The Ever Changing Definition of ‘Mission’ In Iraq
In June 2005, ThinkProgress noted the Bush was constantly revising the definition of our “mission” in Iraq.
Reporting on his escalation strategy this week, President Bush claimed “satisfactory” progress in many areas of the “new mission” in Iraq. Bush has changed the definition of our “mission” in Iraq so many times, he has made it impossible for the American public, U.S. forces, and the Iraqi population to have any confidence that the mission will be ever completed.
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]
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]
THEN IT SHIFTED TO ADVANCING DEMOCRACY
Bush: “We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. … Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation — and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans.” [11/30/05]
AND PROTECTING AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS
Bush: “In the coming days, there will be considerable reflection on the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and our remaining mission in Iraq…By helping the Iraqi people build a free and representative government, we will deny the terrorists a safe haven to plan attacks against America.” [3/11/06]
Bush: “We will finish the mission. By defeating the terrorists in Iraq, we will bring greater security to our own country. And when victory is achieved, our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” [3/18/06]
THEN THE MISSION WAS PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE IRAQI POPULATION
Bush: “In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad. Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead.” [1/13/07]
Bush: “[I]t’s the combination of providing security in neighborhoods through these joint security stations, and training that is the current mission we’re going through, with a heavy emphasis on security in Baghdad.” [4/10/07]
AND NOW?
Bush: “It’s a new mission. And David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation — to build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war.” [6/28/07]
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
All Bush is doing is missioning our troops into a circular firing squad. No plan B, no regard for the wasted time and lives of our brave young people. It’a all about ego and pawning this war over to the next President.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:35 amHe’s quite the missionary. I always figured Iraq was a faith-based initiative.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:36 amGreat post.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:37 am…”and it has nothing to do with oil”
July 14th, 2007 at 9:38 amAnd still no mention of the real mission–”OIL”.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:39 amAnd lest we forget, somewhere along in there it went form a secure Iraq to a secure Baghdad.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:39 amcould we possibly have a free nation (here…US) that respects the rights of its people and upholds the rule of law…why over there and not here??
July 14th, 2007 at 9:40 amAll Bush has to do is admit mistakes made, apologize, and then bring the troops home. But he won’t do that. His ego is more important to him that what is right. That is the sociopathic definition of a true megalomanic… An internecene ability to admit failure…
IMPEACHMENT!
July 14th, 2007 at 9:42 amIn the last entry, Bush said “… to build a free nation that respects the rights of its people…”.
Candidate Bush in Nov 2000 (re: Clinton in Somalia) said. “”Let me tell you what else I’m worried about: I’m worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.”
Nation-building is now our mission in Iraq… go figure.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:43 amThe primary mission is a war of cvilizations to address Islamic terrorism without actually addressing the causes of Islamic terrorism.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:45 amThe real purpose of invading Iraq:
THE AMERICAN EMPIRE
July 14th, 2007 at 9:46 amhttp://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07071305.html
Senate Democrats Sneak “Hate Crimes” Bill into Crucial Defense Bill
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 13, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Senate Democrats will hold US troops fighting the “War on Terror” as hostages in exchange for sweeping “hate crimes” legislation if the Senate votes this week, perhaps as early as Monday, to include it in the defense spending bill.
Instead of introducing the legislation giving sexual orientation “hate crimes” protection as a separate bill, Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) opted to introduce the “Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” as one of hundreds of amendments to the Defense Reauthorization bill requested by President Bush.
What lousy idiots!
July 14th, 2007 at 9:47 amWhat happened to my posts?
July 14th, 2007 at 9:48 amAll Bush has to do is admit mistakes made, apologize, and then bring the troops home. But he won’t do that. His ego is more important to him that what is right. That is the sociopathic definition of a true megalomanic… An internecene ability to admit failure…
IMPEACHMENT!
Comment by unbelievable — July 14, 2007 @ 9:42 am
July 14th, 2007 at 9:49 amThe first Bush-Gore debate (Oct 3 2000):
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It’s to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:49 amM12, that appears to be a bi-partisan effort. Please don’t lie, even though that is what we expect fro TP Bush-trolls.
-GSD
July 14th, 2007 at 9:50 amGSD @ 11
Lies and smears are all they have left. In fact it’s all they’ve ever had.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:52 amThe end is near. Sinners, repent your evil ways and repudiate the knuckleheaded King. His own words condemn him. And nothing you say could defend him.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:53 amImpeach!
Convict!
Imprison!
Comment by GSD — July 14, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Are you referring to Mr. Gordon Smith? Because he’s a slimy RINO!
July 14th, 2007 at 9:54 amThe “mission” is the same mission as it was in Vietnam. Make money for corporate America. And we have definately succeeded.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:55 amHe’s quite the missionary. I always figured Iraq was a faith-based initiative.
Comment by Just Me — July 14, 2007 @ 9:36 am
More of a Humanitarian based initiative. How were we to know that unlike the people in Afganistan many of the people of Iraq did not have the balls to stand up for themselves against islamofascism?
July 14th, 2007 at 9:57 amfrom the WH web site transcript of bush’s speech at the Naval College on 6/28/07 (link above):
“And this new strategy is different from the one were pursuing before”
Even his transcripts have errors in them!
July 14th, 2007 at 9:59 amThe primary mission is a war of cvilizations to address Islamic terrorism without actually addressing the causes of Islamic terrorism.
Comment by LandSurveyor — July 14, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Which is of course ISLAM.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:59 amBut, far more importantly than that is the fact that he once again tied 9/11 to Iraq:
“Now we’re in a new and unprecedented war against violent Islamic extremists. This is an ideological conflict we face against murderers and killers who try to impose their will. These are the people that attacked us on September the 11th and killed nearly 3,000 people. The stakes are high, and once again, we have had to change our strategic thinking.
