INTERVIEW: Tauscher Returns From Iraq, Warns Of ‘Green Zone Fog’
INTERVIEW: Tauscher Returns From Iraq, Warns Of ‘Green Zone Fog’
Shortly after returning from Iraq, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) conducted an interview with ThinkProgress. She said she conveyed three things to Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker: 1) “the American people don’t want to see some kind of Saigon-like helicopter liftoff trying to remove people out of Iraq,” 2) they don’t want to see “ethnic cleansing and devastation of Iraqis” after we leave, and 3) they “don’t want the status quo.”
Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), who recently returned from Iraq as well, said his experience led him to believe the escalation should be sustained until next year. Asked to address Baird’s comments, Tauscher suggested he had become a victim of the “green zone fog”:
I will tell you that when you get in the Green Zone, there is a physiological phenomenon I think called Green Zone fog. … It’s death by powerpoint. … It’s always that their argument is winning.
She added later, “It’s very, very easy to be influenced, from their point of view, that things are better.” She said they will “shape” facts to show gains being made. Meanwhile, the reality in Iraq is that there is a lot of sectarianism in the government, particularly at the Ministry of Interior. “The MOI is basically this sleeper cell organization of Shiite death squads,” she said.
Tauscher met with “war czar” Gen. Doug Lute at the White House on Tuesday and impressed upon him the need for a strategic redeployment out of Iraq. “It can’t be 5 or 10 or 15,000 troops,” she said of the need to redeploy. She reported that Lute “didn’t push back on anything I said,” but was rather “somewhat in agreement with what I said.” Watch it:
This was Tauscher’s fourth trip to Iraq. She said, “It certainly hasn’t gotten better” since the last time she visited Iraq in 2005. “Because it hasn’t gotten better, it’s gotten dramatically worse.”
UPDATE: The Crypt’s Patrick O’Connor has more.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
182 Responses to “INTERVIEW: Tauscher Returns From Iraq, Warns Of ‘Green Zone Fog’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Tauscher swift boat response team in 3, 2, 1.........
Stick to your guns Ellen.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:55 pmWhat, no new rugs?
August 29th, 2007 at 2:55 pmFor those interested in a psychological analysis of warmongering, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.†It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pmSo what? Clinton did it too.
There, that should keep em' down.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:01 pmListen to her; she's got the truth!
August 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmFinally a breath of fresh air.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmThe truth may hurt, but it's better than the death of a thousand powerpoints that the generals put on parade.
Green Zone Fog...Nice term.
Brian>?? Mr Baird??>
Don't her points kind of mean there shouldn't be a pull-out right now?
Also, redeployment out of Iraq?? WTF does this mean? Is it just a stupid round-about way of saying withdrawl??
August 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pmBaird=bad
Tauscher=good
Both dems but one strayed from the company line; handy way to identify who the libs will choose to excoriate.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pmSo that's what those power point presentations do, they blow Green Zone Fog up your ass!
August 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pmso much for Republican corruption....Anyone think TP will put this story up any time soon? hahahaha!!!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5555.html
Soros-linked group hit with huge fine
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
Aug 29, 2007 02:19 PM EST
Updated: August 29, 2007 02:17 PM EST
The Federal Election Commission has fined one of the last cycle’s biggest liberal political action committees $775,000 for using unregulated soft money to boost John Kerry and other Democratic candidates during the 2004 elections.
America Coming Together (ACT) raised $137 million for its get-out-the-vote effort in 2004, but the FEC found most of that cash came through contributions that violated federal limits.
The group’s big donors included George Soros, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and the Service Employees International Union.
The settlement, which the FEC approved unanimously, is the third largest enforcement penalty in the commission’s 33-year history.
ACT, which ceased operations in 2005, was formed in late 2003 and rapidly deployed an enormous organization to do the retail-level grunt work of politics.
It opened more than 90 offices in 17 states from which it mobilized an army of more than 25,000 paid canvassers and volunteers to knock on doors, stuff envelopes and make phone calls urging voters to defeat President Bush and support Democratic or “progressive†candidates including Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.
The FEC dismissed allegations that that Kerry’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee violated campaign laws by coordinating with ACT or accepting excessive contributions from the group.
ACT was among a new breed of political committee, known as 527 groups, that stretched campaign finance rules on their way to shaping the 2004 elections.
Operatives used the 527s, named for the section of the IRS code under which they were registered, to spend money on politics outside the FEC’s purview.
But the groups have largely faded from the political landscape as the FEC has sought to rein them in. Late last year, commissioners handed down a total of $630,000 in penalties to three top 527s: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org and the League of Conservation Voters, and there are more complaints pending.
But the heads of two of the non-profit campaign finance reform groups behind many of the complaints, including the one that led to the ACT penalty, say it’s all too little, too late.
“This action comes more than three years after our FEC complaints were filed and nearly three years after the 2004 presidential election was held,†read a statement from Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, and Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center.
Plus, they argued, the fine “represents only a tiny fraction†of the amount ACT spent illegally on the 2004 elections.
Wertheimer also is involved in a lawsuit to compel the FEC to pass a set of comprehensive rules regulating 527s, without which he said the groups are likely to reemerge in the 2008 campaign.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pmOnce again Buster Clomb shows up to make an inane comment.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pmExcoriate? How erudicious!
Bottom Line with this Lib:
Sounds like the kind of politician we need to do the due diligence required in making a difficult decision.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:07 pmAlso, redeployment out of Iraq?? WTF does this mean?
Its identical to when the American and Filipino forces 'redeployed' out of the Bataan peninsula and Corregidor.
Run like hell, thats what the left means by redeploy.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:07 pmI think TP also missed an article today from the AP wire.
Trolls Hijack thread with off topic crap!
August 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pmOnce again Buster Clomb shows up to make an inane comment.
Nah, you just have trouble keeping up.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:10 pmAccording to Iraqi public sources, the number of persons missing since the Iraq-Iran war ranges from 375,000 to 1,000,000. This reflects two main facts:
Even if the minimum of 375,000 missing persons is correct, it reflects the scope of this unsolved tragedy faced by both families and missing persons. For each missing person there is not only one person suffering but there are whole families who wait for information or the return of their loved ones.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EVOD-76JGPZ?OpenDocument
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
August 29th, 2007 at 3:11 pmTrolls Hijack thread with off topic crap!
Hijacked with info the left doesnt want to acknowledge. Whaaaa? Is there an echo here?
August 29th, 2007 at 3:12 pmHey Why.......at least give me credit for posting that first......on the story before this one.
Soros is the dirtiest player in politics yet his drones on this website ignore that fact and spout his ideology like automatons........and then accuse of anyone pro-surge as Bush puppets. Irony keeps coming in spades.
Then RUanidiot whines about hijacking a thread and going off-topic. Wake up.....if you ignore the truth it will eventually be forced on you. Deal with it.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pmIm having the Paw family over for dinner tonite, Ill be serving chow mein.
Feel free to stop by, its only $15000 per plate.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pmThis was Tauscher's fourth trip to Iraq? And they haven't brainwashed her yet? Wow -- she must be immune to the PowerPoint offense.
This brings up the obvious question -- if we send our representatives over to Iraq, keep them in the Green Zone, only let them speak to carefully vetted individuals with approved scripts and bombard them with PowerPoint slides, couldn't we save a ton of money and give everybody the scripts and slides on Capitol Hill?
August 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm"Hey man, you gotta try this stuff..... hey, hey where you goin' man?
August 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pmYou know that Senator MC Cain dude? He digs this stuff....
here, here, I'll let you try a little bit, just for free man...
that's it, just crack the lid a little bit... breathe deep....."
This the same as what we used to call the 5 O'Clock Follies in Vietnam. Get all the reporters in a big room and feed them full of facts and figures and body counts and pinned-up maps and then take them out and get them drunk.
About the same amount of "truthiness" passed on in both places. Funny how things stay the same.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:15 pmcouldn’t we save a ton of money and give everybody the scripts and slides on Capitol Hill?
Comment by missmolly
LOL
August 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pmLove it!
Published October 7, 2004, in issue 0340 of The Hook
BY LISA PROVENCE LISA@READTHEHOOK.COM
For a recently formed company, Charlottesville-based Questerra wasted no time in getting in trouble... in Texas.
The story of the company's difficulties rose to national notoriety on September 21 when a grand jury indicted three top aides to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for money laundering and illegal fundraising.
Questerra is among eight companies also charged with making illegal political contributions to DeLay's pet PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC).
Did Questerra execs know that it's a no-no for corporations to contribute to Texas legislative candidates, which is where TRMPAC funnels its funds? And why is a Charlottesville company so interested in Texas races that it would write checks totaling $50,000?
