Key Baker Ally Says ‘We Have To Stay’ In Iraq
Key Baker Ally Says ‘We Have To Stay’ In Iraq
A host of former advisers to President George H.W. Bush have gained ascendancy in recent weeks. His former Secretary of State James Baker and former deputy national security adviser Robert Gates will assume major roles in determining the future course of Iraq. Both Baker and Gates are protégés and colleagues of Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser under Bush 41 who opposed the Iraq war.
This assemblage of Baker, Gates, and Scowcroft has been described as “pragmatists” and “realists” by the media. The New York Times, noting his connection to Scowcroft and Baker, suggested the Gates’ appointment may be “part of a carefully orchestrated course change.” Neoconservatives have argued that the Baker-Gates-Scowcroft position “presents a clear shift” on Iraq.
But these claims by the media and neoconservatives appear to be creating a false myth that the rise of the “realists” will change course in Iraq. In a recent interview with the Turkish Daily News, Scowcroft explicitly argued the U.S. must continue to stay in Iraq:
Question: You were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Do you feel vindicated now that we see chaos there? How do you see the situation as it is today and what do you see for the future?
Scowcroft: No, I don’t have any feeling of satisfaction. Regardless of how we got there, we are there, and it is a difficult situation. Far more difficult than the administration expected. And it will be increasingly hard to stay in because it has become an unusually important issue in domestic U.S. politics. But I think we have to stay and try and manage the situation to get some kind of a resolution where we can have an Iraq that is relatively stable.
If Scowcroft’s position is representative of his colleagues, the changing face of the Bush administration will bear a close resemblance to the old face.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good Morning Vietnam.... same old story. We won't leave until Americans have had their fill. Those in power make too damn much money off of the military contracts.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:24 amOh no!!
Not another person saying we need to keep working until Iraq is a stable democracy.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:25 amUntil what? What is victory?
November 15th, 2006 at 11:25 amSounds like a good idea. Send the neocons to Iraq, and bring the troops home.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:26 amThe nut doesn't fall far from the tree.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:27 amWe have to stay in Iraq...so we can stage another Saigon-style disastrous exit.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:30 amThe New York Times is reporting today that some of the most vehement critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy are also saying, however, that the U.S. simply cannot withdraw its troops at this time:
Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say
But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.
Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it ...
Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum†as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.
But some current and retired military officers say the situation in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq is too precarious to start thinning out the number of American troops. In addition, they worry that some Shiite leaders would see the reduction of American troops as an opportunity to unleash their militias against the Sunnis and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to consolidate their control of the capital.
John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.â€
“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,†General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?hp&ex=1163653200&en=24984d8667d017f9&ei=5094&partner=homepage
I am not saying I necessarily agree with these folks, but it is interesting that even critics are saying no is not the time to withdraw.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:32 amWe can't just leave without trying to stabilize things, but staying is destabilizing things. What a fine mess you got us into, George.
http://docpolitic.digi-one.com
November 15th, 2006 at 11:41 amI am not saying I necessarily agree with these folks, but it is interesting that even critics are saying no is not the time to withdraw.
Comment by Exley
Make that some critics. So two generals, interested in not being held historically accountable for the current waste of humanity that happened on their watch, call for more American bodies to prevent a catastrophe that has already occurred. Try to get comments from those not responsible for the current mess, Exley. They'd sound more believeable.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:41 amYes the Bush Regime has to keep the troops in Iraq to control its OIL!
November 15th, 2006 at 11:46 amI am a "lefty," and I agree with him. Unless it can be shown that leaving Iraq will improve the situation for Iraqi civilians, we shouldn't leave. Now that we have a seemingly competent man as Secretary of Defense, perhaps we can make something useful out of it.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:47 amThey're not going to leave while the war shovels money into their pockets.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:49 am#10,
The Repugs got us into Iraq, but now that the Dems are in power it is there show now. I personally think that leaving Iraq now would create a huge mess and a completely unstable Iraq that will harbor terrorists for years to come. It isn't up to me know since the Dems are in power. Hopefully the Dems have a great plan for stablizing Iraq since they are the ones now responsible for it.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:49 amI'm not so sure that what he's saying is, or what the final outcome of the ISG's report will be, that it's all WE who will ultimately be staying there. A lot of our troops could be relieved by those from other countries, possibly some from Middle East countries. It's not foreign troops' presence there as much as it's US troops' presence there that's causing so much resentment. The area needs to be settled, but it might not ever be settled if the target of their animosity is the one attempting to do the settling.