The major battleground in this war is Iraq.”
July 14th, 2007 at 10:00 amThe vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.
Comment by Buford — July 14, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Thanks Buford. The trolls have to change the subject now because there is no defending the boob in charge. I just read an article which includes this:
If you’ve got any political antennae at all, any sensitivity to the moods and trends of American politics, you can’t help but conclude that it is all collapsing fast, and with it as well many of the multiple enablers who have assisted in bringing us this ugliest of disasters these last years. It’s all coming apart now, bursting its tawdry seams, and doing so not only with a tremendous rapidity, but with even a tremendous increase in the rate of rapidity.
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/ Articles/ In_The_Last_Throes,_Judiciously.html
July 14th, 2007 at 10:00 amI’m tired of hearing each new disgrace and over reach of this cabal BushCo. It’s time to stop this oooing and ahhhing…..way past time each time a new outrage appears.. It’s time to restore our country
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:01 amThat’s a great listing of the problems everyone has with this occupation… what was the reason for it? What is the reason for it now? It keeps changing!
What I’d like to see a list like this of “who is our enemy”. It seems to me that it has morphed as often as the reasons for the war. It’s gone from Saddam to Republican Guard to Baathists, to insurgents. Then it was al-Qaeda, then al Qaeda types, then “Saddamists”. Then it was Islamo-fascists. I mean, I’m missing quite a few, but it has changed every few months. At the moment, I have no idea who our “enemy” is in Iraq. Apparently, it’s regular Iraqis. Congress seems to think it’s Iran. Bush says it’s al Qaeda, the “same crowd” who attacked us on 9/11. What nonsense.
So like our “mission” our “enemy” changes just as often. You know what that means. … we will never leave. How can we? Whatever it is that’s out there that we need to fight will always be out there because it’s always changing.
We need to end this. We need to organize and end this ASAP. This isn’t an debating exercise anymore, people are dying for nothing.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:02 amGreat post. I just wanted to share the Webster definition of “mission creep” that I found on the web and the eerily prescient example that Webster provided.
Webster’s New Millenniumâ„¢ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source Main Entry: mission creep
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the gradual process by which a campaign or mission’s objectives change over time, esp. with undesirable consequences
Example: The only way to explain our involvement in Iraq is mission creep.
Webster’s New Millenniumâ„¢ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7)
Copyright © 2003-2007 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
I can think of another type of mission creep. His name is Bush.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:03 amMission creep long ago turned into mission gallop.
Hold your horses, Mr. Bush.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:04 am“However, I think we ought to put the challenge into perspective. In a democracy, the head of government just can’t decree the outcome. (Laughter.) I’m not saying that’s what I’d like to do. (Laughter.)”
bs
July 14th, 2007 at 10:05 amGive it up trolls. Look at this history of lies and distortions, and ask yourself if you really support the neocon cabal that runs the White House. Bush admitted, by his speech quoted above by Buford, that Dick Cheney is in charge.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:05 amDarth Cheneys’ lies are more numerous and more serious.
You cannot defend them, so go elsewhere trollmonkeys, your droppings just add to the stench emanating from the myriad lies wafting from the orifice in chief.
“islamofascism”
Would someone, other than a troll, please explain this word to me. It makes no sense.
The last poll in Iraq showed that something like 72% of the people in Iraq want us to leave and feel that our being there is making them less safer.
The last poll in America showed that something like 72% of the people in the United States want us to get out of Iraq and feel that the Iraq war has not made us safer.
Bush wants us to stay, Maliki wants us to stay, end of story. So much for democracy.
democracy:
July 14th, 2007 at 10:06 amgovernment by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
The primary mission is a war of cvilizations to address Islamic terrorism without actually addressing the causes of Islamic terrorism.
Comment by LandSurveyor
NIce comedy.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:06 amAll of my posts have disappeared…
What is going on around here?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:07 am“the Iraqis are beginning to understand that al Qaeda is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni, and Kurds alike. Al Qaeda is responsible for the most sensational killings in Iraq. They’re responsible for the sensational killing on U.S. soil, and they’re responsible for the sensational killings in Iraq.”
So…the goal in Iraq was to draw AQ into Iraq? Is that it?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:09 amThe enemy is 300 to 400 “Dead Enders”.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:09 amThe trolls have to change the subject now because there is no defending the boob in charge.
Comment by funky p — July 14, 2007 @ 10:00 am
No funky pee
You simplywant everyone here to regurgitate your talking points and agree with TPs agenda.
You libs are as simplistic, partisian and blind as you seem to think the conservatives are.
The President has screwed up his management of this war and may be a boob. But that does not negate the role the Dems played in getting us their and funding it.
You also do not want to face the reality of islamofascism or the implications of withdrawl.
Fine get the lame Dems to have some balls and not fund so as to force withdrawl if thats what you think is best. But get ready for the slaughter and the political fall out from it.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:10 amThe congress is a year or more behind the American people, and we need to wake them up at a faster rate. Write or call your representatives, and tell them what you think.
Trolls, you can try this too, but if you speak like you write, prepare for incomprehension of your remarks.
Support the Kucinich resolution to impeach Cheney. Bush is next. Write or call your reps and tell them what you want them to do. They will listen if enough of you call. You have something they want; your vote.
The most obvious signs of implosion, of course, are the Republicans in Congress who, one after another, are now ditching the president with sunrise-like regularity. It seemed like there was hardly a day this week when one or two more didn’t abandon the sinking ship of Bush’s Iraq catastrophe. Or should we say that you are “cutting and runningâ€, my dear GOP friends? Should we now question your patriotism? Should we note that many of you are up for reelection next year and, having seen what happened last go-round, are now “playing politics with national securityâ€?