"At this point, we're not allowed to comment because of ongoing proceedings," says Lisa Stokes, director of human resources for Questerra, which has offices in the Omni hotel. Stokes refuses to identify Questerra's lawyer.
"That's odd; it's the only business that doesn't have an attorney listed," says clerk of court Linda Estrada in Travis County, Texas, where the two counts of felony unlawful political contributions against Questerra were filed.
Since the indictments were handed down, Questerra's management team has disappeared from its website. Thanks to the miracle of "caching" on Google, the Hook was able to glimpse its CEO and president Tim Milovich, who does have some Texas ties: He used to work with Ross Perot's Perot Systems, which is headquartered in Plano, Texas.
In making allegedly illegal donations, Questerra finds itself in the company of some biggies: Sears, Bacardi, Cracker Barrel, Westar Energy, Diversified Collection Services, Williams Companies, and the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care Corporation, which coughed up a whopping $100,000.
Questerra wrote two $25,000 checks to TRMPAC in May and August 2002, which sent $190,000 to the Republican National Committee, where it was allegedly laundered and sent to the Republican National State Elections Committee. That group distributed funds to 20 Texas House candidates, according to the Washington Post.
It's no secret DeLay has wanted a Republican majority in the Texas legislature, long dominated by Democrats, to give the Lone Star State more Republican-leaning congressional districts. In fact, Democrat legislators fled the state twice this spring to deny a quorum and block a redistricting vote.
Founded in 2001, Questerra is a subsidiary of paper giant MeadWestvaco, and it markets 21st-century mapping technology.
Who made the decision to donate big time to Texas legislators-- and allegedly court DeLay's favor?
"I'm sorry, I really can't comment on that," says Donna Cox, MeadWestvaco's director of communications.
Homeland security is an obvious client for Questerra's intelligence-based maps. Using longitude and latitude readings, it's possible to "determine the intersection of multiple data sets together, producing invaluable information never before available," CEO Milovich told the Homeland Defense Journal in March 2003.
For example, a federal agent can pull up certain passport holders who've gotten traffic tickets within five miles of a power plant, Milovich said.
The Texas Republican Majority is not the only beneficiary of Questerra largesse. The company also wrote a $25,000 check to the Republican Governors Association and gave $20,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee.
Corporate political soft-money contributions are loosely legislated-- if at all. A group wanting to change that, the Center for Political Accountability, has joined shareholders in asking the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to require publicly traded companies to disclose soft-money, "527" contributions, such as those to DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority.
"We have been mounting a campaign to push companies to one, disclose contributions, two, explain the business purpose of them, and three, identify the corporate officers who made the decision," says Bruce Freed at the Center for Political Accountability.
"It's our policy to comply with the letter of all campaign laws and regulations," says MeadWestvaco's Cox. Questerra's parent company handed out $1,000 in 2002 to the American Forest and Paper Association PAC.
"It's very interesting that MeadWestvaco does very little soft-money contributions, and Questerra gave $50,000," says Freed. "That's some serious money." And it's double what the much larger Sears donated.
One other thing bothers Freed. "Here you have this company based in Virginia, and they're contributing to races at the state level in Texas. Why did they do it?" he asks. "I think that's a very important question."
August 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pmShe reported that Lute “didn’t push back on anything I said,†but was rather “somewhat in agreement with what I said.â€
I usually do this to telemarketers or people handing pamphlets out on the street. Hmhm....yes...of course...sure...exactly....ok...goodbye. I hope she doesn't expect anything to come from this meeting and his "agreement".
August 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pmI usually do this to telemarketers or people handing pamphlets out
Would that include the jehova's witnesses that come to your door?
August 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pmIm having the Paw family over for dinner tonite, Ill be serving chow mein.
Feel free to stop by, its only $15000 per plate.
Comment by Hillary Clinton
That's great! Cuz I'm goin over to daddy's tonight for dinner with the bin Ladens!
Next week it's the Saudi royals over at Jeb's!
Woo hoo!
August 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pmLiberalismisdead - Have you enlisted yet? We need more troops to keep the surge going. All Bush puppets need to get to the recruiting office.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pmSo the trolls are all in agreement that public financing of political campaigns is a really really good idea.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pmNow get back on thread topic or stFU, thanks.
Tauscher proves that ALL progressives are stupid sheeple who are narrow-minded followers who refuse to independently think for themselves. This disease of progs is easily seen in their fanatically automated reactions regarding Tauscher's questionable intrepretation of Iraq's situation. Whenever Demoncrats like O'Hanlon or Levin or Baird return and tell the truth--to their own detriment as they're hated in their own party--progs react with sheeple-like ideology, dismissing the aforementioned as Bush stooges or liars. However, as soon as a slu* like Tauscher returns and massages the progs' preconceived belief of how Iraq's going (it's a "disaster!"), then they all hypocritically laud her and kiss her a$$. This mental laziness among progs is really a damning indictment of their intellectual prowess. Progs are also charlatans for not taking Tauscher to task for the same reasons they disbelieved Vitter and Corker: Tauscher herself only spoke to the US military (getting their "talking points) and spent only 30 hours in Iraq.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:23 pmGreen Zone Fog all in my brain
August 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pmLately things just don't seem the same
Actin' funny, but I don't know why
'Scuse me while I . . . .
Tauscher proves that ALL progressives are stupid sheeple who are narrow-minded followers who refuse to independently think for themselves. Comment by Tauscherjustemboldensterrorists — August 29, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Ah, more projection from the delusional wingnut meth-addled GOP camp...
As expected...
August 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pmTauscher is truly one of the great idiots of our time.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm1) “the American people don’t want to see some kind of Saigon-like helicopter liftoff trying to remove people out of Iraq,†2) they don’t want to see “ethnic cleansing and devastation of Iraqis†after we leave, and 3) they “don’t want the status quo.â€
What comedien wrote this for this moonbat?
August 29th, 2007 at 3:26 pmShe should stick to California recycling and leave the war against Islamo Fascism to the grown-ups.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pmI would love to see one of these presentations and what they are asked about the facts they present and wht the responses are.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pmtauscherblahblahblah proves that ALL trolls are stupid sheeple who are narrow-minded followers who refuse to independently think for themselves. This disease of trollsis easily seen in their fanatically automated reactions regarding Tauscher’s spot on intrepretation of Iraq’s situation. Whenever Dupes like O’Hanlon or Levin or Baird return and tell the BS they've been shoveled they’re pitied in their own party–(Note, there should be a new sentence here as the run on sentence I am currently writing is much much much too too too long) trolls react with sheeple-like ideology, adoring the aforementioned as Bush propets or saints. However, as soon as a respected member of Congress like Tauscher returns and confirms the progs’ belief of how Iraq’s going (it’s a “disaster!â€), then they all rightfully laud her and see that she kicked some troll a$$. This mental prowess among progs is really a testament to their intellectual prowess. Progs are also credited for not taking Tauscher to task for the same reasons they disbelieved Vitter and Corker: Tauscher herself only went to Iraq four separate times, this time she spoke to the US military (getting their “talking points) and spent 30 hours in Iraq.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pmTauscher is truly one of the great idiots of our time.
Comment by Frank J — August 29, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Please explain.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pmPlease, let's not turn this tread over to Francine, Why and the other pea brained trolls. Let them talk to each other and we will talk to each other. If you try to engage them, you only enrage them so why bother.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm1) “the American people don’t want to see some kind of Saigon-like helicopter liftoff trying to remove people out of Iraq,†2) they don’t want to see “ethnic cleansing and devastation of Iraqis†after we leave, and 3) they “don’t want the status quo.â€
This bizarre statement simply doesn't fit with her stated position of surrender. The policy that she supports is the only thing that would bring about these events. So she is either an idiot or a dupe for some Moveon.org pony show. Which is it?
August 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pmI have never been a big Tauscher fan, but I have to say that it is refreshing to hear someone come back from a trip to Iraq and identify it as the "dog and pony" show that it is. Good on you Ellen.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pmI disagree with Tauscher.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIt's not 'Green Zone Fog', it's flat out lies and propaganda.
I guess she is being polite.
Beautiful rebuttal Frank, did you think of that yourself, or did your mommy help you? Usual wingtard crap, no all hat no cattle.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIt's a shame that Brian Baird was duped by a sham set of power points foisted on him by the General Staff. He ought to be awarded the Bronze Sucker Award with oak leaf clusterfu(k.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pmIGNORE ALERT! IGNORE ALERT!
Comment by Frank J
August 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pm.
Comment by RUCerious — August 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Don't fool yourself; my guess is KKKarl has some 'intelligence' on him.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pmNo, seriously.. Don’t her points kind of mean there shouldn’t be a pull-out right now?
