cons who started it with stupid claims that troops would be home in a couple months are the same type of chickhawk idiots that made the same claim before the US civil war.

We still plan to see gallow built on the Wash DC mall where the leaders of the chickenhawks will be publicly executed for treason and high crimes agains the people and government of United States.

Clearly we have chosen sides...

[Wabash]

Fuck the UN and all it's Commie, liberal, scumsuckers that support it!:shoot:shoot:shoot

[toxic]

Well stated!!

Clearly we have chosen sides...


Then that would mean we are siding with Iran for the eventual destruction of Israel. Okay, I can live with that.

[toxic]

Fuck the UN and all it's Commie, liberal, scumsuckers that support it!:shoot:shoot:shoot

Like George H.W. Bush (Sr)?

[Wabash]

Then that would mean we are siding with Iran for the eventual destruction of Israel. Okay, I can live with that.

I don't think so......

Like George H.W. Bush (Sr)?

GWB Sr. was the lesser of 2 evils, so was W....anyone who promotes the UN is No friend of the United States!
As I've stated many times...........Get Us Out of the UN!!

[Trueblue]

The UN struggles to perform its stated mission, but it certainly is an advantage to the US and other developed nations to have such an organization.

[VRWC]

The UN struggles to perform its stated mission, but it certainly is an advantage to the US and other developed nations to have such an organization.

It certainly is advantageous for a few reasons. Economic aid, UNICEF, etc. However, in my opinion, it is useless militarily, both as a peace keeping mission, and as a defender of its members attacked by others. It refuses to enforce it's own resolutions. It does not uniformly protect those that it claims to protect. They went no where near Kosovo. They have done nothing in Africa, to any extent that shows progress.

I agree, as an aide organization, they are adequate, though they certainly have their struggles. Militarily, they are useless, IMO.

As a side note, I believe the US needs to cut their funding, and let other nations fund their fair share also, but just my opinion.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is interesting. Here are the results of a study of leading experts on terrorism and foriegn policy. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/08/terrorism_index.html#participantsThese experts were selected based on their expertise. The Terrorism Index is based on the results of a survey designed by the Center for American Progress and FOREIGN POLICY. Participants in the survey were selected by FOREIGN POLICY and the Center for American Progress for their expertise in terrorism and U.S. national security. No one currently working in an official U.S. government capacity was invited to participateThis survey does not paint a pretty picture. On the whole, these experts do not think that the surge is going to work The outcome of the war in Iraq may now rest in large part on the success or failure of the so-called surge. Beginning in February, the White House sent an additional 28,000 U.S. troops to Baghdad in an effort to quell the violence there. Securing the capital with overwhelming force is a key component of the anti-insurgency plan developed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq and the military’s foremost expert on counterinsurgency tactics. It took until June for all the U.S. forces to be put in place, and the number of American troops in Iraq is now at its highest level since 2005. But is Petraeus’s plan working?

The index’s experts don’t think so. More than half say the surge is having a negative impact on U.S. national security, up 22 percentage points from just six months ago. This sentiment was shared across party lines, with 64 percent of conservative experts saying the surge is having either a negative impact or no impact at all. When the experts were asked to grade the government’s handling of the Iraq war, the news was even worse. They gave the overall effort in Iraq an average point score of just 2.9 on a 10-point scale. The government’s public diplomacy record was the only policy that scored lower.

These negative opinions may result in part from the experts’ apparent belief that, a decade from now, the world will still be reeling from the consequences of the war. Fifty-eight percent of the index’s experts say that in 10 years’ time, Sunni-Shiite tensions in the Middle East will have dramatically increased. Thirty-five percent believe that Arab dictators will have been discouraged from reforming. Just 5 percent, on the other hand, believe that al Qaeda will be weaker, whereas only 3 percent believe Iraq will be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. If true, the surge, or any other tactical shift for that matter, was probably already too little, too late.The true experts in the war on terror have concluded that the surge is not working and that Iraq is going to a disaster.

[Ringo]

Clearly, you don't understand what is going on. Please consider how the following activities conflict with each other:
1) Anbar Sunnis, who were killing Americans a month ago, are now being armed and trained by us and killing AlQueda Saudis, who are also Sunni.
2) Sunnis walked out of the Iraqi Parliment a few days ago.
3) We are arming and training Baghdad Shites death squades who kill Sunnis.
4) Shites are aligning with Iran now and will become great allies before and after we leave.
5) Sunnis will align with Saudi Arabia period.

The only traitors to America and our servicemen are the idiots who wanted an unnecessary war and continue to claim success is just a month away. Troops are dying only because of this foolish war. The Neo-Cons who started it with stupid claims that troops would be home in a couple months are the same type of chickhawk idiots that made the same claim before the US civil war.