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/ Articles/ In_The_Last_Throes,_Judiciously.html
July 14th, 2007 at 10:11 amActually the mission was always secure the Iraqi oil for Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP…..executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001 ….CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS Commerce & State Department Reports to Task Force Detail Oilfield & Gas Projects…Vice President Cheney urged the Supreme Court to block his adversaries from getting documents revealing the workings of the energy task force…and they caved once again !
July 14th, 2007 at 10:12 amOUR MISSION — Impeachment - Bush and Cheney! How many more dead till Republicans will decide to stop the WAR and help us stop Bush
July 14th, 2007 at 10:12 amFine get the lame Dems to have some balls and not fund so as to force withdrawl if thats what you think is best. But get ready for the slaughter and the political fall out from it.
Comment by Troll — July 14, 2007 @ 10:10 am
This would pretty much put the last nail in the republican coffin. The republican party would cease to exist, would have most likely have to reform as the crazy ass right party or something.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:14 amNo.
The mission has not changed. We set out to take down Saddam’s evil regime in order to bring Capitalism and Democracy to the Middle East. This will allow us to exploit the Iraqi oil reserves with our friends the Saudis, while at the same time short-changing the Iraqi people.
Thus far we have killed Saddam, and we are well on our way to a full success!!!
As Sage William Kristol says:
We should be happy!!!!!!!!!
July 14th, 2007 at 10:15 amComment by Krazny — July 14, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Not if its the Dems who force us to withdrawl.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:16 amHehehehe, poor Troll. So alone in his delusional world.
Some day you will catch OBL with your GI joe dolls.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:16 amThe original mission in Iraq was to get into Iraq. The continuing mission is to stay in Iraq.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:17 amOh Juan you are sooooo funny.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:17 amIt’s hard to believe that, just a few years ago, George W. Bush was The Perfect Conservative.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:18 amThe original mission in Iraq was to get into Iraq. The continuing mission is to stay in Iraq.
Comment by Ellen — July 14, 2007 @ 10:17 am
——————————————————————
Exactly!!!
Plus, kill Islamo-Marxists!!!
July 14th, 2007 at 10:18 amIslamo-MARXISTS? Groucho or Chico?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:20 am“Now, we’re not doing a very good job with the propaganda battle around the world. We created it, and we’re losing. And that’s one thing we’ve got to spend a lot of time on,”
Hmmmm. We created it and we’re losing eh?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:20 amBush wants us to stay, Maliki wants us to stay, end of story. So much for democracy.
Comment by Katie — July 14, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Maliki in Iraq is like Bush here; not too popular, and headed down.
We support the Maliki gov’t but did you know that the Maliki govt. is Shia. Like the Iranian majority. When we give these guys military
support, it’s like arming our enemies (we have done that with Iraq/Iran throughout our history.)
Ialamofascism: the conflating of two unrelated words to form a cloud of fear in an unthoughtful persons reasoning.
From Funky’s dictionary.
The President has screwed up his management of this war and may be a boob. But that does not negate the role the Dems played in getting us their and funding it.
You also do not want to face the reality of islamofascism or the implications of withdrawl.
Fine get the lame Dems to have some balls and not fund so as to force withdrawl if thats what you think is best. But get ready for the slaughter and the political fall out from it.
Comment by Troll — July 14, 2007 @ 10:10 am
You think that because I knock the christofascist in Chief that means I absolve the Democrats? Oh mind of little reasoning, they are culpable as well, now how does that make Bush look any better. Yes the democrats are pussies, but remember how they were looked upon earlier when they voiced their opposition to the war. They were called traitors. That’s right, if you opposed the Iraq war, you were siding with the terrorists. and the media played along, regurgitating Bushs’ talking points.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:22 amLooking across to the other side of the aisle, one could certainly be equally amazed at the ‘leaders’ of the majority party in Congress, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. If anyone could possibly be more ineffective at the job of opposing a reckless, dangerous and now publicly despised president, it is hard to figure how. Perhaps if they were to send Dick Cheney a dozen roses and asked him please to end the war he might feel more pressure than he has since January, when the Democrats gained control of Congress. It’s hard to know which would be more intense.
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/ Articles/ In_The_Last_Throes,_Judiciously.htm
l
Yes, by staying we are preventing the slaughter there. Right.
Up is down, good is evil black is white, and bush is right.
Oh! You must be the GOOD Mr. President, not his evil twin, Dippy.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:23 amSix months before Bush invaded Iraq, Al Gore said that a pre-emptive war on Iraq would increase the number of terrorists, undercut US influence in the region, and diminish US legitimacy in the world affairs.
George Bush said that his war on Iraq would last “weeks, not months,” Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war, and a tide of Democracy would sweep through the Middle East.
Al Gore was 100% right. George Bush was 100% wrong.
Rightwingers don’t have what it takes to win a war: regular contact with reality. They live in Fantasyland.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:23 amConsidering that the ‘mission’ changes every other week . .
It shouldn’t be very long before he fully admits that he and his administration lied our country into this invasion.
Then he’ll just follow that by saying that if they had it to do over again, they would do nothing different, because in their opinion, ‘it was the right thing to do’.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:26 amNext comes all of the msm and their highly valued sh$t spitters saying that they all agree, and then . . . end of story, on to what’s happening with the runaway bride.
Rightwingers don’t have what it takes to win a war: regular contact with reality. They live in Fantasyland.
Comment by Arthur C. — July 14, 2007 @ 10:23 am
True. True.
Let me back that up with a quote from Suskinds’s book,quoting an unnamed source, but believed to be Karl Rove:
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality‑based community,†which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.†I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,†he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.â€
July 14th, 2007 at 10:28 am“But that does not negate the role the Dems played in getting us their and funding it.”
Sorry, kid, but this is a Republican war all the way — you’re stuck with it and you’re stuck with both the practical and the political consequences of it.