August 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWhat is Bush hoping to accomplish in Iraq? I keep hearing about the "surge" but I don't hear what his latest idea of success is.
Anyone care to state what is expected to be accomplished? Please include the acceptable cost in treasure and lives.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pmSoros-linked group hit with huge fine
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
Aug 29, 2007 02:19 PM EST
Updated: August 29, 2007 02:17 PM EST
----------------------------------------------------
TP is partly funded by a Soros group.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pm#10
Must find appropriate thread!
Can't find Think Fast, it's way too far down for me to scroll!
Nothin wrong here, nothing to see TPers
August 29th, 2007 at 3:46 pmGood question.. I wonder if Bush is really trying to accomplish anything anymore?
August 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pmYep still waiting Japaner for Dem corruption story.
I assured you that this news would not be posted at TP
Told you so.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:48 pmNo, seriously.. Don’t her points kind of mean there shouldn’t be a pull-out right now?
Comment by François
I would suggest to read the points she made again. The one out of the three that could be used as an argument to stay is the one about Americans not wanting to see a bloodbath. But will oour presence stop that from happening? It doesn't seem so. It has gotten worse as the years of occupation continue. Sure no one wants to see it happen but do our troops need to stay and watch it happen while they can do nothing about it? Unless you have a plan that include pouring thousands of more troops into the country to secure every city and town in Iraq then the thugs will and are just going to move around and wait it out. Either we draft and pour all able bodied men and women we have in the US into policing Iraq or we withdraw...after all the mission the armed forces were sent there to do has been accomplished.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pmI keep hearing reptards use the word surrender when referring to leaving Iraq. The U.S. attacked Iraq. Saddam did not attack the U.S., nor did he threaten to attack the U.S. He was accused of owning WMD and having ties to al Qaeda. When that was proven to be a lie he was accused of desiring to own WMD at some time in the future. But the attack continued, he was captured & executed. As far as the U.S. & their preemptive attack Saddam was the enemy. There is no one to surrender to, no land to be surrendered, not even an objective to be surrendered. If the U.S. were to leave Iraq they would just be abandoned an illegal war with a country that did nothing to deserve their attack. Even if you subscribe to the theory that Saddam was a bad man & needed to be removed... he's been removed. Get the f&ck out of there. They don't want you there, you have no reason to be there. You're staying with the fictitious motive of protecting the people of Iraq while you continue to cause them harm. Apologize & go home. Or feel vindicated for removing Saddam and go home. But go home. Protect your borders, inspect your ships, do something proactive to protect your own people.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:50 pmHey, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were fined by the FEC....thanks Bob.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:52 pmI'm of the stance that a withdrawal will only cause more problems in the region. It is also immoral for us to leave as well (although morality has never before dictated foreign policy). We caused these problems. We shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place, but now we're there and need to rectify the situation we have created.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pmWell she sure as hell can't come back to her left wing constituents and tell them what they don't want to hear, i.e. the things are getting better in Iraq. That would actually put truth above politics.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_its_working_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0
August 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pmDave C,
Absolutely! We remain in Iraq because Bush is such a weak, inadequate loser that he can't admit a mistake. A pathetic little guy, his life peaked as a cheerleader and has been running downhill since then.
But he did find Jesus, and that simple fact buys him the adoration of 25% of Americans. Bush is their personal God and Savior and is infallible.
With a little practice you can scroll right past the 25% smaglickers' inane rants.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pm#7
Comment by François — August 29, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
I have seen the Dems BS plan to redeploy to neighboring countries. So when we pull out and the entire country truely explodes into an all out war between the foreign supported insurgents and the rest the Iraqis do we actually think that our "redeployed" forces could actually go back in an quell the violence? Absolutely not. That's why it's a fantasy plan.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pmThat’s why it’s a fantasy plan.
Comment by Tracy
Is, and has been, a fantasy plan all along...
August 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pmThe Dems badly want Bush to surrender in case they have to deal with Iraq and the consequences that surrender will bring. That is why they want the troops out now because they know that if they surrender they will be blamed for the resulting carnage.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm#61
Comment by Raven — August 29, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Yes that Dems are good at offering fantasy plans that don't work.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pmI have seen the Dems BS plan to redeploy to neighboring countries. So when we pull out and the entire country truely explodes into an all out war between the foreign supported insurgents and the rest the Iraqis do we actually think that our “redeployed†forces could actually go back in an quell the violence? Absolutely not. That’s why it’s a fantasy plan.
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Iraq already has exploded into an all-out war between Iraqis and the rest of Iraqis. This is why during the 12-18 months it will take to fully redeploy, we need to also work diplomatically with the foreign supporters of insurgency and get them to support stability. Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia cannot possibly want a power vacuum on their doorsteps.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pmWe have the same fog here in America. You take people who have never been to America to Las Vegas, Disneyland, or Hollywood. You would never take them to New Orleans, East LA, coal mines in Utah.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pmDiplomacy is saying "nice doggie" until you find a rock.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:15 pmWhy does this woman hate the needless death of American troops?
Must be a freedom hater.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:17 pmNo, seriously.. Don’t her points kind of mean there shouldn’t be a pull-out right now?
Comment by François — August 29, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Yes. She recognizes that an "immediate withdrawal" is a physical impossibility because the teleporter has not been invented yet. What she's saying is that the "surge" is no solution.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pmBut how can she know the surge is no solution on a two hour trip, Moveon.org dog and pony show?
August 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pmTracy, you're good at pointing out flaws in the Dems' plan but I doubt you're equally good at recognizing flaws in the Reps' plan that got the U.S. into this position. There was no plan and now there are few good alternatives. As I've said before, the Reps would be horribly upset if the troops withdrew and the killing stopped. They've played all of their cards betting on total devastation of Iraq if they leave, much like they played all of their cards on WMD being found. They've been wrong about everything to date, why would they be right now? And there already is civil war throughout Iraq, civilians are already fleeing by the hundreds of thousands, why do the Reps act like this isn't happening now?
August 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pmThanks TP for this information. As one of Tauscher's constituents I'm pleased to see that she's at least willing to educate herself about the disastrous situation on the ground in Iraq. The fact that this Blue Dog Dem is willing to consider change, and actually listen to the people of her district, means she may find her own way out of the "green fog". I posted about this at my Daily Kos Diary.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pmbut now we’re there and need to rectify the situation we have created.
Comment by François — August 29, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
which means a careful plan for withdrawal, like your daddy should have used.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:26 pmWith Democrats, Republicans, and Independents coming back from Iraq with positive reports, it appears that Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) is the one who suffers from "Green Zone Fog", also known as "Defeatism", or "Lose at all Costs Syndrome." Or, more widely known as "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
I'm sure the Democrats who see the progress in Iraq are pretty darn suprised to find that things aren't at all like what George Soros has been telling them...
August 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pmI’m sure the Democrats who see the progress in Iraq are pretty darn suprised to find that things aren’t at all like what George Soros has been telling them…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
And what progress is this? The tribes we've been bribing in Anbar to stop shooting us?
August 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pmYou're a clever one hughjazz! Using withdrawal to both describe leaving Iraq and as a form of contraceptive! Clever Girl.
Yeah, lets pull out, let the region collapse even further, and be completely responsible. Lets let them all kill each other (just as long as they don't kill us, right?). It won't be our problem anymore, out of sight out of mind. Who needs those "camel-jockeys" anyway, am I right my friend?
August 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pmBush Derangment Syndrome is owned by any idiots that still believe a single word out of his empty head. the truly deranged keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. This is the hallmark of the handful of Bush fellators left. The war was started by Bush, ill-planned by Bush, and lost by Bush. Our troops should not be paying the price for his treason and insanity. Get them out before they're all dead, and we end up defenseless against whichever country wants to pull the crap we pulled in Iraq. Because if all we have left to defend the country is the handful of cowardly rightards that spew here, even France will have little trouble winning here. And until bigfoot or any of the other armchair generals can define victory, they have no standing of any sort on the matter, since they haven't a clue what they're yapping about.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pmwhat exactly is the U.S. trying to accomplish in Iraq Bigfoot? Or better yet, what was the goal for this "war" when you jumped on board? I thought it was to remove WMD from Saddam. Then I thought it was to remove Saddam. Then it became liberating the Iraqis from oppression. Then it was to have the Iraq govt stand up so the U.S. stand down. Then it was to fight al Qaeda there so you didn't have to fight them here. What is the goal in Iraq and how will you determine it's been met? How do you personally measure progress in meeting this goal? Lots of questions to ignore, I know.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:35 pm"And what progress is this? The tribes we’ve been bribing in Anbar to stop shooting us?
