The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq
The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq
A headline in the Washington Post today declares “Bush Defends Strategy In Iraq, Pledges to ‘Complete the Mission’.” The trouble is that Bush has changed the definition of “mission” so many times, it’s hard to have any confidence in his most recent declarations.
THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD
Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03]
AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED
Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]
Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]
THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE
Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended..” [5/3/03]
BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN
Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]
THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ
Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]
Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.”
[5/4/04]
AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS
Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]
NOW, COMPLETION OF THE MISSION IS FAR FROM CLEAR
Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05]
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Mission Impossible!
June 21st, 2005 at 12:50 pmCan we impeach him NOW? There may not be a stained white dress, but it sure is clear our “chief” is either downright fibbing, or losing his mind. . .
June 21st, 2005 at 12:53 pmThe amazing thing about this is not that Bush says it — it is that so many people buy it. And then vote Republican because Republicans are “decisive.”
June 21st, 2005 at 12:59 pm[/sound of goal posts]
June 21st, 2005 at 1:33 pmYou folks are either delusional or extremely naive. Did any one of you ever think that our mission was to go into Iraq, retireve the WMDs and then leave the Iraqi people to fend for themselves??? Come on, none of you ever agreed with the rational to go to war in the first place. You may not agree with Dubya – but he’s a lot more honorable than Sen. Durbin.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:48 pmMaybe someone can track down these quotes too–
Before the war, Rumsfeld said that he expected our troops to be there for a matter of weeks, rather than years.
The other day, Rice said that our presence in Iraq would require a generational commitment.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:49 pmHow do we take this and make the American people see what a lying, corrupt person Bush is.
This goes way beyond electoral politics- this is about dead soldiers that are in Iraq based on a series of calculated lies.
Even if Bush would have admitted that there were no WMD’s but that our mission is going to have to change, etc. I could possibly accept that.
But, the blind lying that is represented in these quotes just makes me so upset and fearful for the future of our country.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:54 pmAs to pre-war comments indicating US involvement lasting weeks, I have a link to an article describing the Pentagon’s expectations before the war at http://dr_saaron.blogspot.com/2004/11/iraqi-occupation.html.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:01 pmThen there’s the mission to sign-over the oil in Iraq to Arbusto…
June 21st, 2005 at 2:03 pmDid any one of you ever think that our mission was to go into Iraq, retireve the WMDs and then leave the Iraqi people to fend for themselves???
I thought that our mission (where “our” means you dictate it, we carry it out and pay for it) was to go in and replace the anti-US dictator with a pro-US dictator so that we could start stealing the oil.
Come on, none of you ever agreed with the rational to go to war in the first place.
The word you want is rationale, chuckles. So which rationale would you be referring to? Bush has been inventing new ones every few minutes.
You may not agree with Dubya – but he’s a lot more honorable than Sen. Durbin.
So ordering our troops to carry out Nazi-esque atrocities against innocent people is honorable, but exposing those atrocities is dishonorable? Tell us MORE!
June 21st, 2005 at 2:07 pmBush should have come clean with us from the start. Oil. Money for he and his friends.
That’s it. Nothing more needed be said. Everyone would have understood rationally what he or she felt in his or her hearts. Thus avoiding cognitive dissonance everyone now faces.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:08 pmThank you, JC God of War, it’s about time someone said it. This invasion has been about nothing but oil since before they went in. The BBEE has been slowly and surely consolidating its interests in the Middle East and around the Caspian Sea. American influence extends to Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan … take a look at a map and tell me why Iran shouldn’t be nervous?
George Monbiot did a great piece on this in the Guardian in 2002: http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,830014,00.html
June 21st, 2005 at 2:22 pmSorry, the link’s English, with commas …
Why Blair is an appeaser
Britain plays poodle partly because the US is stitching up the world’s oil supplies
George Monbiot
Tuesday November 5, 2002
The Guardian
Tony Blair’s loyalty to George Bush looks like slow political suicide. His preparedness to follow him over every precipice jeopardises Britain’s relationships with its allies, conjures up enemies all over the world and infuriates voters of all political colours. And yet he never misses an opportunity to show what a trusting friend he is.
There are several plausible and well-established explanations for this unnatural coupling. But there might also be a new one. Blair may have calculated that sticking to Bush is the only way in which our unsustainable economy can meet its need for energy.
Britain is running out of time. According to the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre the UK’s North sea production has been declining since 1999. Nuclear power in Britain is, in effect, finished: on Saturday the EU revealed that it had prohibited the government’s latest desperate attempt to keep it afloat with massive subsidies. But, partly because of corporate lobbying, partly because of his unhealthy fear of “Mondeo man” or “Worcester woman”, or whatever the floating voter of Middle England has now become, Tony Blair has also flatly rejected both an effective energy reduction policy and a massive investment in alternative power. The only remaining way of meeting future energy demand is to import ever greater quantities of oil and gas.
And here the government runs into an intractable political reality. As available reserves decline, the world’s oil-hungry nations are tussling to grab as much as they can for themselves. Almost everywhere on earth the United States is winning. It is positioning itself to become the gatekeeper to the world’s remaining oil and gas. If it succeeds, it will both secure its own future supplies and massively enhance its hegemonic power.
The world’s oil reserves, the depletion analysis centre claims, appear to be declining almost as swiftly as the North sea’s. Conventional oil supplies will peak within five or 10 years, and decline by around 2 million barrels per day every year from then on. New kinds of fossil fuel have only a limited potential to ameliorate the coming crisis. In the Middle East, the only nation which could significantly increase its output is Iraq.
In 2001, a report sponsored by the US Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute for Public Policy began to spell out some of the implications of this decline for America’s national security. The problem, it noted, is that “the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience”. Transport, for example, is responsible for 66% of the petroleum the US burns. Simply switching from “light trucks” (the giant gas-guzzlers many Americans drive) to ordinary cars would save nearly a million barrels per day of crude oil. But, as the president’s dad once said, “the American way of life is not up for negotiation.”