“You also do not want to face the reality of islamofascism”
Since that is a completely meaningless term, there is no “reality” there. There simply is no unified “islamofascist” group of any significance anywhere. It’s a buzzword that serves to hide and obscure matters, not clarify them. Iraq is a classic example — if you claim that we’re fighting “islamofascists” there, we’re just going to laugh at you, since the reality is far more complicated than that.
“or the implications of withdrawl.”
Just as you cannot face the implications of remaining. What will happen when we withdraw is unknowable. What is happening now is not.
“Fine get the lame Dems to have some balls and not fund so as to force withdrawl if thats what you think is best.”
It’s happening. Each time this vote is taken, more Republicans are joining. They’re not entirely stupid.
“But get ready for the slaughter”
As compared to what we have now?
“and the political fall out from it.”
Since the large majority of Americans want the troops to come home, I rather doubt that there will be much political fallout, anymore than there was when we came home from Vietnam.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:30 amBAGHDAD -
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
[…]
Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was “natural” given Iraq’s turmoil.
But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like “an experiment in an American laboratory.” He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with “gangs of killers” in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:32 amArthur C and PaulB
July 14th, 2007 at 10:35 amKeep speaking the truth, there is nothing better to cleanse the vermin than to shine the light of truth. Scurry back in your holes, trolls, this is another battle you have lost to reason.
I was at a social gathering last night and the consensus was that there will be violence and a power struggle no matter when we leave Iraq so we might as well get it over with and bring the troops home now! Nobody thought that staying any longer will help anything.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:36 amis it Impeachment, yet?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:37 amComment by bogtrotters — July 14, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Zeppo
July 14th, 2007 at 10:37 amthe real mission, of course, is to allow Bush to pass this mess off to his successor.
Mission (nearly) Accomplished!
July 14th, 2007 at 10:38 amActually the mission was always secure the Iraqi oil for Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP…..executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001 …
Oh? If the objective was to secure the Iraqi oil, why are way paying so much for our gas now? Try to use your head and get a life.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:40 amfor the trolls:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19760628/
July 14th, 2007 at 10:41 amSo when does the revolution start ? We the people should be storming Washington, cleansing and purging it of its vile corruption with flag in hand not unlike Iwo Jima, to pierce the sacred ground. A dream of a real Mission accomplished!
July 14th, 2007 at 10:43 amI was at a social gathering last night and the consensus was that there will be violence and a power struggle no matter when we leave Iraq so we might as well get it over with and bring the troops home now! Nobody thought that staying any longer will help anything.
Comment by margaret — July 14, 2007 @ 10:36 am
—————————————————————————-
REALLY!!!!?!?!?!?!
Well in that case…
GET THE PRESIDENT ON THE PHONE, PRONTO!!!!!!!!!!!!
CALL IT OFF! LET’S SURRENDER TO THE MARXIST-MUSLIMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am#57: He’s just posturing for the domestic audience. He knows perfectly well that our troops leaving will result in a full-scale massacre and he’ll be one of the first to be hanged.
It’s scary how you liberals consistently think that America can never do anything right.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:44 amIraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20070714/ ap_on_re_mi_ea/ iraq
July 14th, 2007 at 10:45 amComment by joe cantwell — July 14, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Comment by Fan_of_Man — July 14, 2007 @ 10:45 am
I don’t think you quite understand…
WE decide when we leave!!!!
If we were going to leave things up to the Iraqis, why would we have invaded in the first place?
July 14th, 2007 at 10:47 amIt’s scary how you liberals consistently think that America can never do anything right.
Don’t try to put words in my mouth, you useless turd. It’s Bush and his minions who are incompetent. America can do plenty right. For example, in less time than we’ve been at war in Iraq, FDR had defeated Japan, fascist Italy, and the Nazis.
Bush can’t even defeat a third-world nation half the size of Texas. What a useless piece of shit.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:50 amGoals can evolve and change with time, it’s perfectly normal.
GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 14th, 2007 at 10:50 amJason Baddo says Tim McVeigh is the only true American Hero and the kids he murdered were collateral damage.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:52 am#63: Then why do you liberals keep rationalizing terrorists’ agenda (”Oh, they’re attacking us because we’ve pissed them off”) instead of acknowledging that the reason why they hate us is that we refuse to submit to them as their religion expects us to do.
We would have already won if the libturds didn’t fight the war effort at every step, but constraining the scale of operations and methods employed. Just look what happened with the terrorist interrogation program.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:53 amFor Sergeant Westphal, that night was a turning point. “I just remember thinking to myself, I just brought terror to someone else under the American flag, and that’s just not what I joined the Army to do,” he said.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges/2
July 14th, 2007 at 10:53 amBush can’t even defeat a third-world nation half the size of Texas. What a useless piece of shit.
Comment by Arthur C
well, thats because of two reasons:
1) US is not fighting Iraq. It is occupating Iraq
2) US does NOT want to defeat anybody. The present situation is just fine.
And just to put some balance: Russians defeated the Nazis.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:53 amOh? If the objective was to secure the Iraqi oil, why are way paying so much for our gas now? Try to use your head and get a life.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 14, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Seriously, do you need someone to spell it out for you?
That oil that costs oil companies about $4 a barrel. Oil was under $30 a barrel when Bush got in, it’s now $70 a barrel, but costs the oil companies the same. Do the math junior.
Special note; Iraq pumps 2-3 million barrels a day, but no one knows for sure because it’s the only oil-producing nation without meters on the wells.
It’s scary how you liberals consistently think that America can never do anything right.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 14, 2007 @ 10:44 am
July 14th, 2007 at 10:54 amNon liberals too ;>)
You might want to enlighten us by listing what GW got right. We’ll give you some time to google for that, but it’s unlikely you’ll find anything.