One of the main reasons that we haven't had any real partnership with anyone else in dealing with Iraq, apart from the British, is that nobody else wanted to put the fate of their troops in the hands of people like Bush and Rumsfeld. Potential allies would need to have control over their own troops. The US wouldn't agree to that. The other part to it is that the invasion of Iraq was a commercial enterprise. War profiteering became policy. If European allies were going to help rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq and pour their defense euros into occupying the country, they didn't want to see those euros ending up in the pockets of US contractors. A cynic might say they wanted a slice of the pie themselves. I don't know. I'm reasonably certain that the voters in those countries wouldn't stand for letting their taxes end up making Halliburton richer, though.
If we can pry Bush and Cheney's hands off of the steering wheel and allow international cooperation, including the decision-making, in ending the violence in Iraq, it might present a way to get a lot of our troops out of there without letting the place fall into total anarchy.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:51 amBarfly, Zinni retired from the military in 2000, before Bush was even president., and was an early critic of the decision to invade Iraq.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:53 amRoger lol > who told you to claim Democrats are responsible for Iraq now? Tell Karl Rove to shove it, because Bush himself is totally responsible for Iraq debacle-fiasco! Dubya invaded Iraq, so he must pull the troops out!
November 15th, 2006 at 11:54 am#12
Well, Bush is still responsible for it, but I think we'll see Congress force the administration to do some vigorous problem-solving and to listen to voices other than their own.
There may not be a good solution to this mess. But, every effort should be taken to find the best solution. And that would be one that would result in the least bloodshed. Ultimately, it's the lives of the Iraqi people that should be improved. That was supposedly what the whole invasion was about, or at least one of the reasons given.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:58 amScowcroft remarks will make no difference to the facts on the ground in Iraq,and the determination of the majority of Americans to end this war. The last elections spoke of such drive to end this military conflict. Scowcroft was against the war from start..and he spoke of no gains from this war fouhgt now in Iraq. Whatever his reasons are now will have no effect,because he represents the minority on this issue.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:05 pmAmerica needs to expunge the Bush extended crime family from politics in this country. Yes, it's that simple.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:07 pmI really agree with chimpeach's comment above. I'm also an uber lefty-- but I think pulling completely out of iraq would be disasterous.
I'm a liberal who's actually heartened to see some wiser, more prudent statesmen at the table. We're in a really difficult situation, and I hope Baker and Gates can switch whitehouse policy from brawn to brains. It will take dipolomacy, and probably a wide international coalition to get us out of iraq without making the whole region implode.
It was a terrible mistake to invade iraq. But now that we're there, we're going to have to stop finger pointing on boths sides (red and blue) and come up with a real solution that's more than mere propaganda.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:07 pmBarfly, Zinni retired from the military in 2000, before Bush was even president., and was an early critic of the decision to invade Iraq.
Comment by Exley
From San Diego Union Trib.:
Zinni retired as a four-star general in July 2000 after 39 years in the Marine Corps, including a tour as CENTCOM commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
Touche'
We were both wrong.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:08 pmScowcroft is a criminal bootlick holdover from the Reagan Bush years. This whole ISG is nothing but another rearranging of the deck chairs, and only those as unaware as Matt Lauer and the Troll Brigade fail to see that. These guys do not change their stripes, and they do not quit the "mission" they've appointed for themselves - ever. The only thing that can or will stop them is the Constitution of the United States and the Justice Department, and that train's a-comin.
Tell me Roger - for how long can we afford $2 BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK?? What the hell happened to conservatives sense of fiscal responsibility Roger?? You're saying, Roger, that even if it takes 70 years and 100 trillion dollars, it's what we should do??