“The world,” the report continues, “is currently precariously close to utilising all of its available global oil production capacity.” The impending crisis is increasing “US and global vulnerability to disruption”. Over the previous year, for example, Iraq had “effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest”. If the global demand for oil continues to rise, world shortages could reduce the status of the US to that of “a poor developing country”.
This crisis, the report insists, demands “a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy… Such a strategy will require difficult tradeoffs, in both domestic and foreign policy. But there is no alternative. And there is no time to waste”. By assuming “a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game”, the United States will prevent any other power from exploiting its dependency and seizing the strategic initiative.
The US government has not been slow to act upon such intelligence. Over the past two years, it has been seizing all the Caspian oil it can lay hands on, cutting out both Russia and Iran by negotiating to pipe it out through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Afghanistan. Last week, though all the sages of the British and American right insisted during the Afghan war that it couldn’t possibly happen, the presidents of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan met to discuss the first of the Afghan pipelines. American soldiers have now been stationed in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Georgia, all of which are critical to the Caspian oil trade. According to the security firm Stratfor, “the US military presence will help ensure that a majority of oil and gas from the Caspian basin will go westward – bypassing the United States’ geopolitical rivals, Russia and China”. The reason why Vladimir Putin is so determined to keep Chechnya under Russian control, whatever the cost to both the Chechens and the Russians may be, is that Chechnya is one of the last available routes for Caspian oil.
The US has been playing the same game in the Middle East. A recent report by the Brookings Institution notes that “US strategic domination over the entire region, including the whole lane of sea communications from the strait of Hormuz, will be perceived as the primary vulnerability of China’s energy supply”. Last month a senior US general, Carlton Fulford, visited Sao Tomé and Principe, the islands halfway between Nigeria and Angola, to discuss the possibility of establishing a military base there. Both nations see the base as a threatening staging post, which the US could use to help gain exclusive access to West African oil. Earlier this year, George Bush negoti ated a “North American energy initiative” with Canada and Mexico. The US is hoping to extend the arrangement to the rest of the Americas, which could help to explain the coup which nearly toppled Venezuela’s president in April.
Oh, and there’s the small matter of the one nation in the Middle East whose oil production could be substantially increased, with the help of a little external encouragement. Last week the leader of the exiled Iraqi National Congress met executives from three major American oil companies, to start negotiations about who gets what once the US has taken over. This carve-up would mean cancelling the big contracts Russia and France have struck with Saddam Hussein. Lord Browne, the head of BP, warned that Britain might also be squeezed out of Iraq.
The United States, in other words, appears rapidly to be monopolising the world’s remaining oil. Every government knows this. Ours appears to have calculated that the only way it can obtain the energy required to permit the men and women of middle England to stay in their cars is to appease the United States, whatever the cost may be. Britain’s role in the impending war is that of the egret in the crocodile’s mouth, picking the scraps of flesh from between its teeth.
In 1929 the novelist Ilya Ehrenburg observed that “the automobile can’t be blamed for anything. Its conscience is as clear as Monsieur Citroën’s conscience. It only fulfils its destiny: it is destined to wipe out the world.” Our struggle over the next few months is to prove him wrong.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:25 pmChris,
Well, obviously the true mission was never to retrieve WMDs because Bush knew there were none there. So, was it simply to remove Saddam? You state that we all knew that we’d be there for a long time and not let the Iraqis fend for themselves. Actually, we didn’t. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz predicted a quick withdrawl after our troops blew all the rose petals off their Hummers. The Downing Street Memos make it very clear that there was NO planning for what would happen after we took Baghdad, NONE! So now we have the inevitable result of the lack of planning, a quagmire. there is no mission. I have 2 brothers in Iraq and their biggest complaint is that they have no mission other than getting shot at.
Yet you find Shrub more honorable than Durbin. Shrub has killed 1700 Americans, wounded 14,000 Americans, killed 100,000 Iraqis, and he can’t even tell what the mission was or is? Hate to break it to you , Chris, this isn’t a damn war of semantics. This is a damn war of very real people getting killed and the person who sent them to be killed and maimed can’t even come up with a reason why. Quite a definition of “honor” you have there.
June 21st, 2005 at 4:07 pmWelcome to Summer in Arkansas
June 21st, 2005 at 4:11 pmAfternoon update on links from the WB42 5:30 Report with Doug Krile and the usual roundup of additional information. Including a link to a Scott Ritter piece that says we’re already at war with Iran.
Mission evolved
June 21st, 2005 at 4:13 pmThink Progress has an amazing collection of quotes from George W. Bush that show how our “mission” in Iraq has…
Chris
THe word honorable next to Bush’s name is an oxymoron. Like military intelligence. It just doesn’t relate.
Chris
June 21st, 2005 at 4:38 pmWhere’s the honor in lying to a country. And why did he feel he had to lie? If your point is that he lied to do a good thing. Why did he need to lie to Americans? If invading Iraq was such a great thing to do, as you suggest, why lie about it?
Awesome post, and poor Chris just doesn’t have a clue. Pity.
June 21st, 2005 at 4:55 pmBoy, you guys sure are easy to get excited. I don’t believe W lied – every major intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMDs. The ultimate issue is this – how do you combat terrorism? Bush’s approach is to (by force) establish a democracy in the Middle East and thereby eliminate the root cause of terrorism at its source. You may not agree with his approach, but to label him a liar and an all around bad guy is counter-productive to advancing your argument. The 52% of Americans who voted for W are not as dumb as you all seem to think.
June 21st, 2005 at 5:00 pmBy the way, I wasn’t fortunate enough to attend an Ivy League institution – rational/rationale? Sorry for the mistake.
The reason why Bush wants the US to stay is because of his need to have a trained Iraqi army help him with his war in Iran.
June 21st, 2005 at 5:10 pmChris
Have you heard of Operation Yellow Elephant – Because Ranting is Safery than Enlisting
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_patriotboy_archive.html#111933630881545776
I think you should take a look at it. Ain’t it cool how those who lied about the Iraq war and who think lying about the war is somehow ok, don’t have to go and fight.