America is not wron…its’ leaders are!
Bush keeps Lying!
July 14th, 2007 at 10:55 amBushco’s mission all along was to steal Iraq Oil, make George “i’m not the idiot my dad thinks i am’ Bush feel like a man, and to bring Starbucks to the Iraqi people.
“Specialist Chrystal said that he and his platoon leader shared a joke of their own: Every time he raided a house, he would radio in and say, “This is, you know, Thirty-One Lima. Yeah, I found the weapons of mass destruction in here.” “
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges/3
July 14th, 2007 at 10:56 am***************!!!!!!!!CONSPIRACY!!!!!!****************
July 14th, 2007 at 10:57 am” Sergeant Bruhns facetiously suggested they pull an M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle up to the house and shoot a missile through the front window to exterminate the enemy fighters his commanders claimed were inside. They instead diminished the aggressiveness of the raid. As Sergeant Bruhns ran security out front, his fellow soldiers smashed the windows and kicked down the doors to find “a few little kids, a woman and an old man.” “
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges/3
July 14th, 2007 at 10:59 am(â€Oh, they’re attacking us because we’ve pissed them offâ€) instead of acknowledging that the reason why they hate us is that we refuse to submit to them as their religion expects us to do.
We would have already won if the libturds didn’t fight the war effort at every step, but constraining the scale of operations and methods employed. Just look what happened with the terrorist interrogation program.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 14, 2007 @ 10:53 am
We (meaning you) have no idea what winning looks like. Explain to us, learned one, what victory will look like.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:59 amA little reading on the history of western involvement in the middle east, especially just after WWI when Great Britain formed Iraq, would maybe help you understand why they are not that happy with our solutions for their problems.
Our solution could be summed up by what George Bush said BEFORE while he was claiming to look for a diplomatic solution.
“Fcuk Saddam, we’re taking him out.”
#9 — leave i to He’s12 to link to a right-wing “news” site to try to derail the thread.
But, being the cuious progressive that i am, i checked it out. And I found THIS little gem from Right-Wing Rock Peggy Noonan in the WSJ Editorial page. It’s dated yesterday and titled “We can’t fire the president right now, so we’re waiting it out.”:
It’s been a slow week in a hot era. I found myself Thursday watching President Bush’s news conference and thinking about what it is about him, real or perceived, that makes people who used to smile at the mention of his name now grit their teeth. I mean what it is apart from the huge and obvious issues on which they might disagree with him.
I’m not referring to what used to be called Bush Derangement Syndrome. That phrase suggested that to passionately dislike the president was to be somewhat unhinged. No one thinks that anymore. I received an email before the news conference from as rock-ribbed a Republican as you can find, a Georgia woman (middle-aged, entrepreneurial) who’d previously supported him. She said she’d had it. “I don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.” I was startled by her vehemence only because she is, as I said, rock-ribbed. Her email reminded me of another, one a friend received some months ago: “I took the W off my car today,” it said on the subject line. It sounded like a country western song, like a great lament.
(Emphasis mine)
What was that that just went rolling by? A wheel? This bus is in trouble, folks.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:59 amplease don’t feed the trolls.
July 14th, 2007 at 10:59 amStarbucks to the Iraqi people.
Comment by flex
and there it is
July 14th, 2007 at 11:00 am#62 you lose.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:01 amExplain to us, learned one, what victory will look like.
A stable, prosperous Iraq without the islamist elements or threat to Israel. Strong trade with US.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:02 amSome random thoughts:
If you all think this is all planning and scheming by “BushCo.”, here’s a conspiracy for you all to chew on for awhile: What if Dubya pulls the OBL “rabbit out of his hat” sometime, say, just before the November, ‘08 election? What if that was the plan all along? That should send shivers down your collective spines.
It’s good that all you Bush haters have places to vent your negativity and anger, but again, there will be no impeachment, no matter how loud you scream.
You folks ever study any history? From the comments concerning the evolving mission in Iraq, it would appear not. Check your WW2 history. Your Korean War history, your Viet Nam history. In WW2, our mission went from destroying our enemies, to rebuilding them as nations friendly to the United States. We’ve never left Korea. And we’ve always maintained a presence in Viet Nam, regardless of the “military pullout”.
The Iraq war is not about oil, but if it was, so what? Oil is something we need. If we don’t find and secure sources for oil, the oil is going to China, India, or another developing nation. And don’t think for a moment other countries won’t resort to military means to secure their sources.
Talk about “alternate” sources for energy all you want. So far, the quest for ethanol fuel has resulted in no lowering of gasoline prices, and now some folks are paying $5 a gallon for milk, purportedly because corn is now an extremely “hot” commodity due to competition from ethanol producers. So, you all have been screaming about “Big Oil”…when are ya’ all going to start howling about “Big Milk”?
If you don’t want us to fight globally for oil, then let’s open up our own oil reserves rather than locking them up under the guise of environmentalism. We’ve got oil all over the place. Offshore, ANWR, Utah shale, etc. China has oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico in places we aren’t allowed to drill, merely because China doesn’t have to follow U.S. law. Does that make sense to you? If so, you’ve got a “thinking problem”.
You all keep quoting this poll and that in order to justify your positions concerning disenchantment with President Bush, yet how many of you have ever been part of one of these polls? Be honest with yourselves, even if you aren’t honest here. I’ve never been polled by anyone other than the NRA or the Republican Party, and I’ve stated my opposition to Bush’s support of the last immigration bill. Just because I don’t like his policy there, doesn’t mean I don’t support Bush elsewhere. Regardless, if you read any of these polls, you will see that no matter how many questions are asked, if one question is answered with a negative towards President Bush, the entire poll is interpreted as a referendum on his entire Presidency. You all can continue to quote useless polls, and continue to fool yourselves, if you feel the need to justify yourselves, but the only polls that matter are the ones called elections. In case you havn’t heard, Bush isn’t running for anything anymore.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:02 amIraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.
BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
ADVERTISEMENT
The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.
Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was “natural” given Iraq’s turmoil.
But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like “an experiment in an American laboratory.” He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with “gangs of killers” in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.
Al-Suneid’s comments were a rare show of frustration toward the Americans from within al-Maliki’s inner circle as the prime minister struggles to overcome deep divisions between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members of his coalition and enact the American-drawn list of benchmarks.
In new violence in Baghdad on Saturday, a car bomb leveled a two-story apartment building, and a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-packed vehicle into a line of cars at a gas station. The two attacks killed at least eight people, police officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorize to release details of the attacks.
Thursday’s White House assessment of progress on the benchmarks fueled calls among congressional critics of the Iraqi policy for a change in strategy, including a withdrawal of American forces.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government’s collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, “We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.”
But he added that Iraqi forces are “still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation” to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.
On Friday, the Pentagon conceded that the Iraqi army has become more reliant on the U.S. military. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of Iraqi batallions able to operate on their own without U.S. support has dropped in recent months from 10 to six, though he said the fall was in part due to attrition from stepped-up offensives.
Al-Maliki told a Baghdad press conference that his government needs “time and effort” to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks — “particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference.”
“These difficulties can be read as a big success, not negative points, when they are viewed under the shadow of the big challenges,” he said.
In the White House strategy, beefed-up American forces have been waging intensified security crackdowns in Baghdad and areas to the north and south for nearly a month. The goal is to bring quiet to the capital while al-Maliki gives Sunni Arabs a greater role in the goverment and political process, lessening support for the insurgency.
But the benchmarks have been blocked by divisions among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders. In August, the parliament is taking a one month vacation — a shorter break than the usual two months, but still enough to anger some in Congress who say lawmakers should push through the measures.
Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday’s report “objective,” but added, “this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail.”
He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a “purely American vision.”
He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. “These are gangs of killers,” he said.
“There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaida in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias,” said al-Suneid.
He said that the U.S. authorities have embarrassed al-Maliki’ government through acts such as constructing a wall around Baghdad’s Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah and repeated raids on suspected Shiite militiamen in the capital’s eastern slum of Sadr City. He said the U.S. use of airstrikes to hit suspected insurgent positions also kills civilians.
“This embarrasses the government in front of its people,” he said, calling the civilian deaths a “human rights violation.”
FORWARD THIS STORY TO EVERY REP…. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!
July 14th, 2007 at 11:03 amJust look what happened with the terrorist interrogation program.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 14, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Ah yes, torture. Oh wonderful torture, must they give you up too?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:03 amSo far, the quest for ethanol fuel
Plus the fact that biofuel is not self-sustaining. You will always need more fuel that what the crops produce. Hence, we’ll always need fossile fuels.
Solar and wind power isn’t even worth talking about. It doesn’t scale.
Fission would work, but the treehuggers have made it politically infeasible even here (Europe’s a lost cause anyway).
July 14th, 2007 at 11:04 am” “These guys were really throwing up,” he continued. “They were so sick and nervous. And sometimes, they were peeing on themselves. Can you imagine if people could just come into your house and take you in front of your family screaming? And if you actually were innocent but had no way to prove that? It would be a scary, scary thing.” Specialist Reppenhagen”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges/4
July 14th, 2007 at 11:05 amComment by Fan_of_Man — July 14, 2007 @ 11:03 am
**yawn**
July 14th, 2007 at 11:06 am#79, you can quit sucking bush’s dick like it was life giving oxygen…. welcome back to 2007, have a nice coma?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:06 am#83, time for you mommy to lay you down for a nap since you are so sleepy, btw, does she know you sneak to get online?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:07 amThe mission has changed. At least us Democrats have not changed our defeatism.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:07 am“instead of acknowledging that the reason why they hate us is that we refuse to submit to them as their religion expects us to do.”
LOL… Well, mostly because that would be a pretty stupid thing to say, not to mention untrue.
“We would have already won if the libturds didn’t fight the war effort at every step”
Really? The Democrats have a) been in the minority for most of the conduct of this war, and b) have given President Bush literally everything he asked for. Can you point to a single initiative they blocked? A single weapons system that they did not fund? A single request for funds that was turned down? A single war initiative that was blocked or rejected? A single bit of Democratic/liberal strategy that was accepted and used by the Bush administration? And yet it’s our fault that the situation in Iraq is FUBAR? The mind boggles at such cluelessness.
“but constraining the scale of operations and methods employed.”
Really? And your evidence for this is, what, precisely?
“Just look what happened with the terrorist interrogation program.”
You mean the one that has no connection at all to anything happening in Iraq and is therefore irrelevant to the topic of this post? The one where we were torturing innocent people? The one that, according to the FBI, has been largely a waste of time and yielded no significant information? The one that has inflamed passions against us, significantly reduced world opinion of us, and has destroyed our credibility? The one that continues to this day, largely unchanged?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:07 amAl-Maliki wants us out because he knows our true agenda there and it’s never been WMD’s or democracy or human rights. Otherwise, we’d not be committing the “human rights violations” al-Maliki is referring to above (Post #80). I’d say that al-Maliki words indicate that he’s plotting a trial for Bush and Cheney with The Hague regarding the violation of human rights now. He knows that this will get our sticky fingers off their oil once and for all.
This is the most embarrassing news of all - that their government feels they can do better without us and essentially is booting us out. What a travesty after tanking our economy and killing almost 4,000 of our kids who will have to face the 130 degree heat while their Parliament has to go on vacation for a month because of the heat. This is the greatest debacle this country has EVER been involved in - bar none.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:08 amIf the objective was to secure the Iraqi oil, why are way paying so much for our gas now? Try to use your head and get a life.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 14, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Um… perhaps because the mission was bungled by a bunch of incompetents who didn’t pay attention to people who knew their sh!t unles those people told them what they wanted to hear?