November 15th, 2006 at 12:10 pmYou can take Politics out of Religion, but you cannot take Religion out of Politics.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:12 pmThis is the problem with both sides of this mess.
When you add a military presence to these two elements, you have what has caused nearly every major conflict in history.
Iraqis have been fighting in the name of Religion for centuries.
Think about that.
We do not have a military solution to this fact.
Until we can find a way to approach our religious differences by talking, all military 'solutions' are a moot point.
Politics, in fact, are the most minor point of these 3 elements in this conflict.
I've not seen a plan from either side that address this key point.
#20....Barfly, I am honestly not trying to start a squabble here. I am just confused. What was I wrong about? I mean, if I was, I will own it to it. But I am just not sure to what you are referring.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:18 pmBut I think we have to stay and try and manage the situation to get some kind of a resolution where we can have an Iraq that is relatively stable.
As long as only ignorant and poor people´s kids are dying there.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:23 pmPulling out of Iraq would be disasterous? I believe that a few years ago, a lot of us were saying it would be disasterous to invade Iraq...not that anyone listened.
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:36 pm#24, Juan...You are sounding a lot like John Kerry's remarks when he called American soldiers ignorant, lazy, and uneducated -- for which he later had to apologize...
I am sure you don't want to sound like him.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pmAgreed: pulling precipitously out of Iraq would be a disaster. Thousands of lives will be lost. Chaos, terror will reign supreme. We must stay longer, until the situation stabilizes somewhat.
Same with Vietnam. If we pull out there, the whole country will go Communist, the Soviets will rule the planet, our entire way of life will be threatened, and a horrible bloodbath will result. And...oops, sorry about that. Disregard that last part.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pmWhat is the Dem plan for Iraq? Iran?? Tracking terror suspects????........
November 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pmI'm waiting - patiently..........Thanks, I didn't think Dems had a PLAN.
Exley
Right now, real power in Iraq lies in the hands of the Al Dawa party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, and with Al Sadr.
During the twenty plus years prior to the deposing of Saddam Hussein, the first two groups forcefully tried to transform a secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Islamic republic.
With Saddam Hussein out of their way, Iraq is now a burgeoning Shiite fundamentalist republic which has extremely close and long standing ties to Iran which The Decider called an `axis of evil'.
Why should oceans of American blood and treasure be spilled for the sake of this fundamentalist Islamic republic?
November 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pmYou are sounding a lot like John Kerry’s remarks when he called American soldiers ignorant, lazy, and uneducated — for which he later had to apologize…
Comment by Exley
He did not say that, and he should not have apologized.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pmBarfly, I am honestly not trying to start a squabble here. I am just confused. What was I wrong about? I mean, if I was, I will own it to it. But I am just not sure to what you are referring.
--- Exley
Your post was factual, so I am wondering also what barfly meant at 20.
I think Bush has done a "heluva" job of getting us into a godawfull mess. For oil.
He admitted it on nov 4th and sent his handlers into spin mode after his slip denying the president said what he did.
we should reward him like he did for Brownie's "heluva job" and fire his ass.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:44 pmNo Exit: The Baker Commission and the Trap of Reality
November 15th, 2006 at 12:48 pmRead the whole thing...
I am sure you don’t want to sound like him.
Comment by Exley
Dont be so sure. Ignorant (or fanatic which is the same) and poor people´s kids go there to die. I think you have your priorities messed up: instead of blaming me for describing them like that, you should be blaming your government for putting them in a place where they can be killed.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:48 pmHe did not say that, and he should not have apologized.
---- Zooey
Agreed.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:50 pm#31 He did not say that, and he should not have apologized.
He did say it and he needed to apologize. And because he did apologize for his insulting comments, I give him credit.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:52 pmWhat is the Dem plan for Iraq? Iran?? Tracking terror suspects????……..
Comment by mighty aphrodite
You maybe want to start in Saudi Arabia.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:53 pmHe did not say that, and he should not have apologized.
Comment by Zooey
Exactly.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#29 MA
What is the Dem plan for Iraq? Iran?? Tracking terror suspects????……..