Comment by toasterhead — August 29, 2007 @ 4:31 pm"
Do you pay attention to the news, or simply get your info from blogs?
Al-Sadr has ordered his militia to stop fighting the U.S. Military for the next "six months" in order to "re-organize".
While they are "re-organizing", we should continue to rout them out and destroy them, so they cannot "re-organize".
In other words, further proof the surge is working.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:36 pm"what exactly is the U.S. trying to accomplish in Iraq Bigfoot? Or better yet, what was the goal for this “war†when you jumped on board? I thought it was to remove WMD from Saddam. Then I thought it was to remove Saddam. Then it became liberating the Iraqis from oppression. Then it was to have the Iraq govt stand up so the U.S. stand down. Then it was to fight al Qaeda there so you didn’t have to fight them here. What is the goal in Iraq and how will you determine it’s been met? How do you personally measure progress in meeting this goal? Lots of questions to ignore, I know.
Comment by Dave C — August 29, 2007 @ 4:35 pm"
No questions to ignore at all, the answer is simple, since you spelled it all out. All of the above, and more.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pmWell, Frenchy, we could stay, let the region collapse even further, and be completely responsible. Oops, that's what's happening!
I realize you on the right have no use or regard for our troops, but I would prefer for our National Guard to guard our nation, not pillage and plunder and murder for the likes of you. Your ever-so-superior attitude seems to think that the Iraqis can't take care of their own country, and that we can, but you've been proven thoroughly wrong, and craven as well. Wrong about every single excuse given, wrong about every single result, and wrong about the Iraqi people. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Is it a point of pride for dumbass rightards to be so stubbornly wrong all the time? Is that why the Bush-fellating worship, because he's the best at being wrong there ever was? Why are you so insistent in continuing to murder Iraqis and Americans alike, for pride? Are you proud of your savagery, or your ignorance? Or both?
Grow up; you lost, you've been defeated. Stop wasting more lives because you're incapable of taking responsibility for your own bloodthirstiness.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pmNotice how toasterhead isn't offended by the Soros statement. He admits that Soros is telling TP'ers what to say and think. He just disagrees with your assessment.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:43 pmThe goals past the WMD's and removing Saddam have been reactionary, and not really planned. They're what Bush and crew could come up with as excuses as to why the fighting had to continue. Those aren't legitimate goals anymore.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmRoofles, you think I'm a conservative.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pmNo questions to ignore at all, the answer is simple, since you spelled it all out. All of the above, and more.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Of course no answers, and you will make up more lies and excuses to pour more taxpayer, of-the-books money into the pockets of those who need and deserve it the least. That was as cheap and transparent a non-answer as a cowardly traitor has ever come up with. Congratulations, you've proven your hatred of your country and its troops. Good work. Send another check to Al Qaeda, like Bushand Cheney do every week or so.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pmSo Bigfoot, given that most of the people the U.S. are fighting are insurgents, how would removing the troops from Iraq be deemed "surrender"? The only goal not met is that of the Iraqi govt standing up, which doesn't seem likely while the U.S. is there meddling. And since the majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out, and GWB said he'd leave if the Iraqis wanted the U.S. to leave, why don't the troops just leave? Why stay & incur more casualties on both sides? I keep hearing concern from the right about the potential for increased deaths if the U.S. leaves but it's a little late to fake concern for the people of Iraq. Clearly no one gives a shit about the thousands of dead Iraqis and the refugees right now. So why not leave? Why are you supporting putting the U.S. troops in harm's way? For what goal?
August 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pmNotice how toasterhead isn’t offended by the Soros statement. He admits that Soros is telling TP’ers what to say and think. He just disagrees with your assessment.
Comment by Liberalismisdead — August 29, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
what Soros statement? Are you completely deranged?
never mind.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:47 pmNEWS FLASH: AMERICANS HAVE BEEN DEFEATED IN IRAQ
Hughjazz, an anonymous poster on Think Communist has said so. Didn't Harry Reid get torn a new one for suggesting this? I vote Hughjazz to be awarded the "Hanoi Jane" and "Neville Chamberlain" awards simultaneously. Congrats Hugh. I'm sure the troops would love for you to visit them.....if only for a day.......
August 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pmronjazz, your are an idiot. If I sent the crap you post to the troops, about how you think they are all pillaging, plundering, and murdering, and they figured out who you were, they would pobably come back here and kick your ass. And I would probably help them, as you deserve it.
You are an anti-military bigot who doesn't deserve the protection our military is giving you. But you know what? Our military selflessly does it anyways, because they are noble, just, true fighting men and women who believe in their mission. They protect you, and you continuously verbally spit in their faces.
I believe you would be one who would spit on them for real if you had the chance, you worthless, lowlife pig.
Personally, I'm glad the military thinks you are worth protecting, for I certainly do not.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pmWhy are you supporting putting the U.S. troops in harm’s way? For what goal?
Comment by Dave C — August 29, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Dave C, they aren't men. They are sissies who can't admit mistakes, they are little kids who will not own up to their horrible screwups. Their goal is to simply pass it off to the next administration, and then run away. They are good at running away, that's the example set by their "leader", the clown who disappeared on 9/11, with the networks asking, that evening "and where is George Bush?", and Cheney, in his undisclosed coffin, hiding from their constituents. sound bites, free speech zones, screened audiences, photo ops, nothing but dog and pony shows from this bunch of sissy crybabies.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pmAl-Sadr has ordered his militia to stop fighting the U.S. Military for the next “six months†in order to “re-organizeâ€.
While they are “re-organizingâ€, we should continue to rout them out and destroy them, so they cannot “re-organizeâ€.
In other words, further proof the surge is working.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
No it doesn't. As-Sadr is reorganizing because his army has been locked in a two-day battle with the Badr brigades in Karbala' and he wants to show that he still has operational control. If not, the Jaysh al-Mahdi is going to split into multiple factions, turning the Shi'ite-Shi'ite civil war in the south to a Shi'ite-Shi'ite-Shi'ite-Shi'ite civil war. The U.S. troop surge has had little if anything to do with it.
And no, we shouldn't "rout them out." We need as-Sadr's army to give us safe passage through southern Iraq, and we need Moqtada himself to rejoin the "coalition of the four" if we want the Iraqi government to have any shred of legitimacy.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm"...you worthless, lowlife pig."
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Where's my pizza, hairball, did you scarf it down, stuck in traffic?
August 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pmNotice how toasterhead isn’t offended by the Soros statement. He admits that Soros is telling TP’ers what to say and think. He just disagrees with your assessment.
Comment by Liberalismisdead — August 29, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
What the hell are you talking about? What does George Soros have to do with anything?
August 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pmPersonally, I’m glad the military thinks you are worth protecting, for I certainly do not.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
You've very clearly never had any contact with a soldier. I have relatives in service, and I have always spoken out against them being used by Republican thieves as pawns in their games of enriching defense contractors. Smedley Butler, USMC general, agrees fully with me, as do many of the troops I know personally. There are very few who still believe that this exercise in madness is about defending anything except Bush's cowardly, oversized, pointless ego. You are a fraud and a coward, that much is clear. Your pointless smears and ignorant lies about me and my motives show you for a typical brainless, immoral wingnut coward. Send your wife's kids off to die for oil, that will show everybody what a brave American you aren't. The military is not protecting me, they are protecting your lies and inability to get it right, and they are doing it at the cost of their lives. A shitty deal for them at best. If you were there with them, you'd have a tiny little point to your bullshit, but you're not. So shut up and go jack off to Soldier Of Fortune, poser.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pmMuqtada al-Sadr has just announced a six-month suspension of military activity by the Mahdi Army to provide for the "rehabilitation" of that force, which has more or less splintered. The suspension includes a cessation of attacks on American forces.
It's unclear how much practical effect this edict will have, but one would think that it can only lead to further reduction in sectarian violence.
TP, will you post this in your blog? It's POSITIVE NEWS IN IRAQ... Is TP capable of posting positive developments?...
August 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pm"Why are you supporting putting the U.S. troops in harm’s way? For what goal?
Comment by Dave C — August 29, 2007 @ 4:46 pm"
Because:
1: The Military overwhelmingly believes in their mission, and they are the experts. I havn't met a military man or women yet who has returned from Iraq to tell me their mission, no matter how hard, wasn't worth it. I'm not saying they aren't glad to be back, but they know in their hearts they are doing the right thing.
2: The mission is a free and stable Iraq. The United States NEVER leaves a nation defenseless after we defeat them. How long were we in Germany? How long did we run Germany after WW2? Some say we still do. Do a Google on it someday, you will be suprised..I was. How long did we occupy Japan? We still havn't left Korea. Are you saying the Iraqis do not deserve the same benefits we have given Germany, Japan, or Korea? What, is their skin too dark for you?