Oh, wait — I just caught your last line. Obviously you’re joking. Good one.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:09 am#88 good call!
July 14th, 2007 at 11:09 amMaybe Bush is taking his month off in August along with the Iraqi Parliament somewhere on the French Riviera?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:10 amA stable, prosperous Iraq without the islamist elements or threat to Israel. Strong trade with US.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 14, 2007 @ 11:02 am
We had that BEFORE the invasion; well, there were trade sanctions but that just caused the death of 1/2 million children, so no harm done right?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:11 amYes, that was Clinton and Allbright said she was okay with that. That is disgusting, and even progressives must realize that. U.S. policy towards Iraq has always been duplicitous (look it up trolls) but the situation you describe as victory in Iraq is virtually what we had before the whores for war took over.
Iraq was a secular country, not Islamist…we let the “Islamists” in, but the Iraqis, as noted in posts above, are quite capable of kicking them out.
And if free elections give Shia control of Iraq (they really are Islamists) then we have an even bigger problem than saddam ever was.
Your guy screwed up. Royally. He has no credibility that any of his lame-brained plans will succeed.
Here’s the Bush motto.
If at first you don’t succeed, suck, suck again
what is more bullshit
a. the iraqis taking the month of Aug off cause its a little warm
b. our congress taking the month off cause they dont give a shit either
hmmm…..
July 14th, 2007 at 11:11 amFission would work, but the treehuggers have made it politically infeasible even here (Europe’s a lost cause anyway).
Comment by No-one in particular
Why our trolls dont have a clue about science?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:11 amWhy else would we be constructing a huge embassy over there if not to remain there and usurp their oil? Al-Maliki knows that drill and is calling us on it. That’s why there never was an exit strategy - because we’d never planned to exit and, instead, capture their oil wells and allow Big Oil to continue to feather their nests. Besides, a protracted engagement means mucho “war profiteering” for buddies of the Bush Cabal.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:11 am#93: In answer to your question: All of the Above! They’re both hideously incompetent groups of individuals.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:12 am“It’s scary how you liberals consistently think that America can never do anything right.”
It’s scary how you 25-percenters (and shrinking) ignore the fact that the Bush administration has consistently done everything wrong in Iraq.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:12 amAnd the only safe harbors in the city are manned by armed guards with barriers built and checkpoints at about every 6 feet! A total embarrassment on this country to even attempt to call this form of living “safe” by any stretch of the imagination.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:13 amWhy our trolls dont have a clue about science?
Ok. Show me a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that solar and wind power can scale up to power our society. Show me a scientific study that shows that growing and harvesting biofuel fields doesn’t require more fuel than what the fields produce. Show me a study that shows a cleaner, more sustainable and ecofriendly EXISTING energy source than fission.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:16 amPaul B: Right on the money! That’s why the trolls come here and attempt (operative word here) to hijack the threads. They can’t engage in realistic dialogue about fact so they attempt to obstruct the discussion at hand. They have nothing at all to spin into a positive for their Shrub In Chef so they attempt to contort and twist every point. They’re all Shapeshifters - all 25% and rapidly, vapidly decreasing number of this sorry lot of misanthropes and charlatans.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:16 am#78: victory will look like […] Iraq without the islamist elements
Iraq without Muslims? What are you gonna do, murder 28 million people? And for what, to salvage Bush’s battered ego? Or for cheaper gas?
Another exterminationist fantasy oozes from the spit-flecked lips of another brain-damaged bootlicker.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:17 am#99 That thread appeared on July 7 - you know - the Live Earth Movement Day! Get your head out of your disgustingly putrid butt and get with the program. A week has elapsed while you laid in your cesspool of delusion.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:17 am#100: I couldn’t give a flying fsck about GWB. Keeping the power out of the hands of the liberals - that’s important - and given the fact that we live in a two-party system, my only option is to vote for GOP.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:18 am#103, see post 100 again…
July 14th, 2007 at 11:19 amNow back to the definition(s) of the Mission - what “mission”?? And after defining the ever-shapeshifting mission, then we must ask what does the word “win” mean? These questions have never adequately been answers by the morons running this government and still cannot be answered; ergo, the continuously convoluted, ever-changing, shapeshifting mission of El Diablito (small devil) and friends.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:20 amA stable, prosperous Iraq without the islamist elements or threat to Israel. Strong trade with US.
Comment by No-one in particular
Isnt that something like ethnic cleansing? Didnt you bomb Serbia for the same reasons?
Threat to Israel? You mean with all the nukes that Israel has? Yep.
Strong trade? So…we are getting somewhere. Let me remind you of this old General´s saying:
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
– Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
Gee, the truth hurts.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:20 amLink
Iraqi PM: Iraqi Troops Ready to Take Over Security
By VOA News
14 July 2007
Iraq’s prime minister Saturday said Iraqi forces are ready to provide full security in the nation whenever U.S. troops leave.
Nouri al-Maliki told reporters that Iraq’s troops can assume complete responsibility for security at any time.
But unfortunately, we won’t be able to leave until the Iraqis sign over their oil to American companies.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:21 amKeeping the power out of the hands of the liberals - that’s important
This country was founded on liberal principles, dough-brain. If George Washington could be here, he’d kick your cowardly fat ass into the stone age, Goober.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am#106: You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am#104 That’s why these threads no longer attract people who desire serious discussion. I’ve noticed a rapid decline in bloggers here over the past few weeks and it will steadily decline unless/until TP gets a handle of these buffoons who spew their drivel without anything credible to add to any discussion of any kind.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:21 amOff to DKOS and C & L where the trolls are kept in line. Discussion sans trolls is definitely amped up noticeably.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:23 am#109: I see our idiot trolls are now quoting Stalin to back up their point of view. Their true colors are showing.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:23 amThe REAL mission in Iraq is about oil and establishing a permanent presence in the region (ergo, those massive bases they’ve been building). What Bush tells the country are an ongoing litany of subterfuges, which, of course, amount to lies. Iraq is an occupation that we can’t AFFORD to leave from.