I’m waiting - patiently……….Thanks, I didn’t think Dems had a PLAN.
If you can wait patiently for Bush and the Republicans' plan for over three years without ever seeing one, surely you can wait another two months for the Dems to actually have control of Congress and the ability to do something with their plan before it's presented to you.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pmWhen it comes to the outlook for Iraq,
November 15th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
#37 You maybe want to start in Saudi Arabia.
Comment by Juan C — November 15, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Agreed. And Pakistan.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:59 pmOh no!!
Not another person saying we need to keep working until Iraq is a stable democracy.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 15, 2006
According to this site, apparently democrats want to redeploy. So, both sides need to hit upside the head.
*ughs*
November 15th, 2006 at 1:00 pmAgreed. And Pakistan.
Comment by Exley
Wow! Finally! And do you agree that the method should not be using bombs that can kill (well, you know, a lot) of innocent civilians? Dont you think it should be a crime operation instead of a war operation?
November 15th, 2006 at 1:05 pm#43, Juan, I think the war on Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups should have multiple components -- consisting of intelligence, law-enforcement, economic, political, and military efforts.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:09 pm#44 Comment by Exley
November 15th, 2006 at 1:11 pmNow...and this is the tricky part. Do you agree that US shouldnt support extremists groups in order to protect US interests?
#45, I don't mean to pull a "Bill Clinton" here, Juan, but it depends on what your definiton of "extremists groups" is....As a general rule, I would say, however, it is always better to avoid dealing with extremists, if at all possible. But I need more specific from you in order to answer the question more completely.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#30. goodscarrier. The reason for sacrificing the blood and treasure to prevent the fundamentalist Islamic republic, is because of a prevalent ideology that exists in the Middle East. You can argue the reason the Middle East hates western culture is our fault. Even if that is the case, the hatred still exists. And it is that hatred that brought down the towers and threatens your way of life. Fundamentalist Islam has declared war on the west. Many here are unaware or ignore that declaration. When we pull out of Iraq, Fundamentalist Islam will still be at war with us, whether we want it or not. The examples of fundamentalist Islam ideology of the west is not tolerant. There is no mention of co-existence with the west. They talk about driving Israel into the sea and death to infidels (that's you and me). If it was as simple as crawling home with your tail between your legs, I would agree to it this minute. I just don't believe it is that simple.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:14 pmMA,
Here's the answer. It's called Strategic Redeployment. Check the link:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/05/strategic_redeployment.html
t-mac
November 15th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#43, Just one thing, Juan....I am not sure why you seem so surprised that I would agree with you that tracking Al Qaeda-type terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, germany, or where ever, is a good idea (and, hopefully, one which we are pursuing)...I have ZERO problem with having tracking, capturing, and yes, even, assassinating Al Qaeda-types where ever we can find them, such as when we captured Khalid Sheik Mohammad.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:19 pm"And it will be increasingly hard to stay in because it has become an unusually important issue in domestic U.S. politics"
unusually important?! going to war for bogus reasons and re-directing HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of our tax money to war profiteers should not get a good portion of our attention?!
give me a break!
November 15th, 2006 at 1:21 pmAnd because he did apologize for his insulting comments, I give him credit.
Comment by Exley
Kerry doesn't need your bad credit.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#51
Thanks, Zooey.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:24 pmPaul,
I think you're on the something. Maybe we should be talking about how the west has pimped f***ed with the middle east for centuries! It's no wonder that they hate us. You would hate us too if you were in their position!
t-mac
t-mac
November 15th, 2006 at 1:24 pmit depends on what your definiton of “extremists groups†is….Comment by Exley
Well, people like Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, the Taliban, OBL, Somoza´s National Guard (Contras), etc...
November 15th, 2006 at 1:26 pmWould the Carlyle Group, please move its head office to Bahgdat, please? Hire all those mercenaries and get them off the US payroll.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:29 pm#53. t-mac. I could agree with everything you say. Is the answer than, roll over and take whatever is coming to us? Call me self-centered, but I've seen enough towers fall here.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:35 pmWhat is the Dem plan for Iraq? Iran?? Tracking terror suspects????……..