3: We cannot allow Iran, with it's radical regimes begun through the inept Jimmy "The Peanut" Carter's inaction, to fill the vacuum left in Iraq if the United States gives up and run home with it's tail between it's legs.
George Bush told us, and congress, that the fight against terrorism would not finish in his administration, and it would most likely not be over in our lifetimes. The idea of a friendly and stable Iraq from which to base our anti-terrorist activities is a good one, and I support it.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pmMuqtada al-Sadr has just announced a six-month suspension of military activity by the Mahdi Army to provide for the “rehabilitation†of that force, which has more or less splintered. The suspension includes a cessation of attacks on American forces.
It’s unclear how much practical effect this edict will have, but one would think that it can only lead to further reduction in sectarian violence.
TP, will you post this in your blog? It’s POSITIVE NEWS IN IRAQ… Is TP capable of posting positive developments?…
Comment by JT — August 29, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
And make sure you believe every word, JT. Because what it means is that our troops can come home, right? we won, and we can get them home for Christmas, right?
Fool.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pmThe mission is a free and stable Iraq. The United States NEVER leaves a nation defenseless after we defeat them.
Um, the people you're fighting right now are mostly Iraqi. I guess you haven't rendered the country defenseless yet. Perhaps your mission of leaving Iraq "free & stable" would be better served by the U.S. leaving. Clearly their freedoms might increase to pre-war status, and the stability might follow too.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pmThe idea of a friendly and stable Iraq from which to base our anti-terrorist activities is a good one, and I support it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Then you shouldn't have supported murdering hundreds of thousands of them for no reason, and creating a terrorist magnet the likes of which the world has never before seen. A friendly and stable Iraq is never going to come out of a US dictator murdering the populace and stealing their resources. In fact, had GHWBush not rat-f*cked Saddam over Kuwait, a friendly and stable Iraq is exactly what we would have today. You're dead wrong again.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pmHahah, Hughjazz, just keep digging that hole buddy!
August 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pmMuqtada al-Sadr has just announced a six-month suspension of military activity by the Mahdi Army to provide for the “rehabilitation†of that force, which has more or less splintered. The suspension includes a cessation of attacks on American forces.
It’s unclear how much practical effect this edict will have, but one would think that it can only lead to further reduction in sectarian violence.
TP, will you post this in your blog? It’s POSITIVE NEWS IN IRAQ… Is TP capable of posting positive developments?…
Comment by JT — August 29, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
I really don't see how this is positive news. It's only positive is as-Sadr can hold together his army and enter into the proposed talks with the SIIC. If the Mahdi Army splits and the factions start fighting each other AND the Badr Brigades, it's much worse for the people of Iraq.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pmGeorge Bush told us, and congress, that the fight against terrorism would not finish in his administration
Because he was the inept leader of said fight. of course it would not finish in his administration, because of rank incompetence, greed and treason. he couldn't finish a tabletop.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pmHughjazz, you're an interesting creature. You're so anti-bush it would be funny if it weren't so sad. Go extreme or go home, right?
August 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pm"Where’s my pizza, hairball, did you scarf it down, stuck in traffic?
Comment by Sasquatch — August 29, 2007 @ 5:00 pm"
Sorry, I think you have a reading problem. I told you before I don't deliver pizza... I have a buddy who's wife works for Dominos...so you can call them up if you want..need their number?
I have a coupon for a buy one-get one free pizza from Papa John's, need to borrow it? (It's good for a year, from a neighbor who was selling them to raise money for football), you would just have to give it back when your are done.
That's the best I can do. If you need to get your kids to read this to you, don't be ashamed. A lot of libs can't read.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pmHahah, Hughjazz, just keep digging that hole buddy!
Comment by François — August 29, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
I'll make sure it's deep enough for you and the rest of the GOP, as we bury you forever next year.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pmlollercoaster.. you think I'm a Republican.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pm"Um, the people you’re fighting right now are mostly Iraqi. I guess you haven’t rendered the country defenseless yet. Perhaps your mission of leaving Iraq “free & stable†would be better served by the U.S. leaving. Clearly their freedoms might increase to pre-war status, and the stability might follow too.
Comment by Dave C — August 29, 2007 @ 5:07 pm"
Oh, so you would have the Iraqis submit to a murderous dictator again? What do your friends think of you, that is, if you have any? Do they know you would sell them out in a heartbeat?
August 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pm"Because he was the inept leader of said fight. of course it would not finish in his administration, because of rank incompetence, greed and treason. he couldn’t finish a tabletop.
Comment by ronjazz — August 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm"
Wrong, as usual, Neville. But thanks for playing.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:17 pmAnti-Bush is pro-America. That's the way it is, for the 70+% who place their country above their party, and their Constitution above their Deserter-In-Chief. Although why you think I should have anything but complete disdain for a coke-addled, dry-drunk, cheerleading panty-waisted fratboy coward who fakes being a Texas cowboy, yet is afraid of horses, and who ran away after allowing the 9/11 attacks, says a whole lot more about you and your blind, ignorant, lockstep bootlicking than it does about me.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmLook at Hughjazz squirm and try to support his argument by appealing to his relatives and buddies in the military. You don't care about the military one bit. It's true, you would spit in their faces if you could. They are over there performing their mission while you undermine things here back home, pretending to put flowers in their rifles. Thanks for showing us your true colors - military hater.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmOh, so you would have the Iraqis submit to a murderous dictator again? What do your friends think of you, that is, if you have any? Do they know you would sell them out in a heartbeat?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Bush IS a murderous dictator. Now what? he has sold you and the rest of his ignorant followers out, completely. Paraguay, anybody? Some American he is.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pmwow hugh, you have some real issues.. I sort of feel sorry for you and your rage.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pm3: We cannot allow Iran, with it’s radical regimes begun through the inept Jimmy “The Peanut†Carter’s inaction, to fill the vacuum left in Iraq if the United States gives up and run home with it’s tail between it’s legs.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Then why are you celebrating the "reorganization" of the Mahdi Army? The Badr Brigades - Sadr's enemy - were the ones funded and trained by Iran. Their political reps in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council are one of the four groups remaining in the Iraqi government.
The fact of the matter is that Iran needs to be a partner in stabilizing Iraq, because they have a vested interest in not having a power vacuum next door to them.
If we'd quit saber-rattling over the non-existent nuclear weapons program and talk to Iran, we could get Iraq stabilized more quickly.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pmmilitary hater.
Comment by Liberalismisdead — August 29, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
I'd rather their faces were spit in than blown off by the misguided, murderous policies of a drunken fool like Bush. But you'd rather see them dead. Great support you show. Who's the real military-hater? I'll bet it's the rightwing coward who's not serving, like you; that's my bet.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI think Hugh has finally lost it.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pmwow hugh, you have some real issues.. I sort of feel sorry for you and your rage.
Comment by François — August 29, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Look, Francis, you're an impotent, not-very-bright tool in Bush's belt. That's fine, but these very weak generalities don't advance your cause very much. I have issues with a crime syndicate running my country into the ground, and so should you, but you don't so who's the patriot? or are you not an American? Either way,you pretty damn weak at advancing any kind of convincing argument to back your positions. And you think I have issues.
It's to laugh.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm"TP, will you post this in your blog? It’s POSITIVE NEWS IN IRAQ… Is TP capable of posting positive developments?…
Comment by JT — August 29, 2007 @ 5:02 pm"
Even if TP posted it, the libs here would just call them sellouts to the Republicans, since it doesn't fit their preconcieved notion that we have already lost in Iraq.
TP, and the libs here, are invested in defeat. They need the United States to lose at all costs, so they don't have to bear being proven wrong yet again, and lose the reason for their very existence.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pmHaha, I love this hughjazz guy! Hilarious!
August 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pmOh, so you would have the Iraqis submit to a murderous dictator again? What do your friends think of you, that is, if you have any? Do they know you would sell them out in a heartbeat?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
As was said, no, you would. You're the one suggesting that Iraq should submit to GWB, the biggest murderous dictator going. And while you can try & generalize about my friends etc, the basic fact is that the majority of Americans agree with my position, not yours.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pmI love how you're one of those guys who hates bush soooo much! OHHHH he just makes you soooo angry! I'm not a fan of bush either, but I'm realistic about it. You're in some fantasy world though.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pmDave C and Hughjazz.........traitorous slimefest. Go find a bathroom stall.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pmTP, and the libs here, are invested in defeat. They need the United States to lose at all costs, so they don’t have to bear being proven wrong yet again, and lose the reason for their very existence.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Being proven wrong has nothing to do with anything. The United States has already lost, and at a huge cost. We've already invested tens of billions of dollars, 4,000 coalition lives, 1,000,000 Iraqi lives, and a priceless amount of internaitonal respect in the Iraq Defeat. Now it's time to fix the mistake by beginning a redeployment out of Iraq while at the same time engaging Iraq's neighbors diplomatically.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:36 pm"The fact of the matter is that Iran needs to be a partner in stabilizing Iraq, because they have a vested interest in not having a power vacuum next door to them.