June 21st, 2005 at 5:10 pmBonnie
June 21st, 2005 at 5:11 pmI think you’re on to something there. Iraq is a staging ground for a war with Iran. Cause that’s what the Saudi royal family really wants, and Bush is their gopher.
First it was 51% voted for Bush, now its 52%?
June 21st, 2005 at 5:43 pmChris, your revisionism of the facts is showing, let alone your ignorance of them.
hey chris – you can stick your entire stupid comment right where the sun does not shine – bush is the filthiest piece of lying s*** to ever walk the planet – Senator Durbin told the TRUTH and the TRUTH always makes slime like bush and cheney resort to more EVIL. keep defending those pieces of s***, chris – you are a moron and will always be a moron. by the way, why aren’t you in Iraq ? too much of a p**** to enlist ??
June 21st, 2005 at 5:45 pm…and the goats say they’ve had better.
June 21st, 2005 at 5:54 pmI don’t believe W lied – every major intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMDs.
Actually, NO, that isn’t so. Remember the teams of inspectors that were in Iraq in the lead up to the war? Remember how the wingnuts soiled their pants every time Hans Blix gave a report from the field? Remember when Nigerian documents and elaborate UN presentations by colin Powell were all disputed and shown to be fakes or obfuscations of the truth?
June 21st, 2005 at 6:30 pmWell I sure do. So stop trotting out that tired old tripe about “everybody believed he had the weapons blah blah blah…”
“Everyone believed he had the weapons …”
everyone, that is, who believes what they’re told and don’t bother to find out the truth.
June 21st, 2005 at 6:39 pm“… I don’t believe W lied – every major intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMDs…”
WRONG! Not even the British MI6 believed that line. Don’t believe it? Here’s a quote straight from one of their meetings months before BushCo told the world he wanted peace not war:
“…Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran…â€? – July 23, 2002
June 21st, 2005 at 6:54 pmbut but but but…. the KGB told me so! And we can trust them right? They wouldn’t have any interest in seeing us bogged down, possibly losing our sole superpower status, would they?
June 21st, 2005 at 7:31 pmLeave poor Chris alone…
Fiction can be fun.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:27 pm“…help him with his war in Iran.”
and don’t forget that Afghanistan is on the other side of Iran.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:59 pmChris, you’re fighting a hopeless battle. I’ve come to understand people against the President don’t really care to find out the truth. They’ve set in their minds that Bush truly is no better than Hitler – and nothing anyone can say will budge them from their delirium.
You really have to feel sorry for them, though, because they’re in the minority now. And they will be for a long, long time because the REAL America now knows what they’re all about.
June 21st, 2005 at 10:25 pmBush said just this past Saturday on June 18th 2005 that “we went to war because we were attacked”
Where is Osama, you moron?
How many Iraqis were on the planes?
Where do we invade next? New Zealand, or France?
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:31 amChris: By the way, I wasn’t fortunate enough to attend an Ivy League institution – rational/rationale?
Neither was I, sport. (Well, once for a brief visit, but spelling wasn’t one of the things we discussed.) They actually do teach these things in public elementary schools across the country, you know; I guess (a) you didn’t go to one of these either, or (b) you weren’t paying attention when you did.
Skid: First it was 51% voted for Bush, now its 52%?
In reality, it isn’t either. If not for massive disenfranchisement of minority voters, rigged voting machines, and other cheating, Bush would be back in Texas snorting Coke.
June 22nd, 2005 at 9:38 amAs I say in my blog link to this:
Gracious! What would our mission statement(s) look like if we had a flip-flopper like Kerry in charge?
Actually, if we had ANYONE in charge?
How people can miss the PNAC connection and the hegemony involved is beyond me. The PNAC laid it out in a 1998 letter to Clinton (link in my blog; just search for PNAC) asking Clinton to invade Iraq. I also have a like to the PNAC’s mission statement.
PNAC back then? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, etc. etc.
Same ole, same ole.
A fascist by any other name smells.
June 22nd, 2005 at 10:12 am[...] s, my ass
iraq22 Jun 2005 09:42 am
What I Meant To Say Was…
From Think Progress: THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD… Bush: “Our mission is clear [...]
June 22nd, 2005 at 10:43 amChris,
Did I miss something–what is the rationale? Did you find one among the long list of changing reasons? The rationale I believe was to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons and someday threatening Israel–it was part of a geopolitical scheme by a consortium of think tanks and people in and out of government, planned by 1996 if not earlier.
The plan was published in 1996 I believe in a Defense Department report–it and a subsquent report based on it had a few good ideas. Those were never acted upon–such as making the public aware of the plan and getting their buy-in.
I didn’t buy the rationale, you’re right.
Don
June 22nd, 2005 at 10:54 amPerhaps Chris can explain the following:
“He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
Powell, speaking at a conference in Cairo, Feb 4, 2001, in reference to Iraq/Saddam weapons capability
“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
Rice, on Larry King, July 29, 2001, in reference to Saddam as a threat to US.
But, everyone in the world knew Mr Hussein had weapons and was a threat, right Chris?
June 22nd, 2005 at 11:29 amGuess Chris hasn’t bothered to read the Downing Street Minutes & all of the other damning information coming out since Bush decided to blow Tony Blair off.
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:27 pmi think bush is a great president. he has made his mistakes, but the war definately isnt one of them.
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:51 pmand chris… i think you said it perfect.
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:53 pmLet me ask this rhetorical question, is it easier to fight an enemy that is united or an enemy that is divided? The answer is obvious, it is easier to fight an enemby that is divided. So a public display of divisiveness, (liberals) helps your enemy (insurgents). I’m not saying you can’t be against the war, but do it the right way. Not publically, giving moral support to the enemies of the US. How many liberals think it is better to fight united, then take stock, and have retributions come at an appropriate time. This is why liberals are seen as anti-USA, they ARE helping the enemies of the USA with public displays of divisions.
I am not saying the Iraq war was necessary, but now is not the time to dissent. Dissention helps the insurgents and prolongs the war, thus creating additional American deaths.
Think about it, don’t just react.
