Rice Falsely Asserts ‘Most Iraqis’ Want Us To Stay
Rice Falsely Asserts ‘Most Iraqis’ Want Us To Stay
Condoleezza Rice, today on Meet the Press:
Some Iraqis — most Iraqis in fact — are willing, and want, to keep coalition forces there until they can take care of this themselves.
That’s not true. In fact, the Program on International Policy Attitudes conducted a poll of Iraqis in January. Here’s what the poll reported:
Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months†and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.â€
Not only is the Bush administration out of touch with what the American public wants, it is also out of touch with what Iraqis themselves want.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why hasn’t Kindasleazy been locked away in a rubber room for the criminally insane yet? Does any believe one single word she says? What a sad, pathetic tragedy she is.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:01 pmhuh, I don’t remember her being in iraqnam and interviewing iraqis, eh?
March 26th, 2006 at 12:02 pmLook two treads later and Dr. Rice is still lying. But some people say that’s the information she gets therefore that’s what she supposed say.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:05 pm1000 whirling dervishes and a category ten tornado couldn’t produce as much spin as this administration.
Falfel Sex is hosting this week’s Assclowns of the Week. Go give ‘em some love.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:14 pmI think my favorite Condi line was when she said that – and I’m paraphrasing – that nothing worthwhile comes without great sacrifice. The follow-up should have been ‘what sacrifices are you and the rest of America being asked to make for this worthwhile cause?”
March 26th, 2006 at 12:20 pmRice Falsely Asserts ‘Most Iraqis’ Want Us To Stay
70% want us to stay at least 6 months. I’d call that most.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pmnever mind all that Tim, how do you like my shoes?
March 26th, 2006 at 12:26 pmTP Headline
Rice Falsely Asserts ‘Most Iraqis’ Want Us To Stay
Source disputing the claim:
March 26th, 2006 at 12:31 pm“However, it was not asked specifically whether they wanted them to leave and when” pg 6
Rice isn’t talking about staying for 6 months.
What Bush said the other day:
White House
March 21, 2006
Press Conference of the President
While the 70% of Iraqis wanting us there for 6 more months is fine and dandy, neither Bush nor Rice intend on us leaving Iraq anytime soon and definitely not within 6 months.
IT IS A LIE. THE IRAQI PEOPLE WANT US THE HELL OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:38 pmThere are also the two British polls, with one cited by Congressman Murtha, taken a few months ago, which stated that two thirds to eighty percent of Iraqis want the U.S. to stop occupying their country. If the Democrats, at least the few progressive Democrats that there are, had an ounce of sense, they would transmit these facts to the media and and blare it over the airwaves. This concept may be difficult for some people to grasp but Iraq actually belongs to the Iraqis and not to the United States. It is long past the time for the Iraqis to control their own destiny and for the U.S. to bring the troops home- NOW, immediately, if not ASAP.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:39 pmtwo thirds to eighty percent of Iraqis want the U.S. to stop occupying their country
A Poll with between 60 and 80% doesn’t sound too reliable to me.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#9
March 26th, 2006 at 12:51 pmI guess the real question is how long do the Iraqi people think it will be before they can handle the situation themselves?
I LIKE THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE TO THE ITEM:
“Not only is the Bush administration out of touch with what the American public wants, it is also out of touch with what Iraqis themselves want.”
It’s true, and it’s also infuriating to think, that while an overwhelming majority of the American People want our Troops brought home from Iraq, the Administration will continued to defy such a demand of the American People, and falsely cite Iraqi public opinion in so doing.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:57 pmThey will be able to handle it when Bush and Rice say they can handle it.
March 26th, 2006 at 12:57 pmLara Logan smacked down the “negative Iraq War Coverage” charges
March 26th, 2006 at 1:20 pmhttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/26.html#a7669
Tundra-
You seem to have misunderstood or misread my post. There were two polls taken in Iraq. One poll stated that 80 percent of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave their their country. The other poll, taken a few months later, revealed that two thirds of Iraqis want the U.S. to stop occupying their country. The methodology used in obtaining the data and results from both polls was considered to be solid and reliable. If one takes the average from the result of both polls, the result is about 73 percent of Iraqis still want the U.S. to leave. That, to me, constitutes a clear majority of Iraqi citizens who want the U.S. to leave. Because of the U.S. presence, people are getting blown up and ripped apart. The average amount of time that electricity is on in an Iraqi household or business is five hours. Try dealing with five hours of electricity in the summer in Iraq when the temperature reaches 130 degrees. Under the tyrant Saddam Hussein, Iraq averaged fourteen hours of power. But under the so-called benevolent rule of America, the Iraqis have only five hours of electricity. I went through Hurricane Andrew in Florida and had to endure, in that heat, a week without electricity. The Iraqis have it one hundred times, at least, worse than I did since I did not have to worry about being blown up the way the people of Iraq and the coalition forces do. The point, of course, is that it should not be all that difficult to discern why the Iraqis would want the United States to get the hell out of their country.