I’m waiting - patiently……….Thanks, I didn’t think Dems had a PLAN.
Comment by mighty aphrodite.
Tracking terror suspects IS what we are going to have to do. In the chaos of war that is impossible.
Either go that route or fire the new chairman of the JCS. I put more faith in a Marine General's opinion than I would in the proposals of the folks who echo the VietNam rhetoric of stay the course.
CUT the damn anchor chains already, AND RUN for deep water where there is room to maneuver.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:36 pm#54, Okay, Juan..I see what you are trying to get it. You are asking whether it is ever acceptable for the U.S (or any other country) to deal with or work with less-than-savory people or regimes in order to protect its national security. The answer is, unfortunately, yes. And perhaps the most prominent example of this inevitability came during World War II....The United States, the British, the French worked with and supplied Josef Stalin -- whom I would assume you would agree was an "extremist" and all around "bad guy" -- in order to defeat the more immediate danger posed by Nazism. Dealing with unsavory, even criminal elements to advance a greater good is an unfortunate necessity...It happens not only on the international scene, but also in criminal law, with police and prosecutors cutting immunity deals with lower level criminals in order to obtain testimony against the "higher ups." Police use criminals as informants in order to catch other criminals.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:43 pm...and manage the situation to get some kind of a resolution where we can have an Iraq that is relatively stable.
You mean like under Saddam.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:49 pmPaul,
Why are we so involved in middle east anyway? Oil, war profiteering, and Israel. Oh, can't forget the PNAC's plan to pimp the entire planet. America is way too dependent on foreign oil, and Israel is way too influential in foreign policy. How about energy independence and a solution to the Palestinian question? I think that would be a good start. BTW, how many thousands ( maybe millions) of people in the middle east have perished becuase of American/Israeli policy? Dont' get me wrong, 911 was a tragedy, and the innocent didn't deserve to die, but did we have it coming? Just asking...
t-mac
November 15th, 2006 at 2:02 pmto deal with or work with less-than-savory people or regimes in order to protect its national security.
Define national security. Cuz I dont understand where the security of your parents was threatened when thousands of farmers in Guatemala were protesting the subhuman labor conditions they had when working for United Fruit.
I think you are naivee if you seriously think US national security is under threat. US has invaded more countries, violated more peace agreements and disobeyed more UN vetoes than any other country in the world. The rest of the world should fear about its own national security.
And perhaps the most prominent example of this inevitability came during World War II….The United States, the British, the French worked with and supplied Josef Stalin — whom I would assume you would agree was an “extremist†and all around “bad guy†— in order to defeat the more immediate danger posed by Nazism.
There are just wars and unjust wars. The war that Nazis fought against Allies was a market-opening war. They thought: If I invade this country, I can provide my products into it. If you think the war was made because Hitler was crazy and hated jews, you are naivee. Polish, russians...and yeah, US citizens were fighting a just war, because they have been provoked...well, 20 million russians lost their lives by the Nazis, so I guess, that is a war jutification. Stalin was a mass murderer, of course, but if russian people wouldnt have organized and starved and fought like they did, Russian wouldnt have won the war. After WWII there was something called Marshall Plan launched by US to "help" Europe to get on its feet...with some conditions that probably know.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:02 pmJuan, I have to run out for a second...I will respond at greater length later. But this I had to address now:
"I think you are naivee if you seriously think US national security is under threat."
Juan, if you had been in New York on September 11, 2001, I believe you would think very differently.
And, if you don't think Al Qaeda is looking to perpetrate another 9/11 in the U.S. and perhaps with a WMD, then I submit that you are the one being naive.
Be back later.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:07 pmEx,
November 15th, 2006 at 2:20 pmI submit that we are, and were adequately capable of defending and protecting our nation from a terrorist attack. If we could focus on the tangible, actual threats, instead of the pie-in-the-sky philosophy of SHOVING Democracy down a foreign country's throat, we'd be more safe. And if the Federal Agencies in charge of protecting us would simply DO THEIR JOBS, 9-11 could have been prevented. We don't need to be "scared" into protecting ourselves, we just need to not fall asleep on the job again.