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:55 pmBarry: The government is not the country. The real enemies of the USA are those who have fraudulently hijacked our government and are using our people as cannon fodder in a war of plunder and conquest. The Iraqis are NOT the enemy of the country just because Bush says so. They did nothing to us until we illegally invaded and occupied their country and started torturing them.
As for prolonging the war, that’s ludicrous. This war will go on forever until either there are no more Iraqis left to defend their country, or until public pressure forces the government to end it. Maybe you wouldn’t mind seeing the first outcome, but by actively working against the second it’s you who are working to prolong the war.
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:13 pmI’ll add that the first end I mentioned above isn’t really an end anyway. If Iraq gets cowed into submission — or a pro-US native military junta is created to take over — the neo-cons will send the troops to invade Iran, or Syria, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or lack of God knows where else. That’s the thing about world conquest: it never ends, because there’s always someone who doesn’t WANT to be conquered.
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:29 pm“This invasion has been about nothing but oil since before they went in.”
Yes, the oil, especially in amounts that Iraq supposedly has, are a great incentive. But I think the domestic political aspect is really the driving issue behind the war, and this has been noted with a little more frequency lately. The timing of the war resolution was a little too obvious, coming right before the midterms. So yes, the oil is the 400 lb. gorilla in the room, but even at the time it was obvious that this issue was being used for political puroses.
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:48 pmA few days before the war Bush gave Iraq an ultimatum. Show us proof you don’t have weapons of mass destruction and we will not invade. Clearly implying that the war was only about WMD.
Prior to the war nobody, absolutely nobody believed Iraq was a threat to anyone. The inspectors were there and it was obvious Iraq could not produce any weapons at that time. No inteligince anywhere showed any threat. Even more compelling is even if Iraq was a threat that threat was properly contained by weapons inspectors.
Each allegation given by Powell to the UN was investigated by the weapons inspectors prior to the war and shown to be false. The sad thing is everyone knew before the war that Iraq was no threat to anyone except people in this country as the press here refused to print any anti-war stories.
The adminisstration floated many different reasons for going to war between July 2002 and March 2003 constantly changing thier reason until settling on WMD as the best sell to the public.
The Downing street memos are the smoking gun which shows clear evidence that something very dirty has been going on. The refusal by the US media to cover this story begs the question when if ever will the US get a free press that has the guts to report negative comments about this goverment.
I disagree on the reasons we went to war. It was not for oil but rather to loot Iraq, set up bases and, distract the public and press in the US, solidify power in the US, and continue to loot the from the US treasury. Primarily it was looting the US. While people were distracted with the administrations comments they rammed home another Millonaire relief bill (tax cut) changed the topic from the presidents flundering poll numbers and awful performance and helped elect more fascists… err I mean Republicans in 2002.
Iraq was all about providing cover and propaganda for the president and Republicans. A constant war atmosphere allows them to continue to push thier bills that steal money from out children which have bankrupted the country, allows them to keep thier foot on the media as it would be unpatriotic to express dissent during a war and allows them to push thier lies without question.
The bottom line is Bush and his cohorts have killed hundreds of thousands of people that were no threat to anyone. Thier actions have made the world a very unsafe place. Millons of people now hate the US because of thier actions and are willing to fight against this country. Iraqi’s will hate us for installing a US dictator that serves the US and not them and if given the chance they will overthrow that regime. The US military power has lost its intimidating presence rather it has been overextended and gives the appearance of a barking dog with little bite.
The UN was set up to prevent people like Hitler and Bush from unilaterally attacking other countries withouit permisson from the world. Bush broke interantional law by attacking Iraq and if he was from a smaller country he may have beeen prosecuted.
The amount of money the Bush administration has stolen is just amazing. When Bush came into office the projected 10 year surplus was over 5 trillon dollars by the time we invaded Iraq it was a 5 billon doillar defecit. Thats $100,000 per American family. In essence he could have written a check to every American family for $100,000 and we would be no worse off except we would have eliminated poverty for a few years.
That amount of money they have stolen its staggering. Unfortunatekly its for this money that Bush and his cohorts have killed in Iraq and elsewhere.
Given all the evidence of his crimes. killing, lies and stealing Bush, his cohorts, the Republicans and many of the democrats should be investigated, prosecuted and jailed by the people of this country.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:05 pmVery true, David. If you remember, just before September 11th is when all of the corporate scandals of Enron and Tyco started to go down. As George Galloway said, “This is the mother of all smokescreens.” And the smokescreen is being used to hide any number of nefarious little things the Bushies want to get accomplished.
The reason why I focus so much on the oil aspect is because it’s a powder keg that has the potential to blow up in our faces. BP just announced about a month ago that they’re starting work on a pipeline through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to get access to the sweet, sweet Caspian oil. Traditionally, the Russians have been very protective over it, because that’s their richest source of oil. Why do you think they tried to hold onto the breakaway republics so badly when the Soviet Union was crumbling?
Then look at the tightening noose of US control in the Middle East and South Asia. Close ties with Saudi Arabia, ‘control’ over Iraq, propped up puppet in Afghanistan, allied with Pakistan, allied with Uzbekistan … tell me it’s not to some (great) degree about oil.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:08 pmGary says, fraudulently highjacked our country. Again, think before you react. Democratically elected officials, can not highjack. If you disagree, then vote against, this is the proper method, (in America). As I stated, you are publically dividing the country, which benefits terrorist. Tell me specifically if you disagree with that statement. I have as yet to see a US govt official blow up, or directly kill American civilians. Please, try to be reasonable as to who are the enemies of the USA. By these statments, the majority of America sees that liberals are against the USA, that is why liberals continue to lose national elections.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:09 pmBarry, it’s all well and good to vote, but it only matters if your vote counts. There are many questions about the legitimacy of the US presidential elections in 2004 and in 2000, evidence of vote tampering, intimidation and disenfranchisement. If the government won’t listen to my voice, then I’m just going to shout louder until they hear me.