March 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pmOne poll stated that 80 percent of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave their their country. The other poll, taken a few months later, revealed that two thirds of Iraqis want the U.S. to stop occupying their country.
Do you happen to know where I could find them? If I use the poll here it says:
“However, it was not asked specifically whether they wanted them to leave and whenâ€
I don’t disagree that they aren’t happy we are there. I also think that they know they are safer with us there than without.
March 26th, 2006 at 2:03 pmHow long were they at war with Iran? What would prevent them from coming back in? They can’t defend themselves from any other country right now. They also can’t keep a “Civil War” at bay without us there (Debatable if they can with us there)
I wouldn’t be happy if another country was occupying the US.
I like how you used “I think” with “they know” in the same sentence. Sets up a perfect strawman.
The Iran/Iraq war lasted from September 1980 to August 1988. Almost 8 years exactly. Not sure what this has to do with anything. Unless you are setting up another strawman. You see, they had no problem fighting back Iran after Ollie North sold them VX nerve gas, which Saddam used the left overs to gas the Kurds in the North of Iraq.
I assume you mean Iran. What would stop them? International forces. The US is not the god damn world police.
They are doing a pretty damn good job against us right now.
This is also nothing more than your opinion. Why? Because there is a civil war happening in Iraq right now. Just because Bush and pals won’t admit to it, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Just like Rumsfeld thnking that if we don’t call the insurgent “insurgents” then they won’t be insurgents. Wrong.
March 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pm“Meet the Press” is hardly the title the program should have any longer. Shouldn’t it be more along the lines of “Meet Tim Russert, Republican shill, and softball practice coach”?
He is worse than worthless, letting Rice broadcast her lies unfettered the way he does.
March 26th, 2006 at 2:47 pmSpudge Boy-
Excelent rebuttal to Tundra. As retired General William E. Odom has stated:
March 26th, 2006 at 2:55 pm“Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed
far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created
the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war
by staying”. He goes on to say: “For those who really worry
about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not
to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal … and trying
to knit together a large coalition including the major states
of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a
strategy for stabilizing the area from the the eastern
Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the
United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic
error, no such coalition can be formed”.
The chance that Bush and Cheney will follow General Odom’s advice seem’s bleak, at best. Bush seems to think that admitting a mistake will be seen as, perhaps, a slur upon his manhood. If Bush and Cheney’s daughters were fighting in Iraq, one suspects that those two might be a tad more receptive to the idea of a rapid withdrawal from the sands of Iraq.
I like how you used “I think†with “they know†in the same sentence. Sets up a perfect strawman.
fair enough poor choice of words. I should have stated “I have seen no evidence that the Iraqi people want us to pull out of Iraq right now, Every poll I have seen basically says they aren’t happy we are there but don’t know when they want us gone for sure”. IN MY OPINION: This is due to poor poll questions.
I assume you mean Iran. What would stop them? International forces.
Yeah because we have seen the International forces come cruising right in when needed. Might want to talk to Africa on this one.
The US is not the god damn world police.
OK, So this is your opinion again, good to hear, hopefully this will keep us from getting involved in any more of the genocide taking place, nuclear research etc. I for one would be happy. Heck let the Afgans kill gays if they want, let women and children be slaughtered all over the world, until the UN says something we should stay out of it. I like it.
They are doing a pretty damn good job against us right now.
Following your opinion again. If you call this a good defense you may want to look at other places of the world in recent history that waged good fights.
Because there is a civil war happening in Iraq right now.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:19 pmUmmm, ok and I’m sure that it would be alot more contained if we wern’t there. It’s too hard to prove a negative here so I will say fine you are right in your opinion (Which is always BUSH SUCKS and is always wrong, sort of exact opposite of how Rush is on the right)
She continues to spin her version of the facts; I think they have lied and spun facts so often they couldn’t say the truth if they tried.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:20 pmNot only is the Bush administration out of touch with what the American public wants, it is also out of touch with what Iraqis themselves want.