If we’d quit saber-rattling over the non-existent nuclear weapons program and talk to Iran, we could get Iraq stabilized more quickly.
Comment by toasterhead — August 29, 2007 @ 5:21 pm"
Incorrect.
Iran is a force which helps to keep the middle-east in turmoil, and THEIR "sabre-rattling" needs to be dealt with. Their influence and financing of Hezbollah has brought death and destruction to many areas within the middle east, to the detriment of the Iranian people. In other words, Iran, unlike the U.S., simply cannot afford
The radical regime in Iran has made plain their goals and intentions. It's time we take them up on their word and act.
For your idea of "talking" to the radical Iranian regime, which wants to drive the Jews from the middle east, you have won this hours "Neville Chamberlain" award.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pmThe idea of a friendly and stable Iraq from which to base our anti-terrorist activities is a good one, and I support it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
So, to follow your logic, if Panama wanted to stop Canada's terrorist activities against trees, you would be OK of them invading the US and setting up their base of Operations here, while killing 650,000 of your fellow citizens? But they used the excuse that we had WMDs (check) and a heinous leader (check) and the people wanted to be free of said leader (CHECK) but it really was all about the base of operations.
Guess that explains your position. Sounds like a traitor to the US to me!
August 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm"The fact of the matter is that Iran needs to be a partner in stabilizing Iraq, because they have a vested interest in not having a power vacuum next door to them.
If we’d quit saber-rattling over the non-existent nuclear weapons program and talk to Iran, we could get Iraq stabilized more quickly.
Comment by toasterhead — August 29, 2007 @ 5:21 pm"
Incorrect.
Iran is a force which helps to keep the middle-east in turmoil, and THEIR "sabre-rattling" needs to be dealt with. Their influence and financing of Hezbollah has brought death and destruction to many areas within the middle east, to the detriment of the Iranian people, who's economy is tottering as it is.
The radical regime in Iran has made plain their goals and intentions. It's time we take them up on their word and act.
For your idea of "talking" to the radical Iranian regime, which wants to drive the Jews from the middle east, you have won this hours "Neville Chamberlain" award.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pmWow, Iran definitely doesn't need to be "dealt with". We can't make them another enemy and start fighting them, you know that right?
August 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pmFor your idea of “talking†to the radical Iranian regime, which wants to drive the Jews from the middle east, you have won this hours “Neville Chamberlain†award.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
If the radical Iranian regime wants to "drive the Jews from the Middle East," why haven't they started with the 25,000 Jews living in Iran?
August 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pmSorry about the double post: (119 and 121) I hit the post key slightly before it was time....
August 29th, 2007 at 5:43 pmDave C and Hughjazz………traitorous slimefest. Go find a bathroom stall.
Comment by Liberalismisdead — August 29, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
I can't be a traitor... at least not to the U.S. I'm not an American. Not that that matters when you're just shotgunning eh?
August 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pmFor your idea of “talking†to the radical Iranian regime, which wants to drive the Jews from the middle east, you have won this hours “Neville Chamberlain†award.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Sorry to break it to you, big, but the karl rover "Neville Chamberlain" talking point was two days ago. Must not have got the current email from the RNC.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pmI hit the post key slightly before it was time….
Comment by O. Bigfoot
I hope you drive your delivery truck more carefully...
August 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pm"Wow, Iran definitely doesn’t need to be “dealt withâ€. We can’t make them another enemy and start fighting them, you know that right?
Comment by François — August 29, 2007 @ 5:42 pm"
Actually, Iran has been an enemy of the United States for nearly 30 years, ever since the Ayatollah Khomeini took the U.S. embassy and held our people hostage for over a year.
If Carter had done what needed to be done back then, Iran would not be currently puffing their chest, and we wouldn't need to deal with them now.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pmActually, Iran has been an enemy of the United States for nearly 30 years, ever since the Ayatollah Khomeini took the U.S. embassy and held our people hostage for over a year.
If Carter had done what needed to be done back then, Iran would not be currently puffing their chest, and we wouldn’t need to deal with them now.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
More like 50 years, ever since we overthrew their democratically-elected president on behalf of British Petroleum and installed a despotic Shah.
If we'd minded our business then, there wouldn't have been an Islamic Revolution, they wouldn't have taken over the Embassy, and we wouldn't have had to trade them arms for hostages.
Talk about blowback!
August 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pmJesus Christ.. what I'm saying is that we shouldn't attack them. Lets not worry about inferences made about whether or not I think they're an enemy of the US. Who isn't an enemy of the US? You're either with us or you're against us, right? Who's puffing their chest? Iran and the US perhaps?
August 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pm"I hope you drive your delivery truck more carefully…
Comment by Sasquatch — August 29, 2007 @ 5:45 pm"
No worries. I've never had an accident.
Besides, you're safe, I don't think you live anywhere near me....
August 29th, 2007 at 5:52 pmSomeone who gave Hillary a million dollars in in trouble too...
Now back to topic.
Common sense would tell a regular person that the green zone is safe and cozy compared to the the rest of Iraq. And if you stay in the green zone, of course things are running swimmingly. They have their own separate infrastructure humming 24/7.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pmPoor W lackeys, sheeple and trolls
Still thinking their blather, bleating and screeching will somehow turn things around for W
It just must aggravate the living Hell out of said W lackeys, sheeple and trolls that those of us against this idiotic Iraq invasion & occupation from the start have been proven 100% correct at every step of the way as to why this was such a fiasco
Sure didn't hear these trolls so concerned for the Iraqis when Saddam Hussein was the US puppet for decades
Oh, that's right, those killed by Saddam when he was propped up by the US just don't matter to the W lackeys, sheeple and trolls, just like those killed now, both Iraqis and US troops, don't matter to the W wingnuts in the least
And I still haven't seen, read or heard one logical reply that shows how ignoring al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Usama bin Laden, in favor of attacking a country that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Usama bin Laden, or the Sept 11 attacks, somehow makes us safer from another al-Qaeda/bin Laden anti-US attack
And BTW you W loving rabble
The Taliban, al-Qaeda, and UbL, all of whom should have been crushed, have now regrouped along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, and they've got support high in the ranks of Pakistan's military and intelligence services
Pakistan also has a nuclear arsenal-unlike Iran-and just tested missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload
bin Laden has a huge bankroll
Maybe you W lackeys, sheeple and trolls feel safer with bin Laden free to green-light and bankroll further anti-US attacks
I don't
It's not up to W anymore to decide how much longer the US will stay bogged down in a country it's traumatized for decades, that's up to the Iraqis themselves, and I doubt they'll be much more accommodating for the US than the Vietnamese were
But hey, you W lackeys, sheeple and trolls keep spinning away, and while others here may be urging you Chickenhawks to go to Iraq to show your mindless support for Dear Leader W, I'm glad you're safely behind the keyboards over here
Because if your physical aim is as faulty as your logic and rhetoric, then the US troops would have further lackwits & Barney Fife's to worry about shooting them in the back
August 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pm"More like 50 years, ever since we overthrew their democratically-elected president on behalf of British Petroleum and installed a despotic Shah.
If we’d minded our business then, there wouldn’t have been an Islamic Revolution, they wouldn’t have taken over the Embassy, and we wouldn’t have had to trade them arms for hostages.
Talk about blowback!
Comment by toasterhead — August 29, 2007 @ 5:50 pm"
Wrong again, toasterhead. The Shah was friendly to the U.S., and Carter should have supported him, rather than leave him twisting in the wind. There would have been no Islamic Revolution.
And Iran was better off under the Shah than ever since. Just ask any Iranian who has had to flee the country for fear of their lives under the Khomeini regime going forward.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:59 pm#63
Comment by toasterhead — August 29, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
"Iraq already has exploded into an all-out war between Iraqis and the rest of Iraqis."
What is going on in Iraq now between the different factions is mild compared to what would insue if the U.S. pulled all of it's troops out and redeployed.
"This is why during the 12-18 months it will take to fully redeploy, we need to also work diplomatically with the foreign supporters of insurgency and get them to support stability."