Liberals do not lose elections because we’re seen as enemies of the state. Conservatives do an excellent job of brand management – Republicans = good, Democrats = bad. And they hammer that message home at every single opportunity. Hell, they even email out talking points to their supporters so everyone’s on the same page. Democrats (and I hesitate to use that as a synonym for liberal) don’t have a consistent message, and there’s way too much in-fighting. They don’t look cohesive.
I’d also like to add that it is the essence of democracy to question what the government is doing and hold officials accountable to the same laws that govern the rest of us. We are exercising our rights as guaranteed to us by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We should never be afraid of voicing our opinions.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:20 pmXool, Again you do not see the point. It is not about whether you disagree or not, it is the manner by which you disagree. You are so very right, in a democracy, we should hold elected officials very accountable. I have as yet to say whether I am for, or against the war. I have only said, there is a proper way to disagree. The public method is inherently wrong in a time of war.
As far as the 2004 vote thing, it was satisfied, legally in the USA. If I remember correctly, there were many unofficial recounts of Florida, 2 out of 15 showed Gore the winner. Which, if my math is correct, says significantly more of the recounts were in favor of Bush than Gore. There was a vote, a protest, and a legal satisfaction, end of discussion. Shall I also mention that Bush won reelection by a huge margin of total votes.
You are giving much too much credit to the conservatives too outwit liberals by using brand management. And, way too much discredit to the American people as a whole to look at policies and ACTIONS to come up with their own judgement as to which they agree with. Maybe, if the majority of people see the other side as better, you should sit back and say,,,, what am I missing that they see.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:39 pmMission Creep? Or Creepy Reasons for a Misguided Mission.
Think Progress gives a great review of the cascading reason(s) Bush has given that are behind the death of over 1,700 US troops and over 120,000 innocent Iraqis. JB ===== Think Progress � The Ever Changing Definition of “Missionâ€? In…
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:40 pmSorry, I meant the 200 election was voted, protested and settled legally.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:41 pm“Dissention helps the insurgents and prolongs the war”
I’ll have to agree that this is a ludricous statement. Who needs the First Amendment, anyway. The double standard seems to be that liberals should shut up and not criticize anything, regardless of how egregious they feel it is, but concervatives can say whatever the hell they want, even if it is dishonest.
When exactly did loyalty to party, or the cult of Bush, trump loyalty to country, or even reason and logic?
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:49 pmAs I stated, you are publically dividing the country, which benefits terrorist. Tell me specifically if you disagree with that statement.
Yes, I do, because the real terrorists are running this country — and illegally so, despite your attempts to dismiss the obvious and widespread fraud of 2000 and 2004. You want unity? Fine, let’s unite to kick these murderous scum out of office.
I have as yet to see a US govt official blow up, or directly kill American civilians. Please, try to be reasonable as to who are the enemies of the USA.
If somebody drops me into a pit of piranhas, and I get eaten up, the guy who dropped me in the pit is my enemy, not the piranhas. So bleeping what if it isn’t direct?
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:51 pmWhat Barry? Hold them accountable AFTERWARDS, when they have had EVEN MORE TIME to cover their rears and muddy the facts and allegations? Sounds like an even more ineffective pipe dream to me. I’m curious as to whether you feel WE should have waited till AFTER the Vietnam war was over to prosecute Nixon and his cronies?
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:54 pmDavid, disention has given aid to terrorist. It was found in terrorist training documents methods to get untrue information into America’s media to cause dissent, because that will help their cause, which, by logical reasoning, would hurt America’s cause.
David, I never said to hush up, I said to do it the right way.
Gary’s comments about who the real terrorist are is exactly why liberals are not mainstream, and if Gary believes this, he will never understand why liberals lose and lose big.
Gary, it is the guy who dropped you into the pit of piranahs, just as it was not the airplanes fault in the 911 incident. Again I ask,, tell me what an American public official has done that is considered a terrorist act.
Skid, the prosecution of Nixon had nothing to do with Vietnam. And, if I remember correctly, Nixo was found guilty of ordering the break in to find evidence of Democracts behaving illegallally (prostitution).
Skid, I never said do it afterwards, I said don’t do it in public. Public dissent does cause harm to America and the soldiers and does prolong a war effort, at the very least it provides moral support to the enemy.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:10 pmPlease read my comments carefully, I hate having to restate myself. No one has as yet come up with any clear discussion to disprove me. My first attempt at blogging, and I am sorely disappointed. I thought there might be some reasonable people. By the way, conservative blogs are no more insightful than this mess here.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:14 pmtell me what an American public official has done that is considered a terrorist act.
Offhand, I think starting an illegal and unprovoked war that’s killed somewhere around 100,000 so far would qualify.
Of course, “considered” is a loaded word because it depends on who is doing the considering. Some people don’t consider anything to be terrorism if it’s done by the side they support.
As for not being mainstream, I really couldn’t care less. And as for why liberals lose, we already told you why, because of massive vote fraud and other cheating by the right. In places with honest elections, like Venezuela, liberals do just fine.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:21 pmLOL, LOL, now I get it, Gary was being sarcastic to show how idiotic the far left is. Illegal and unprovoked war. Congress did vote to approve of military action. Makes it legal. Bush requested for a year and a half that US, not UN inspectors be in Iraq, rejected by Saddam, this would indicate there may be a reason to keep the US out.
I’ll go ahead and tell you my opinion to the war, I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq, but now that it has happened, the best course of action is public support to end it as soon as possible. If we show united support, the is more chance of additional countries assisting. Especially as it is becoming public information that there was widespread and profitable reasons UN members wanted to keep the US out of Iraq. Also, as you can tell from my comments, private dissent.
Venezuela having honest elections, that was the dead give away. I have a pen pal who lives in Venezuela, very bad situation there as far as political corruption.
I suppose liberal places like Cuba have honest elections too.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:35 pmI REPEAT – No one has as yet come up with any clear discussion to disprove me.
And why is it that politians shouldn’t be held accountable in public? If wrong doing was suspected, it should be made public. The problem is that many seem to buy the Repub. “spin” which is often false (due to facts that are ignored or edited) rather than shake up their normal lives by actually thinking that the accusations could be true and that something should be done about it. That seems like where you fit in.