They are not out of touch – they just don’t give a shit.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:21 pm#15, I happened to see the Lara Logan interview on CNN early today – WOW. She did not pull any punches. In addition to her, Kurtz interviewd an AP reporter and Newsweek’s Wolffe. It was a powerful broadcast. I think Kurtz later interviewed Bennet, but there was no way he could refute what had been said.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pmYes. Don’t forget to throw around some “hatred coming from the left” statement.
You are no better than Rush. At least you recognize that he is a republican shill.
You are trying to prove soemthing that isn’t true? Which branch of the military were you in? What base were you stationed at and what unit were you in? What was you job in the military?
I’ll go first:
4/5 Field Artillery Ft. Riley, KS. 1st Infantry Division, 13 Foxtrot.
Go get some military training and knowledge then tell me about how great of a job Bush is doing in Iraq.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#19 credjam
March 26th, 2006 at 3:30 pmThat’s par for the course with Russert. He can ask tough questions of senators and others sometimes, but when it comes to the admin. staff, he pitches soft balls and offers no challenge or rebuttal.
It’s amazing how he and his staff can develop rapid-fire questions to ask a Democrat, even asking one Democrat to explain the words and behavior or another Democrat; he challenges everything they say. When it comes to admin. people, it’s a free pass.
Which branch of the military were you in? What base were you stationed at and what unit were you in? What was you job in the military?
Army,
First Ft Ord CA (4/21INF 7th Infantry Division), Until they closed it.
Schofiled Barracks HI (5/14INF until we reflagged to the 2/5INF after our 6 month tour in Sinai Egypt, which was done at South Camp Sinai)
I was an 11Bravo (AKA Straight Leg Infantry)
Go get some military training and knowledge then tell me about how great of a job Bush is doing in Iraq.
OK, I’ll try
I’m not saying Bush os doing a wonderful job, but at least it’s something more than “Run Away”. Personally I wish they would cut our soldiers loose and finish this damn job.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:36 pmYes. Don’t forget to throw around some “hatred coming from the left†statement.
I was just thinking Hatred from you. I didn’t want to blanket the rest of the left.
March 26th, 2006 at 3:44 pmWho said to run away. That would be another strawman. Name a name and give a link. Who said that we should run away? Who is the Democrat that stated that the US should cut and run. I want a link to the speech that they said that.
As a military person yourself, you should know the difference between “redeploy” and “withdrawl” so don’t play word games here.
Second, as a military person, you should understand that Bush and Rummy sent way too few troops into Iraq. He is putting your fellow soldiers lives on the line big time and as a military person, you should hate him for trying to get your buddies killed.
11 Bravo explains a lot.
March 26th, 2006 at 4:00 pmWho said to run away. That would be another strawman. Name a name and give a link. Who said that we should run away? Who is the Democrat that stated that the US should cut and run. I want a link to the speech that they said that.
Ummmm, OK, You are asking me to provide a link to a Democrat saying we should pull out now? (I am putting your whole quote here so that I properly understand what you want)
As a military person yourself, you should know the difference between “redeploy†and “withdrawl†so don’t play word games here.
Ok, so I won’t play word games. I would like to know what the differences between cutting and running and redeploy home before the missions are completed is?
Second, as a military person, you should understand that Bush and Rummy sent way too few troops into Iraq. He is putting your fellow soldiers lives on the line big time and as a military person, you should hate him for trying to get your buddies killed.
Although I appreciate you telling me how I should feel as a vet, I think I will maintain my current stance of supporting what they are doing and belief that they can do what was tasked.
11 Bravo explains a lot.
March 26th, 2006 at 5:01 pmGeneralize a little more it’s good to hear. You called me out as a Chickenhawk and I explained I wasn’t. Now you have choosen to insult my MOS. I would throw some back, but I know enough Artillery guys who I fully respect. For that matter I know people from the Navy/Air force and Marines who did strictly admin stuff who I wouldn’t insult.
In an interesting article, Dr Kareem was asked is it better now or was it better then:
“The way Iraqis are living today shows clearly that they were indeed better off under Saddam.