I think it's crap shoot. On one hand you could speculate that the deplomatic solution would start to materialize because the Iraqis see that we are pulling out and that they better get their crap together before it's too late or on the other hand I think it will create a power vacuum and blood shed not seen since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
"Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia cannot possibly want a power vacuum on their doorsteps."
I think that is exactly what you will get if you pull out and redeploy to other surrounding countries. I still don't see the point in redeploying to these countries because, as I stated before, we couldn't possibly send our troops BACK IN and expect them to stop an all out war and power struggle that would probably insue.
BTW Iran is already poised to fill the power vacuum.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RA3C100&show_article=1
August 29th, 2007 at 6:03 pm"Comment by KingCranky — August 29, 2007 @ 5:56 pm"
Wow, that was a pretty wordy diatribe.
And I can answer it in less than a paragraph: You obviously havn't been listening (or reading), and along with other libs, you discount anything that doesn't fit your preconcieved notion that the U.S. has already lost Iraq.
(end of answer)
Fortunately, you are wrong, as are the other liberal, anti-military bigots on this website.
We will win in Iraq, and have a stable and peaceful Iraq, if the Democrats and anti-U.S. liberals kooks get the hell out of the way.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pmWell, I've had enough fun for now...gotta head out and buy another freezer unit..
August 29th, 2007 at 6:07 pmFortunately, you are wrong, as are the other liberal, anti-military bigots on this website. Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Says the WRONG anti-military wingnut that prefers to murder troops, than admit troops shouldn't be doing PEACEKEEPING!!!
We will win in Iraq, and have a stable and peaceful Iraq, if the Democrats and anti-U.S. liberals kooks get the hell out of the way.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
We already WON the war in Iraq, we're now have a deteriorating peacekeeping mission run by military commanders perceived as an uninvited occupying force. Your pollyana bullsh*t isn't grounded in reality - so get the hell out of the way, and let ADULTS take over in Iraq - can you wingnut child?
Well, I’ve had enough fun for now…gotta head out and buy another freezer unit..
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Need somewhere to put all of the bodies - you lunatic?
August 29th, 2007 at 6:15 pmBTW Iran is already poised to fill the power vacuum.
http://www.breitbart.com/ article.php?id=D8RA3C100&show_article=1
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
You're a real dumbass. Do you really believe Iraqis would be any more favorable to any occupying force - especially one that has already picked muslim sides? You're a moron. How do you even bathe yourself?
August 29th, 2007 at 6:16 pmOkay, let us pretend that "the surge" is working...
What is the Republican plan for keeping it sustained?
August 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pmOkay, lets pretend that "the surge" is actually working...
What is the Republican plan to keep it sustained?
August 29th, 2007 at 6:26 pmHow about America fog!
August 29th, 2007 at 6:27 pm#67
Comment by Dave C — August 29, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
"As I’ve said before, the Reps would be horribly upset if the troops withdrew and the killing stopped."
But logic and the situation on the ground in Iraq says that the killing would intensify if the U.S. pulled out, just like what happened in Vietnam, i.e. we pulled out an millions of people were slaughtered in Cambodia and Vietnam.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:34 pm"Do you really believe Iraqis would be any more favorable to any occupying force - especially one that has already picked muslim sides? "
Yes, but they don't necessarily plan on occupying the country... they've already been trying to help w/ restoring the infrastructure, but we're in their way and nothing is getting done. They have a much better chance of doing it than we do.
We've already had to appologize detaining the Iranians in Baghdad... look up why they were there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/6967850.stm
August 29th, 2007 at 6:36 pm#74
Comment by Dave C — August 29, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
It was all of those things from the beginning. I know that multi-tasking is a hard concept to grasp for some.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:36 pm"But logic and the situation on the ground in Iraq says that the killing would intensify if the U.S. pulled out"
Thanks, Captain Obvious, but is it better that the killing intensify then stop as it did in Vietnam, or keep going on indefinitely with our troops standing right in the middle of it all?
What is the Republican plan to sustain staying there forever? Is it to keep asking for "Emergency" funding until the end of time and sending the same guys over there again and again until they die?
It sure seems like it.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:42 pmimpressed upon him the need for a strategic redeployment out of Iraq
Redeployment - another buzz word for nothing - what the hell does redeployment mean
Why can't these weak-kneed Democrats get the guts to say withdrawal.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:46 pmBut logic and the situation on the ground in Iraq in Iraq says that the killing would intensify if the U.S. pulled out
Logic? Situation on the ground?
More double talk.
THere is no logic there. There was no logic when we invaded Iraq, except the logic of greed and aggression.
There is no logic on the ground now. Only violence and fear.
Get real and stop the double talk. People's lives are at stake.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:51 pmBut logic and the situation on the ground in Iraq says that the killing would intensify if the U.S. pulled out, just like what happened in Vietnam, i.e. we pulled out an millions of people were slaughtered in Cambodia and Vietnam.
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
One million people have already been slaughtered in Iraq with us there. I don't see how it could get much worse.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pmWhat is the Republican plan to sustain staying there forever? Is it to keep asking for “Emergency†funding until the end of time and sending the same guys over there again and again until they die?
The plan is to expand the war to Iran. Rather than withdraw Bush will expand the war using the Air Force which is itching to get in on the fight. Drop some bunker busters and nukes, drag in Syria, Russia, China. Hell start a real world war. The neocons have been claiming we're already in WW III. Now they have a chance to make it real.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:56 pmWrong again, toasterhead. The Shah was friendly to the U.S., and Carter should have supported him, rather than leave him twisting in the wind. There would have been no Islamic Revolution.
He may have been great for American oil companies, but he was bad for the Iranian people. When people get dissatisfied enough, they're going to revolt. Carter should not have inherited that mess in the first place.
And Iran was better off under the Shah than ever since. Just ask any Iranian who has had to flee the country for fear of their lives under the Khomeini regime going forward.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Agreed. The human rights abuses in Iran now are a direct and unfortunate consequence of our corporatist meddling in the 1950s. A few years ago, the Iranian people might just have overthrown the government - there was a lot of buzz about it during the 2004 Nourooz celebration. However, the Bush Administration's constant drumbeat for war in the last few years is turning the once pro-US Iranian people against us.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pmBigfoot,
You still haven't responded to my post in #120. I would really like to hear your comment.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:03 pmWe will win in Iraq, and have a stable and peaceful Iraq, if the Democrats and anti-U.S. liberals kooks get the hell out of the way.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 29, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
The Dems and libs are not in the way; you are, by your cowardly failure to enlist. Every general called for 300,000 to 500,000 troops for this illegal invasion and occupation to be a success, and they were proven right. Bush had no military experience besides getting drunk and doing hookers, and he overruled the best military minds the US had, and fired those who disagreed with him. That's how this was lost, the Dems and libs are just on record recognizing it. You neandertals have't seen the light because you're still hunkered in your caves.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:04 pmJust ask any Iranian who has had to flee the country for fear of their lives under the Khomeini regime going forward.
Comment by O. Bigfool
The Iranians who offered their dissent of the Shah never had the chance to leave the country.
They were murdered.
No jails, no torture, just execution.
The Shah was every bit as brutal as Saddam ever was.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pmHe simply had direct U.S. support, and was able to stay "below the radar" of human rights abuses.
But logic and the situation on the ground in Iraq says that the killing would intensify if the U.S. pulled out, just like what happened in Vietnam, i.e. we pulled out an millions of people were slaughtered in Cambodia and Vietnam.
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
And the dominoes fell and communism took over the world! Again, short on facts, long on Republican talking points. It's a historical and unfortunate fact that when america pushes its way into where it isn't welcome and doesn't belong, everybody suffers horribly. Hitler is the benchmark for this horror in modern times, but the US Army is neck and neck with him vis-a-vis Native Americans. Every time we invade, like Viet Nam and Iraq, we screw it up so badly that millions die, no matter which way we turn. Iraq is approaching a million dead, with more than 2 million displaced, but the dictator Bush will never allow the media to show the truth of the matter. This medling will cause the downfall of the USA, as the whole world turns against us and freezes us out economically. russia is very quickly ramping up to Cold War status again, with hatred of America the engine. and to think what we could have done to cement relations and make fast friends and allies world-wide if we hadn't allowed a sociopathic puppet and his vermin to steal the government.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pm#149
Comment by toasterhead — August 29, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Where did you get that number?
August 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pm#139
Comment by RingoDingo — August 29, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Read the article and you just might understand.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pm#150
Comment by Dermot — August 29, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
You must also believe that the U.S. was responsible executing for the 9/11 attacks.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pmWhere did you get that number?
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
It's an extrapolation from the Lancet study published last fall: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/counterexplanation.html
August 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pmYou must also believe that the U.S. was responsible executing for the 9/11 attacks.