As for the Nixon comment, it sounded as if you were advocating not undermining the troops and misguided civilians by holding the Pres. and his cronnies accountable.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:41 pmLOL, LOL, now I get it, Gary was being sarcastic to show how idiotic the far left is.
Get off the high horse Barrie.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:43 pmCongress did vote to approve of military action. Makes it legal.
Wrong, dumbass. It’s against the UN charter, to which the US is a signatory. Congress can’t overrule a signed treaty.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:51 pmBarry, dude, I get your point. I don’t agree with it.
I think that public discourse and debate is the only way to keep these issues on the radar screen and not have them swept under a rug of obfuscation. I don’t think we should sit silently by while the admin does things that we disagree with just to show a united front. That would make us all complicit in their actions. I want no part in that.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:52 pmDamn, some of you people just refuse to read my comments fully.
I said, during a time of war it is inherently wrong to have public dissent. There is a way to do it correctly during war, and a time to be public, even in war, but that is clearly not the case (as of now, it may change in the future, but not now). OK, yes I added that part about publically may be an alternative, but that will be very rare.
My Nixon comment was correcting someone else, Nixon’s prosecution had NOTHING to do with the Vietnam war. My statement was a statement of fact, no opinion at all.
Yet again, you do not carefully read my comments, and I have to restate. I never said the war was a just or correct thing, I only said dissent should be proper so as to not put additional pressure on our troops, or assits our enemy. Show me where I said I was ignoring the facts, or not thinking the accusations are true. Damn, I am so clear, but some of you are just intent on not reading and responding appropriately.
So, Skid, you say that Vennesula had honest elections. That seems so much like a completely ignorant statement, it couldn’t possibly have been made in earnest.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:59 pmAnd Barry, any moral support the terrorists/insurgents/enemy get from dissent in the US pales in comparison to the anger generated by the admin’s policies.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:03 pmso what do you think is proper dissent, Bar? You’re so good at telling us where we went wrong, tell us how we can go right?
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:04 pmXool, I agree with you, in almost all cases. However, in a time of way, public dissent does cause moral problems for US troops, and moral boosts to US enemies. I can not see how anyone would disagree with that statement. And, yes I have thought about it (a lot).
Talk to the troops that are in Iraq, they will tell you they are very angry with liberals for this public dissent.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:04 pmSo, Skid, you say that Vennesula had honest elections. That seems so much like a completely ignorant statement, it couldn’t possibly have been made in earnest.
So cite some verifiable evidence to the contrary, chuckles. Hearsay doesn’t count.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:05 pmUnfortunately, there’s not a distinction drawn between disagreeing with the war and supporting the troops. The men and women in the military are incredibly brave and they’re doing a job that I wouldn’t want for myself. I fully support them and worry for them and more than anything I want them out of harm’s way. Especially since they’re now fighting a war that the country was railroaded into launching. But I cannot and will not be silent, because I think this war is, was and always will be wrong. I love my country and I don’t want it to be twisted into some monstrous thing that we won’t recognize in a generation.
Talk to the troops, and they’ll tell you that they’re frustrated with extended tours of duty, smaller pay, fighting with a lack of proper equipment, cutting of veterans’ payments, etc etc. They want to know the truth of why they’re over there just as much as we do. And we owe the truth to them.
Now I’m getting all riled up. I love you, Barry! Keep on dissenting from the dissent, keep us honest.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:12 pmProper dissent,,,, now let me see, from the public. Private letters, phone calls to your representative, congress and the President.
From public officials, The congressional committe on foreign affairs, or the congressional committee on intelligence, etc, can gather information.
Now, lets assume they find good cause, AFTER the investigation of facts. Then, in a careful way, make it public. When I say careful, I mean in a way so as to not cause our troops problems.
What is wrong with that.
These are just some examples I came up with, I’m sure there are many others.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:13 pmBTW, since Condi is now saying that this is a “generational commitment”, when can I properly speak my mind in public? 5 years, 10 , 20, never?
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:13 pmI’ve enjoyed the conversation all, but I must go now. I hope you consider my words, and you may not agree, but at least consider them. It seems congressman Durban agrees with me as he has publically apologized. Sometimes it is not right to say things in public. You have the right, by the war efforts of our relatives and ancestors, but that does not always make it the right thing to do at that time.
Peace out folks
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:17 pmNo one has as yet come up with any clear discussion to disprove me. – Barry
If I recall correctly, your assertion is that dissention should be done discreetly, in private, without making it public so that the rest of the world can see that we disagree. If I’m not mistaken, that is exactly what non-democratic societies (such as Iraq under Saddam, Germany under Hitler and Communist Russia) do. They disagree quietly, without making waves, and without showing a divided face to the world. One of the strengths of our style of democracy, Barry, is that we are able to disagree in public without fear. From the first pamphlets produced by Paine to the most strident of anti-war blogs around today, we, as Americans, have the right and the duty to disagree with our elected leaders. Quite frankly, I consider it near to treason that you would even suggest that we should somehow give up those rights our forefathers fought so hard for and lay quietly down until our leaders have finished trampling over us. Waiting to disagree in private, after the fact, is no better than giving up and saying that the people we elected are divine and cannot be wrong after they have been somehow “annointed” by our votes. That’s just silly.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:19 pmOne more thing,
Let me help you guys out. Your response to me from the beginning should have been, yes Barry, we agree public dissent does hurt to US troops and does help the enemies of the US, but we considered this and we still belive public dissent, is still the best course of action. I would have respected this. And then we could have discussed why public correct.
But, to say public dissent does not harm US troops and does not help enemies of the US is just not thinking clearly. How can you respect someone that does not even admit to something as clear as this.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:26 pmYou still continue to not read my comments. Just being public does not mean that you are not doing somethign about it. In Saddam’s regime and Hitlers Germany, public dissent AND private dissent would get you killed. This is not the case in the US. As I said, during war (and only during war) publically is bad, private is the best way. How many times do I have to say the same thing.