Let me quote what Amnesty international said describing the situation in Iraq on the war’s second anniversary:
and, please note that AI report was from the SECOND anniversary. only a fool, an idiot, a neoconservative radical extremist–such as condi–would deny that iraq was better off under their real president. just a thought…
oh, and fuck bush
March 26th, 2006 at 5:09 pmWe stopped at the end of the first Gulf war (Approved by the UN)
Because Bush Sr didn’t finish the job Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens died! They trusted us to remove Saddam and help them. As soon as we walked away it got real ugly for many of them. Personally I don’t want to see it happen again.
If we walk away now, what will happen to the citizens there? I don’t know.
And your concern about Iran is interesting. If the iraqis can fight off the most powerful military in the world, are you sure you are worried about them fighting of the Iranians?
I don’t think the insurgency is fighting off the most powerful military in the world. I think the most powerful military is being handcuffed and not shooting at pwople shooting at them in Mosques, not blowing up the schools that they are firing from. If the US military treated this war like a war, there would be whole lot more dead. I don’t think (My opinion yet again) the Iranians would do that.
Are you saying the iniranians are a superior military force to ours?
Far from it, I don’t think the Iran army will practice the same restraint we do.
Why does everyone call me a neocon/right winger? I’m not really sure what I am. Maybe someone could help put me in a group.
I believe in Abortion in the first trimester/Mothers health/rape/incest.
March 26th, 2006 at 5:32 pmI believe in a small government federally and larger local governments
I believe in gay marriage (If we can get past the cruel and unusual punishment part of the constitution)
I believe in the right to own a firearm, strict penalties for any violations
I believe in the separation of church and state.
I believe in a strong military
I believe we should finish the war in Iraq since we are there now
I believe the government staying out of my life with the exception of national security
I believe that schools should be a high priority
I believe that we need to do more to save the environment
what’s her source? a FOX poll?
March 26th, 2006 at 5:43 pmThat kind of irresponsible attitude is what created Mai Lai, and the failure in Vietnam.
I feel if the troops in Vietnam had the same support as the ones in WWII we wouldn’t have lost
Clarify what you mean by ‘finish’, and perhaps people will understand your points better and be able to have a real debate.
March 26th, 2006 at 5:56 pm1) Get the Iraqi military and police forces trained to the point they can effectively fight the insurgency and secure themselves.
2) Build the pipelines to a point where they can have a good source of income and compete in the world market legally
3) Rebuild the schools and government buildings so that there is a future seen
1) Get the Iraqi military and police forces trained to the point they can effectively fight the insurgency and secure themselves.
2) Build the pipelines to a point where they can have a good source of income and compete in the world market legally
3) Rebuild the schools and government buildings so that there is a future seen
Comment by Tundra — March 26, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Shouldn’t #1 and #2 have happened by now? It’s been 3 years. I taught my cat how to do three different tricks in a day. And as I’ve said, she’s only a cat…
I used to be an architect. #3 can’t happen until the destruction stops.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:08 pmShouldn’t #1 and #2 have happened by now?
Yes! But because it hasn’t I don’t think we should leave. If it was you wouldn’t hear me complaining. Heck get some additional people over there to help do it. Put someone in charge that will get that done, fine by me.
I taught my cat how to do three different tricks in a day.
I realize it’s tounge in cheek, but training an army and police force in a hostile area takes a whole lot of time.
#3 can’t happen until the destruction stops.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:14 pmAll the more reason to get 1 and 2 done
Condi is already the worst security advisor ever. So bad, they had to create a whole new department to cover for her many mistakes. Now she can also be the worst Sec State ever, capturing the record for failure in two categories.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:24 pmYes! But because it hasn’t I don’t think we should leave. If it was you wouldn’t hear me complaining. Heck get some additional people over there to help do it. Put someone in charge that will get that done, fine by me.
So why hasn’t it happened?
I realize it’s tounge in cheek, but training an army and police force in a hostile area takes a whole lot of time.
How much? Can anyone put a valid number on that?
All the more reason to get 1 and 2 done
Comment by Tundra — March 26, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Personally, I don’t think they want it to. I learned a long time ago that people do what they want, and make excuses for the things they don’t want to do. I’m hearing a whole lot of excuses, but not seeing very much action. And before they spend another dime, they should come up with an exit strategy, so there are timelines to meet.