They can’t come right out and say that the reason for going to war was oil and domination. It has nothing to do with exporting freedom or democracy. etc. It is laughable that anyone in this WH honestly holds such ideals.
It is simplistic and juvenile to think that the terrorists’ real aim is to forcefully convert us all to Islam (#66). Ridiculous and idiotic.
You do have to hand it to Bush and his neo-con handlers: he still has a good percentage of the public (what, 23%?) hoodwinked. These are the exceedingly thick-headed ones.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:24 am#110: So what, in your opinion, would have been credible on my part in this thread? Acknowledge that you liberals had it right, after all, and to say that I’ll vote for a Dem from now on? Is that what you want? An echo-chamber like DKos where you’ve got to tread along the party line very carefully and avoid everything that might be considered dissent so that you won’t get troll-rated and banned?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:24 amWhy our trolls dont have a clue about science?
Comment by Juan C — July 14, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Because they’re stupid.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:24 am#109, how does making omelets have anything to do with death and destruction and oil wars? dumbass….
July 14th, 2007 at 11:24 amYou can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
Comment by No-one in particular —
Then dont cry mommy when you are being attacked.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:25 am“I couldn’t give a flying fsck about GWB.”
Dear heart, do try to keep up. You insisted that we think that America can never do anything right. That is not correct, of course; we think that George W. Bush can never do anything right, and we have the evidence to prove it — most notably in Iraq. Even though Bush (and the 25-percenters) would like us to believe that the two are one and the same, and that criticizing Bush is the same as criticizing America, the simple fact is that they are not.
“Keeping the power out of the hands of the liberals - that’s important”
LOL… As compared to keeping power in the hands of a party that elected, and continues to unreservedly support, the Bush administration, an administration that has demonstrated incompetence far beyond the level of any preceding administration? Uh-huh… sure…
July 14th, 2007 at 11:25 am#116: How old are you? Do you have a problem with understanding metaphors?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:26 amto build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law
Too bad Chimpy and his Cohorts in Crime can’t respecr the rights of the people in this country and uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights in this country.
This is all bull s*hit.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:26 am“but constraining the scale of operations and methods employed.â€
Comment by No-one in particular
Bush did this by firing the generals who disagreed with him
but the only polls that matter are the ones called elections. In case you havn’t heard, Bush isn’t running for anything anymore.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — July 14, 2007 @ 11:02 am
It matters come impeachment time. Write your reps.
The Iraq war is not about oil, but if it was, so what? Oil is something we need. If we don’t find and secure sources for oil, the oil is going to China, India, or another developing nation. And don’t think for a moment other countries won’t resort to military means to secure their sources.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:26 amComment by O. Bigfoot — July 14, 2007 @ 11:02 am
We could solve the war problem and the global pollution problem by transitioning to renewable fuels. Ethanol from corn is not the solution, except for Monsanto and ADM; another example of corporatism getting their way. Solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, wind energy, all are better options. The area of the country that you occupy has regional resources (Arizona has lots of sun) that we should be using. Typical short-sighted corporate America; we can not drill our way out of a petroleum shortage, we have to invent our way out. That $12 billion per week we are spending in Iraq could do a lot towards research of renewables. Our priorities are short-sighted and just wrong.
But, you think that killing to take resources that belong to another sovereign nation is okay, if it keeps China from getting it first? Congratulations, you are truly an acolyte of the neocon movement that is running this country. Problem is, they keep being wrong.
Here’s a scenario for you. Say we have a resource in Hawii that china wants, so they send in their armies and take Hawaii. That’s justified, from their point of view in your scenario.
As for history, read some because eternal control of the OIL was the British/U.S. plan from the get go.
“Acknowledge that you liberals had it right, after all, and to say that I’ll vote for a Dem from now on? Is that what you want?”
Nah, we’d settle for a reasonable amount of logic, reason, facts, and accuracy, all of which you are notably lacking.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:26 am#114: So what, in your opinion, would have been credible on my part in this thread?
A sustained, carefully reasoned arguement.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:27 am#119, we know you steal all your parrot talking points from bumper stickers… lets compare omelets to war…… or what about a baseball game….. throw that one out there dolt.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:27 am#122: Oh, you mean liberal logic, democratic reason, facts from DKos and accuracy of MoveOn? Sure.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:28 am“You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.”
Well, most of us, when we break eggs, actually want an omelette because we’re hungry, not because we just want to break eggs. And we usually get the eggs into the bowl, as compared to randomly tossing them against the wall and throwing them on the ground.
You’re right … it’s a good analogy.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:29 amBecause they’re stupid.
Comment by Zooey
Ya think? ;)
July 14th, 2007 at 11:29 am#119: How ignorant are you? Do you frequently quote Joseph Stalin to buttress your pro-GOP arguments? LOL!
July 14th, 2007 at 11:29 amOh, you mean liberal logic, democratic reason, facts from DKos and accuracy of MoveOn? Sure.
Comment by No-one in particular
Well, there were no WMDs…so you know. You are the stupid one.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:30 amThe mission is to create chaos in Irag until the provisional government signs over the oil…then we’ll bag it and the GOP will declare victory.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:30 amm12,
Why is one Dem and one Repub lousy idiots for introducing the hate crime legislation in the bill. The corrupted system is to blame as to why it has to work this way.
July