If I get my definition of treason correct, treason is aiding the courntry’s enemy’s. So, tell me which method is giving aid to the enemy, public or private.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:30 pmIf I get my definition of treason correct, treason is aiding the courntry’s enemy’s. So, tell me which method is giving aid to the enemy, public or private.
Anything which supports the Bush junta, since they are our country’s enemies.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:44 pmBarry
READ (not misquote, or misdirect) our comments. You do a good job of not directly responding to them.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:44 pmLet me help you guys out. Your response to me from the beginning should have been….
Sadly, in a debate you have to argue against the positions your opponents take, not the positions you would like them to take.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:55 pmtreason is aiding the courntry’s enemy’s. So, tell me which method is giving aid to the enemy, public or private. – Barry
June 22nd, 2005 at 6:10 pmPrivate – absolutely. If we aren’t a strong enough country to understand that not everyone is going to agree with one another nor strong enough to tolerate said disagreement – during ANY time, not just peace time – than our enemies will find out that we are too weak to tolerate internal dissent and will then attack. Strong countries celebrate the diversity of opinion that their people hold. Weak countries try to stifle it. Lord knows, we’ve invaded enough weak countries whose leaders attempted to stifle dissent – we should be aware of this by now…
Robin, Gar Bear, Skid, big smooches to you all. Thank you.
June 22nd, 2005 at 6:22 pmBarry: Your response to me from the beginning should have been, yes Barry, we agree public dissent does hurt to US troops and does help the enemies of the US
But then I would be lying, Barry, and I don’t do that.
June 22nd, 2005 at 6:23 pmSpeaking out causes morale problems? If you had read my earlier post, Barry, you would see that I have 2 brothers currently serving in Iraq and their biggest morale problem is being shot at for no discernable purpose. I read today, that the Marine brass has finally admitted that they waited 2 years too long to order proper armor for their vehicles. I’m thinking that maybe that caused a few morale problems also. Obviously, I can’t speak for all soldiers , but the ones I know just want to get the hell out of there as soon as possible. And it’s not because of what’s written on blogs, it’s that they’re being killed and maimed there for NO PURPOSE.
As for speaking out in public boosting the morale of the enemy, do you have ANY proof that this is true? Of course, it was uttered a lot in the Viet Nam war, but it wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. Here’s why. We are in their country. We are the invaders and occupiers. They aren’t gooing to stop resisting no matter what is said in this country. They don’t give a shit what anybody in America says! America is the Great Satan to them and is Israel’s ally. If an arab country invaded the US, do you really think it would matter to you what was said in the Mid East? No, you’d fight like hell because it’s your home that’s being destroyed.
June 22nd, 2005 at 6:34 pmThe Mission in Bush’s own Words…
It Started Here: Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.â€? [3/6/03] See how it has evolved……
June 22nd, 2005 at 6:38 pmI challenge any of you irrational paranoids to read the text from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. And explain the purpose of Operation Desert Fox and why Clinton wasn’t lying to us about WMDs then. And be sure to brush up on our policy of regime change stated in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Public Law 105-338. And read Section 10 of the 911 Commission Report.
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:19 pmUnfortunately, I think we’ll have several more chapters before we can bring our troops home.
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:38 pmYes, Steed, the official policy of the US has been that Saddam is a bad boy and should be replaced by someone else. It has been since he invaded Kuwait (but of course, before then, we were giving him weapons, so he was a good boy at that point). There is no doubt that we stopped liking him a long time ago – but there is also no doubt that we did not send our troops over there to be killed with no real plan before Bush took office, either. My issue isn’t with the fact that we didn’t like Saddam and wanted him gone. My issue is with the fact that Bush went and waged preemptive war on him under false pretenses. What gets me is that we sent our fathers/brothers/sons over there to appease Bush’s sense of power. There has been no other compelling (truthful, at least) reason for our presence over there that we’ve been given. Bush lied, now our family members are dying. That, Steed, is the reason those of us who are thinking individuals are so very mad at this administration.
June 23rd, 2005 at 3:14 pmNice try Robin, but it’s obvious from your reply you haven’t read or considered the joint resolution, reports, laws, etc. I only listed a few must-reads. There is so much more. In addition, there are numerous transcripts/reports/documents that can easily be found showing how the past 3 administrations have indeed addressed a post-Saddam Iraq. And the US did not consider Saddam to be “good boy” when he was abusing our support during the Iraq-Iran war. I can direct you to numerous transcripts and reports that show that. And don’t forget that other nations such as Russia, France and China, among others, were also supplying weapons. I understand those who are against the war, but justifying their opinion by oversimplifying, distorting and ignoring facts is not the trait of a critical thinking individual.
June 23rd, 2005 at 4:17 pmYes, Steed, actually I have read and considered those documents. Unlike you, I’m willing to cite my sources, so I will point those reading along to where those documents can be found. In reverse order, section 10 of the 9/11 commission report can be found in PDF format at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20041130/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec10.pdf. This document merely reiterates what anyone watching the news (and not just FOX) would have realized. Bush and Cheney thought that maybe Iraq had something to do with 9/11. They were wrong, but refused to admit it, so they attacked Iraq anyway. Next, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm) states that Saddam’s a bad guy who mistreats his people. The congress at the time felt that we should do all we could to “support” regime change and “promote” democratically elected goverment in that area. At no time does it ever offer the idea that our soldiers should be sacrificed for this cause. Then you mention the Joint Resolution To Authorize The Use Of Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html). This document loses all credibility in the third paragraph. Yes, the Congress did approve military action – but it did so on completely untrue information given to it by the administration (as noted in the Downing Street Memo, the full text of which is available at http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html).
For my final point, the mission of Operation Desert Fox was to degrade the ability of Saddam to produce WMDs. This however, was in response to Iraq kicking out the UN inspectors and not because we felt like beating up on some smaller, weaker country. We went in with airstrikes to “convince” Saddam to start playing nicely again. He did, 4 days later. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1997-2000 – October 31 – November 18, 1998)
At no time did Clinton lie and tell the American public that he *knew* there were WMDs in Iraq when he didn’t. Nor did he sent American soldiers into Iraq to die.