P.S. You seem more like a moderate to me than either a liberal or conservative. Someone who chooses by the issues, not party lines.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:27 pmTundra-
Your claim that “if the troops in Vietnam had the same support as the ones in WW II we wouldn’t have lost” is fraught with ambiguity. If you are referring to the support at home, that did not happen because the people back then had enough of the bloodshed and enough of the lies that had been handed down by the government. If you are attempting to argue from a military viewpoint, that argument is also bogus, since the U.S. dropped more bombs on that country than they did during WW II. Also [now pay particular attention since this next statement is quite relevant to today] the U.S. was doomed to fail in Vietnam, just as the U.S. is doomed to fail in Iraq, because the resistance fighters would have fought as long as they were able to breathe, because they did not want to be occupied by a foreign power. You talk about getting the Iraqi military and police force trained and rebuilding the schools. It has been three years. How long should it be until the Iraqis stand on their own two feet and control their own destiny? Do I hear five years? Ten? How about twenty? How many more Americans have to die and how many more have to return to this country with fractured skulls, severed spines, limbs blown apart from their bodies, eyes which can no longer see, psyches which have been permanently impaired from experiencing the horrors of war? Until Democrats and so-called progressives stop sounding so militaristic, there will be little to differentiate themselves from the neoconservatives.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:33 pmTundra the Vietnam example is noy militarily correct to compare the Iraqi situation to. Reason we are not fighting a civilk war after a colonial empire colapse. The example that bears more relevance is Afghanistan where a superpower invades a muslim country and both the indigenous population and foriegn fighters combat the “infidel invaders”. Any proper look at military history would admit this fact.
Since the Afghan example is more on target as to what we are facing in Iraq then a look at what would consitute “victory” is in order, in Afghanistan the Soviets realised that with out eliminating the jihadists they could not win but each military action they created more so by procecuting the war they were fomenting the enemies power and losing more and more, sort of like what we are doing. To complivate the Afghan example we also have a Yugoslavia style of civil war- ethnic cleansing starting to take shape, given this any goal that can be defined as “victory” will by its nature ally us with a faction of the civil war against other factions at the same time we are still fighting the insurgents. Thus the situations for the US deteriorateds daily from a stragetic and tactical standpoint because as shown in yugoslavia the “government” is only relevant to those who accept their dictates and since the “government” is being dominated by the Shiite majority the sunni’s to a larger extent and kurds to a lesser extenmt reject that, just as the non-serbian parties in yugoslavia rejected belgrade.
Thus your” I believe we should finish the war in Iraq since we are there now ” is not a real objective if all the relevant factors are taken into account from a militarily stragetic standpoint.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:09 pmPersonally, I don’t think they want it to. I learned a long time ago that people do what they want, and make excuses for the things they don’t want to do.
I agree, I would like to see movement for a plan as opposed to pull out talks, I would rather see demand for results.
And before they spend another dime, they should come up with an exit strategy, so there are timelines to meet.
The only problem with that is the soldiers on the ground will not get the resupplies they need because of red tape.
If you are referring to the support at home, that did not happen because the people back then had enough of the bloodshed and enough of the lies that had been handed down by the government. If you are attempting to argue from a military viewpoint, that argument is also bogus
I mean how the soldier feels. The moral of walking home and getting spit on, called baby killer etc (Which personally I would kill every foreign baby to save one American child ((Not a debate topic just my opinion))) How are they supposed to go back and fight?
U.S. dropped more bombs on that country than they did during WW II.
Two different wars. One was semi conventional and the other was semi insurgency
How long should it be until the Iraqis stand on their own two feet and control their own destiny?
how long should it take to build a small area fully up like New Orleans under perfect circumstances? (Not that they are, but when you are talking complete control of a country vs building a city 3 years isn’t alot of time)
Tundra the Vietnam example is noy militarily correct to compare the Iraqi situation to.
I didn’t go that route, it was brought to me on this one.
I agree that Afganastan is a much better example, Sadly I think we are in a better position in Iraq than Afganastan. I would have liked to see that one get done first instead of put on the back burner.
I must step away for a bit, I have a friend over and she is yelling at me to stop playing on the comp. I will check in later though,
Thanks!!!