We still plan to see gallow built on the Wash DC mall where the leaders of the chickenhawks will be publicly executed for treason and high crimes agains the people and government of United States.YOU MEAN REID, PELOSI, THE CLINTONS, DURBIN,KUSONOFABITCH, KERRY, KENNEDY BOXER, SHUMER & RANGLE?? GLAD YOU KNOW A FUCKING COWARD TREASONER WHEN YOU SEE ONE, Jr!!:akbar:akbar:aisha

[Ringo]

It certainly is advantageous for a few reasons. Economic aid, UNICEF, etc. However, in my opinion, it is useless militarily, both as a peace keeping mission, and as a defender of its members attacked by others. It refuses to enforce it's own resolutions. It does not uniformly protect those that it claims to protect. They went no where near Kosovo. They have done nothing in Africa, to any extent that shows progress.

I agree, as an aide organization, they are adequate, though they certainly have their struggles. Militarily, they are useless, IMO.

As a side note, I believe the US needs to cut their funding, and let other nations fund their fair share also, but just my opinion.


Its a good place for American Traitor Wimp Cowards to work after they have SOLD out their Nation, hope Billy likes his job, before they TIGHTEN the noose!

I would like to see a THREESOME, Billy, with Hillary on his lap and Gore sitting on hers getting a hand jo..as they await Ol Sparky to light up!!

[Yellowdogtexan]

Senators Levin and Warner (R) have returned from Iraq with some bad news for the surge. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/20/levin-iraq-return/Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently visited Iraq with Sen. John Warner (R-VA) and reported that the escalation is “totally and utterly” failing to produce the political reconciliation needed.....

In fact, in a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Levin conceded that the troop increase has “resulted in some reduced violence in some places in Iraq,” but specifically said the troop increase has not accomplished its stated objective:[T]he whole purpose of the surge was to reduce violence so that the Iraqi leaders would have the breathing room to reach political settlement. That was the stated purpose of the surge.

Well, that purpose has not been achieved, even though the level of violence has been reduced in a number of areas. The purpose of the surge, by its own terms, was to have the — give the opportunity to the Iraqi leaders to reach some political settlements. They have failed to do that. They have totally and utterly failed.Arguing that political reconciliation will not occur under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Levin called on the Iraqi parliament to replace him. “I hope that the Iraqi assembly, when it reconvenes in a few weeks, will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and a more unifying prime minister and government.”

Levin and Warner met with Gen. David Petraeus for 2 hours. Levin said that the situation in Iraq necessitates that the U.S. begin troop reductions within four months:
[I]t is clear to me that the capability that the Iraqi military now has and will have by the end of this year will allow us to begin reducing U.S. forces significantly below our pre-surge level. We should begin that reduction within four months. The increased Iraqi capability will also allow us to move most of our forces out of Iraq by the middle of next year and to transition the forces that need to remain to perform missions away from the civil war. […]

I cannot believe, however, that the president is going to do anything less than reduce the level our troops to the pre-surge level, because the way in which our troops simply have been so stretched out that they have very little choice but to do that.

[toxic]

... the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently visited Iraq with Sen. John Warner (R-VA) and reported that the escalation is “totally and utterly” failing to produce the political reconciliation needed.....

Senator Warner (R-VA) must work for CBS, ABC or NBC.


Yeah thats it, thats why, yeah ...

:wine

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is not a good sign. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070821/pl_afp/iraquspolitics_070821141708BAGHDAD (AFP) - Iraqi political progress has been "extremely disappointing," the US ambassador in Baghdad said on Tuesday two weeks before he and the top American military commander in Iraq are to report to Congress.

"Progress on national level issues has been extremely disappopinting and frustrating to all concerned... to us, to Iraqis, and to the Iraqi leadership itself," Ryan Crocker told reporters in the Iraqi capital.

"I would suggest that... before you get meaningful reconciliation that does not just involve leaders but is phased down to society, that is going to take time," he added.

Crocker and General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, are expected to report to the US Congress by mid-September on the progress of their efforts to halt sectarian violence and return Iraq to viable self-governance.

Crocker said that the overall level of sectarian killing has come down, although he conceded, "there are spectacular car bomb attacks."

"What has been happening in the last couple of years... violence, population shift, displacement, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed. We are not just going to overcome that in a few weeks time."Without a political solution, the surge will fail and Iraq will further sink into a civil war.

[VRWC]

Without a political solution, the surge will fail and Iraq will further sink into a civil war.

Absolutely true. If Iraqi politicans refuse to do their jobs, then we should pull our troops.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Absolutely true. If Iraqi politicans refuse to do their jobs, then we should pull our troops.:paclap This something that we can agree on. :paclap

[Trueblue]

Its a good place for American Traitor Wimp Cowards to work after they have SOLD out their Nation, hope Billy likes his job, before they TIGHTEN the noose!

I would like to see a THREESOME, Billy, with Hillary on his lap and Gore sitting on hers getting a hand jo..as they await Ol Sparky to light up!!

The Clintons and Gore have Secret Service protection. Is this a threat against them?