Bottom line - thwarting terrorism is best left to police agencies. Sending the military after terrorists is more akin to hunting mosquito's with a bazooka.
violated more peace agreements and disobeyed more UN vetoes
Sorry...vetoed UN resolutions.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:23 pmJust another brick in the stone wall that is Bush's brain on his war president high.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:30 pmEx, how many millions are NOT being spent inspecting incoming cargo containers for a dirty bomb? Geez, Iraq had no WMDs to hand over to al Qaeda in the first place. Didn't you get the news?
November 15th, 2006 at 2:32 pm“I think you are naivee if you seriously think US national security is under threat.â€
Juan, if you had been in New York on September 11, 2001, I believe you would think very differently.---- Exley
We were attacked on September 11, 2001. My father was supposed to be at a meeting that morning at the pentagon, but in his own words it was "stangely postponed"
My son was in New York going to college and passed under the WTC on the subway just minutes before the attack.
Who was the cause is a big question mark that has not really been answered. There seems to be inacuracies even from the 9/11 Commision: Like why are 7 of the people named as 9/11 hijackers still alive and livingin the middle east?
How can the 9/11 Commission be taken seriously when they refer to 9/11 'hijackers' who are still alive?
November 15th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
#20….Barfly, I am honestly not trying to start a squabble here. I am just confused. What was I wrong about? I mean, if I was, I will own it to it. But I am just not sure to what you are referring.
Comment by Exley
C'Mon, you mean "Barfly, Zinni retired from the military in 2000, before Bush was even president.,"
November 15th, 2006 at 2:42 pmisn't refuted by "Zinni retired as a four-star general in July 2000 ? Why don't you admit you were wrong in stating that he wasn't there in 2000, when I posted a credible source stating otherwise? It's a small point, but if you can't even admit you were wrong on something so trivial, it shows how willing you are to overlook facts to make your case.
#68
November 15th, 2006 at 2:49 pmbarfly, the election was in 2000, Bush was sworn in Jan 2001.
#68, Barfly,
What Wayne said (Posting #69)
November 15th, 2006 at 3:23 pmEx, two questions unrelated (but discussed above):
1) Do you say that everytime US supported not so good people was ONLY to accomplish goals related to national security?
2) Lets forget about inside jobs. What do you think were the reasons that led Al-Qaeda to do 9/11?
November 15th, 2006 at 4:02 pmSorry folks, brain lock.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:03 pmSorry folks, brain lock.
Comment by barfly
You are a class act . :)
November 15th, 2006 at 4:10 pmIs there no end to the voluntary gullibility of those hoping desperately to believe that Bush will support any policy other than "stay the course?" Robert Gates is just another Rumsfeld. See http://www.consortiumnews.com for a detailed look at Gates' background. The man is just another friend of the Bush Crime Family.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:32 pm#72 No problem, Barfly....We all make mistakes....Yes, even me!
November 15th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#71,
1) Hmmmmm, Good question, Juan. I would say in the post-World War II-era, yes, the U.S. has been motivated by national security concerns. As for the period between the Spanish-American War amd the beginning of World War II, I make no argument that U.S. excursions into South and Central American countries were always motivated by national security concerns. I would agree with that economic concerns likely prompted many, if not most, of those military actions.