June 23rd, 2005 at 4:54 pmRobin, I respectively disagree with some of you conclusions. You lose some credibility when you source the DSM. I have too many questions about it so I have to suspend judgement. Rycroft was not present at the meeting, identical language was in a Guardian story 2 days before the meeting took place, and I can provide a link to another memo authored by Rycroft that gives me doubt on his meaning of fixed. I wll gladly explain when time permits. I will cite my sources since you appear to be genuinely interested. Best regards.
June 23rd, 2005 at 7:04 pmFor your perusal in the meantime…
The Guardian article:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,759158,00.html
Another Rycroft memo:
June 23rd, 2005 at 7:39 pmhttp://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/isc/isc_3_0004.pdf
[...] olmes what your website might be worth » the ever changing mission in Iraq. I’d say that he wants to be loved by his dad. He wants to show his dad that h [...]
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:38 pm[...] nd counter-productive to toss out the word “impeachment” based on Bush’s duplicitous rationales for invading Iraq — the case needs to be built before the “I-bomb [...]
June 24th, 2005 at 12:50 pmHey y’all-
The horse has left the barn and we sit here arguing about the color of its dung. Don’t you get it? Yes, the WMD mission was a line to hook the majority of americans into supporting the war- it worked. Now patriotism and the threat of terrorism keeps us there. Its working. The hawks learned an important lesson from Vietnam- quagmires are only troublesome if the media & popular movements gain traction against them. Conservatives learned how to emasculate both. Unless one of us geniuses figures out a way to restore democracy in the US, i.e. releasing the majority of americans from the binds of so-called patriotism & see that the a real terroist threat is (ALSO) wrapped in the US flag (remember the unibomber, anyone?) this is all academic.
Those of us who oppose the war keep appealing to logic and facts, and the pro-war folks come back with emotion and slander. We are not playing the same game, so nobody will loose or win. The distraction of our flapping jaws prevents us from fixing the real problem- those of us opposed to the war & calling for RATIONALITY and and end to carnage have NO POWER. Even the members of congress are powerless to change our current course. Sen. Kennedy can sit in the senate armed forces committee and recite a litany of Rumsfelds’ failures on CSPAN for all of America to hear- and it doesn’t matter. Those in power are not afraid AT ALL. Even the Downing Street papers do not concern them- they don’t even merit a cover-up. The administration is ignoring them because they know they have nothing to be afraid of. In spite of everything, Bush won re-election – some cooked up majority of americans did vote for him.
Based on where we stand now, the conservatives can invade Iran if they want to – there is nothing to stop them. The can ignore genocide in Darfur if they choose too- they do not fear public opinion and care less about doing the right thing- even for appearances.
Watch and weep- thats all thats left for us to do. Unless the administration’s achilles heal is it’s hubris & overconfidence. Isn’t that how bad guys usually fail in the end
June 24th, 2005 at 1:34 pm[...] f the President, and to distract all of us who are pissed off about an administration that keeps lying to us. The RNC issued talking points [pdf’d and store [...]
June 24th, 2005 at 5:07 pmCondi sez,
June 28th, 2005 at 1:49 amMission Generational.
[...] Bush said: “Our mission in Iraq is clear.” FACT: Actually, it isn’t. Filed Und [...]
June 28th, 2005 at 8:05 pmUntil the Job is Done… or June 2006. Which ever comes first.
Plans are being discussed for significant troop reduction in Iraq mid 2006.
July 11th, 2005 at 9:38 am[...] Think Progress has an amazing collection of quotes from George W. Bush that show how our “mission” in Iraq has changed over the past couple of years. Definitely worth a look! Posted by Len @ 15:10 :: Politics Comment RSS :: Trackback URI [...]
September 25th, 2005 at 3:32 pmMallorca Spain
December 20th, 2005 at 5:57 amMortgage Rates and Refinance
January 1st, 2006 at 6:47 amMortgage Farmers Mortgage Rates
Refinance Mortgage Refinance Mortgage Rates
Refinance Online
Compare mortgage rates
this stuupid
February 28th, 2006 at 8:18 pm[...] Think Progress ” The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq … Defends Strategy In Iraq, Pledges to Complete the Mission’.” The trouble is that Bush has changed the definition of “mission” so many times, it’s hard to … [...]
March 17th, 2006 at 11:16 pm[...] Think Progress ” The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq … Defends Strategy In Iraq, Pledges to Complete the Mission’.” The trouble is that Bush has changed the definition of “mission” so many times, it’s hard to … [...]
March 18th, 2006 at 3:34 am[...] Think Progress ” The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq … Defends Strategy In Iraq, Pledges to Complete the Mission’.” The trouble is that Bush has changed the definition of “mission” so many times, it’s hard to … Permalink TrackBack [...]
April 4th, 2006 at 7:36 pm[...] Think Progress ” The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq … Defends Strategy In Iraq, Pledges to Complete the Mission’.” The trouble is that Bush has changed the definition of “mission” so many times, it’s hard to … [...]
April 9th, 2006 at 1:37 pm[...] Think Progress ” The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq … Defends Strategy In Iraq, Pledges to Complete the Mission’.” The trouble is that Bush has changed the definition of “mission” so many times, it’s hard to … Sonoma Mission Furniture South America Individual Mission Trips In June 2006 South Park Mission Impossible [...]
May 7th, 2006 at 1:32 pm[...] Think Progress ” The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq … Defends Strategy In Iraq, Pledges to Complete the Mission’.” The trouble is that Bush has changed the definition of “mission” so many times, it’s hard to … [...]
June 1st, 2006 at 9:57 amBased on where we stand now, the conservatives can invade Iran if they want to – there is nothing to stop them. The can ignore genocide in Darfur if they choose too- they do not fear public opinion and care less about doing the right thing- even for appearances.
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:25 pmDenelle
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:09 am[...] circumstance. That’s one reason why we’ve seen so many changing justifications for the Iraq war and our mission there. The bottom line is that this administration does whatever it likes, and makes up changing [...]
March 27th, 2008 at 7:26 pm