March 26th, 2006 at 7:46 pmTundra given the Yugoslavia style civil war that is GROWING in Iraq we are not better off but sinking into a quagmire that will make the dayton accords seem simple. This will end with our withdrawl when the daily attacks overwhelm the militaries ability to defend the necessary supply convoys that are required to support the militaries bases we occupy. We will follow a vietnam style retrenchment toi larger more defendable bases giving up the smaller more exposed locations which some of our troops occupy. This would simplify the logistics problem and decrease the exp[osure of the troops. the need to secure the main supply routes would require the continued patrol of the MSR’s which would become IED and Ambush alleys for the troops. Both sides in the civil war actions would attack the convoys for needed supplies and ammunition if they thought they stood a chance of aquiring them since our equipment and supplies are more modern and superior to anything Saddam had which currently are the foundation which they operate from. Responding to these attacks will just push each sides sectarian armies away from cooperation and colaberation with the Americans. At some point any administration would have to see the loss of victory and the total deterioration of the situation where projection of US military power is not a viable option in the region due to the regional allies each faction has. We can not attack the sunni’s for the fear of alienatingf the Saudi monarchy, nor can we move against the Shiites in the situation because of the bathists and Al Quaeda ties the sunni faction has, plus the Shiites represent the only allies we currentaly have that realistically can contain the fight to control the population(plus they control ther southern oil fields). Complicating the situation further in and open civil war the kurds will move for independance where Iran and Turkey would both move against them. Thus the Shiites who would be allied with Iran would have a reason to move against the Kurds also. Thus we would have the two major segements of our current occupation that we operate with at odds and we can not help either with out alienating the other. the civil war gambit is the worst of all possible options and we are basically powerless unless we get the aid of Iran Syria and Saudi Arabia to help us in defusing the situation, but Condi is absoultely not able to coordinate this optrion given her credentials and non standing in the region. James Baker or Colin Powell might have been able to pull this off given the connections they have developesd over the decade and a half they worked in the region, but the current Security of State does not have the same standing so she will probably fail there as she failed in the run up to war in 2002 and she failed before 9-11.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:19 pmYou’re trying to ‘create’ a movement in a country that sees you not as liberators but invaders.
Comment by Ryan Neat — March 26, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
And let’s not forget – within a country with a culture that doesn’t understand democracy.
We forget that there are other cultures with different ways of life.
Though abhorent to us, there are cultures that used to practice cannabalism, because it was their way. Imagine if they invaded us, trying to save us from a life of puritanical work-a-holicism and convert us to cannabalism. Maybe a bit extreme of an analogy, but still demonstrative of how we cannot expect a culture to embrace immediate change, no matter how much we think it is in their best interest.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:30 pm80% of Iraqis want the American and British troops to leave Iraq immediately, so it is time to pull the troops out, and let the 80% slaughter the 20%!
March 26th, 2006 at 9:43 pmThere will be no end to the internal strife in Iraq (Civil War is another term, but the Bush administration is denying it is happening.). We have many factions in a struggle that affects Iraq, Iran, Turkey and other Islamic states. The Kurds in all three. The Shiites in two. The Sunnis in Iraq with factions in just about all the other Gulf states. Why W ever decided to stir up this caldron eludes me.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:54 pmThe simple solution would be to allow a referendum in Iraq on this very question. It would be a win/win situation for the Bush regime. If they tell the U.S. to leave, it allows for a graceful exit. If they say stay, then cover is provided to continue the current stategy(?).
Sadly, the simple solution is in conflict with the secret agenda.
March 27th, 2006 at 9:45 am#5 – Beth,
March 27th, 2006 at 10:32 amMaybe Condoleezza’s “great sacrifice” could be giving up the #1000 boots she was seen purchasing in New York City while Katrina was raging?!
All I can say is that people who assume posts of political leadership ought to take a vow of poverty. It seems that what being in position of federal leadership these days means is livng in the lifestle of the rich and famous while the rest of us struggle to survive. Is this how democracy works? I don’t think so.
March 27th, 2006 at 3:59 pm—–Some Iraqis — most Iraqis in fact —-
That is the same Condi who lacked the imagination about fiends flying planes into buildings and since the PDB did not have an action plan attached just ignored the bin Laden ‘determined’ warning, isn’t it?
The National Security Adviser, traveleing everywhere with the pRes, day and night, “In case he needs me” Condi? She doesn’t need to know what ’someone in the bowels’ might know, all she needs is the proper atire for a concubine and shoes to match,
March 27th, 2006 at 9:13 pm