2) I believe the 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda were motivated by a concoction of religious zealotry (I know it is now in vogue to mock the idea that Al Qaeda attacked us because of our way of life. But I think it is obvious that Al Qaeda being a radical Islamic fundamentalist group finds American society to be obscenely secular, materialistic and depraved...Remember Bin Laden was heavily influenced by the writing of Sayid Qutb., who spent time in the United States in the late 1940s and left with a loathing of Western society, saying the West possessed "nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence); a desire to have the U.S. remove itself from the Middle East, specifically and most importantly to Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia; and lastly, to punish the U.S. for its support of Israel. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before 9/11 hardly ever mentioned U.S. policy towards Israel. They only did so after 9/11 in an effort to rally more Muslims to their cause. But I think it is unlikely given the history of the Middle East in the post-WWII-era that Bin Laden and his followers would not have been influenced by the Arab-Israeli conflict.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:53 pmSounds like more of the same old "stay the course" to me.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:34 pmIt's Groundhog Day folks, SSDD. (same sh*t, different day)
November 15th, 2006 at 6:29 pmIf you heard Abizaid today, you would have heard smething similar. It is going to be "stay the course" for the next 6 months at least. Then reevaluation. We're not getting out any time soon folks unless the Dems take drastic action in January.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:32 pmgreat...more neocon freaks to botch this war.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:55 pmThis is just a set up by the Bush family to save their reputation by putting a guy just like Rummy, so the war will continue to fail and the republicans can blame the democrats for it (if they go along with the republicans and vote Gates in).
I'm tired of politicians using our soldiers like this. Bring them home now!
November 15th, 2006 at 7:41 pm[...] Source:Â Think Progress Posted by Michael Kolanos Filed in Iraq War [...]
November 15th, 2006 at 10:24 pmUntil two or three months ago I would have agreed with Sebastian (19) about staying until Iraq is fixed. I agree with the Powell "you break it, you buy it" principle. But almost every Iraqi wants us out. And our style of administration is ill suited to the culture. There simply is no way we can be successful without, say, ten times as many troops on the ground and a contingent of 25 million fundy missionaries. Short of doing that, we need to bail out. The sooner the better for us, for them, for everyone .
November 15th, 2006 at 11:08 pmPay close attention here: IRAQ IS ALREADY A HORRIFIC DISASTER!
That's right, a neolithic failure! Steven King couldn't have envisioned this level of carnage with weed, Absinthe, acid, crank, and a jug of Jack while looking at Anne Coulter naked. There just aren't words to describe US incompetence in Iraq under the influence of Rummy Dumsfeld and the hubris of Dumya POTUS, who should have taken that page from his dad's playbook. Poppy tried and tried to tell Doufas Dumya that chasing Saddam into Bahgdad was a colossal mistake.
But Junior just had to pull his wick out and measure it in public to prove to his boys that he had the goods the same as his dad. Fortunately, two members of that loathsome package have been confuscated by the DEMS, and now rest safely in Nancy Pelosi's purse. Meanwhile, though, the nation has made clear that this military conqest built on lies and dead bodies in New York City 91101 needs to be over. The whole world has tired of a little tyrant in a big hat screaming from inside his little Charlie One Horse boots.
Ending this crap will be no worse for Iraq than prolonging our occupation. Trust me, if the Iraquis really want life, they'll live once we're out. Every other foreign population the American Armed Forces has depleted and abandoned has managed to live through the bad experience. Furthermore, they want us gone from there. Iraq is sick of us squatting for that oil. It's time to get the hell out, and let them have at running their own country THEMSELVES sans all US interference. We got enough on our plates just prosecuting homegrown crowns for all the lies and deceit that has brought the world to this point in life.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:57 amThe only "change" the neocons are going to enforce is the securing of the oil and gas treaties and extraction from the middle east partners. The lifestyle and lives of Iraqi people OR Americans or ant one esle has never been a concern by the Global Capitalists (the nice phrase) when it comes to excercising control over a nation or of an economy. Now that the puppet soldiers imbedded into the Republican Party were instructed to "stand down" so that the corrupted voting apparatus' were not challenged and therefore left lying in wait for the 2008 fiasco, and our public outcries can be diverted towards the Democrats, the Spooks are operating at full speed ahead, albeit, four years later than originally planned (because of Kerry was supposed to win and quell the outrage of the destruction of our Constitution and then he would be the sacrifised Democratic President of the Iraq War (remember he is a Skull and Bones to and therefore fullfilling his Fraternal Order)and thus the Rove plan rise in victory over the Republic with an unstopable Republican Blitzkrieg on the fallen wings of the Christian Right. NO MORE repeat politicians, irrespective of Party. Elect & Hold Accountable All Elected Public "Servants".
November 17th, 2006 at 11:37 amRorie
Bravo! Finally a great blog.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:06 am