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
What are you saying here?
August 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pm#155
Comment by ronjazz — August 29, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
"It’s a historical and unfortunate fact that when america pushes its way into where it isn’t welcome and doesn’t belong, everybody suffers horribly."
Yes it's much better with leaving dictators in power and maintaining the status quo, i.e. kicking the political can down the road. The politics of the Middle East and the fact that the terrorists can reach anyone today makes the "stay out of it mentality" totally wrong.
"Hitler is the benchmark for this horror in modern times, but the US Army is neck and neck with him vis-a-vis Native Americans."
Whatever! You could say the same about every other people(s) that have been invaded and taken over in multiple other countries over the last 500 years.
"This medling will cause the downfall of the USA, as the whole world turns against us and freezes us out economically."
You actually think that Europe and the coutries in Asia are going to freeze us out economically because of our actions in the Middle East? LOL!
BTW it's a fact that millions of people were slaughtered AFTER the U.S pulled out of Vietnam.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pm#159
Comment by toasterhead — August 29, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
And you believe that Lancet Study which has been highly criticized by multiple organizations including the U.N.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
August 29th, 2007 at 7:34 pm#158
Comment by upside00 — August 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
That Dermot is pretty much crazy if he thinks that the Bush adminstration is looking to start and all out WW3.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:41 pmAnd you believe that Lancet Study which has been highly criticized by multiple organizations including the U.N.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
Yeah, the Lancet is criticized because it's PEER REVIEWED unlike, the unscientific bullsh*t you're used to!!!
Yet another example of the anti-science wingnuts...
August 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pmThat Dermot is pretty much crazy if he thinks that the Bush adminstration is looking to start and all out WW3.
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Actually it's people like you that WANT WW3 and the rapture that are crazy!!! DUMMMIIIEE!!!
August 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pmYou must also believe that the U.S. was responsible executing for the 9/11 attacks. Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
No one has conclusively proven that the US was responsible, then again, no one has proved they weren't involved - and there's plenty to be suspicious about.
The one FACT that precludes the US being responsible, is that you wingnuts are clearly too incompetent to pull off something so effectively! Thereby ensuring that Occam's Razor shaves off your cowardly b*lls.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pmYou must also believe that the U.S. was responsible executing for the 9/11 attacks.
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
The U.S. was not responsible for executing the attacks, but they are responsible for causing them to happen.
And you believe that Lancet Study which has been highly criticized by multiple organizations including the U.N.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Comment by Tracy — August 29, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
No, I don't believe that. In fact, I believe the U.N. uses similar methods to count casualties after natural disasters.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:15 pmShe leaves no options then. "THe american people don't want a,b,and c to happen." News FLASH TAUSCHER, TOO freakin' late! It doesn't impress me when members of Congress still pretend like there is still some good options left for the U.S. involvement in Iraq. THere is only a series of bad alternatives. Thanks in part to the spineless members of Congress, Dems included, that voted us in to war and now do not possess the fortitude to get us out.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:48 pmThe one FACT that precludes the US being responsible, is that you wingnuts are clearly too incompetent to pull off something so effectively! Thereby ensuring that Occam’s Razor shaves off your cowardly b*lls.
Comment by RingoDingo — August 29, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Can't it be both? The wingnuts can be both effective and incompetent, and at the same time completely responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Here's my little "conspiracy theory" as to how they did it:
1953 - CIA's Operation Ajax overthrows Mohammed Mossadeq, the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, after he nationalizes the Iranian oil industry previously controlled by British Petroleum. Shah of Iran installed.
1958 - CIA-trained assassins, including a young Saddam Hussein attempt to take out the Prime Minister of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim, after he tries to nationalize the Iraqi oil industry.
1963 - CIA orchestrates the coup, show trial, and execution of Qasim, cementing Ba'ath party rule in the country.
1969 - Israel, with U.S. financial backing, preemptively invades Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
1971 - Richard Nixon abandons the gold standard in response to rising foreign debt.
1973 - Israel defeats Egypt and Syria in the Six-Day War. U.S. announces a $2.2 billion aid package to Israel weeks after the end of the war. OPEC nations launch embargo against U.S. Oil prices skyrocket. Saudi Arabia suddenly becomes very very wealthy and begin itching to modernize their ancient infrastructure.
1974 - The U.S. & Saudi Arabia enter into the Joint Economic Commission, aka the Saudi Arabian Money-Laundering Affair. Saudis pay U.S. companies to build and manage Saudi infrastructure, agree to use the dollar as the sole currency for oil sales, and keep oil prices low for the U.S. U.S. agrees to arm Saudi Arabia so they can protect their vast oil wealth.
1979 - Iranian students and religous leaders overthrow the Shah, create a powerful Shi'ite theocracy in Iran. Saudi Arabia, fearing the Shi'ite influence on the Middle East, invests heavily in promoting Sunni Islam, funding Wahhabi Islamic schools in and around the Kingdom.
1979-1989 - Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, CIA's Operation Cyclone funds and arms Afghan Mujaheddin groups, who are allied with Saudi millionaire Usama bin Laden's Maktab al-Khidamat and other Wahhabist Sunni groups. These groups later coalesce to form al-Qa'ida, and begin exporting jihadist ideals to other countries.
1980 - Iran-Iraq tensions over the Shatt-al-Arab waterway erupt into war. The U.S. begins heavily arming and funding Saddam Hussein's Iraq against Iran. Bechtel builds chemical weapons plants used to manufacture sarin and mustard gas later used against Shia and Kurds.
1988 - Iran-Iraq war ends, 1 million dead, Iraqi infrastructure decimated. U.S. offers to rebuild Iraq in exchange for a Saudi-style oil deal. Saddam declines. CIA jackals fail to assassinate him.
1990 - Soviet Union pulls out of Afghanistan. Iraq invades Kuwait (with U.S. permission). Usama bin Laden offers his victorious Mujaheddin army to the House of Saud as protection against Iraqi invasion. The Saudis say "no thanks" and opt for U.S. protection instead. UBL is angered by this royal dissing.
1991 - U.S. airstrikes and invasion drive Iraq out of Kuwait. U.S. builds military bases in Saudi Arabia to enforce the no-fly zone. The presence of U.S. troops on the holiest site of Islam further angers UBL.
1993 - Ramzi Yousef, al-Qa'ida associate and nephew of North Carolina Aggie and future 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, bombs WTC Tower 1 with a truck bomb and escapes to Manila.
1994 - Usama bin Laden speaks out against the Saudi royal family and is exiled to Sudan.
1995 - Ramzi Yousef begins planning Bojinka plot, which includes assassination of Pope, Bill Clinton, and crashing of a jet liner into CIA headquarters.
1996 - Usama bin Laden issues fatwa against United States, demanding removal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia.
1998 - Usama bin Laden issues another fatwa against United States, al-Qa'ida bombs U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam.
2000 - al-Qa'ida operatives bomb USS Cole
2001 - al-Qa'ida operatives hijack jet liners and fly them into WTC and Pentagon.
See? The U.S. wingnuts are indeed responsible for 9/11!
August 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pmThe Bush administration "fixed" the intelligence around their invade-Iraq policy.
They've "fixed" the intelligence around their stay in Iraq and "surge" in Iraq policies.
Bush and Cheney, after throwing so many of our soldier's lives away and so much of U.S. taxpayers' money away, have got to keep their hands in the Iraqi oil barrel.
And now Bush and Cheney have asked for $50 Billion more of U.S. taxpayer money.
What makes me believe they are getting ready to do another switcheroo like they did in 2002, when they shifted close to $1 Billion that had been allocated to go after Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda in Afghanistan to their war preparations against Iraq?
This time, though, they'll take part of this $50 Billion and finalize their war prepartions against Iran, expanding the war to encompass another oil-rich Middle Eastern country.
Which will have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy.
Remember the lies that Bush and Cheney told in 2002 before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the time, gasoline pump prices in the U.S. were below $2 a gallon and world oil barrel prices were less than $50 per barrel. Bush and Cheney claimed that Iraqi oil would pay for their little invasion, but Iraqi oil exports are still below pre-war levels. And the price of gasoline in the U.S. hovers now around $3 a gallon and world oil barrel prices are over $50 a barrel.
I predict, therefore, that if any bombs are dropped on Iran, U.S. gasoline prices will double or triple at the pump, while world oil barrel prices will shoot past $100 per barrel.
The effect on the U.S. economy (and much of the rest of the world) will be disastrous.
But what do Bush and Cheney care? Their oil executive buddies, and oil company stockholders, will make a killing when oil prices skyrocket. It will be all the rest of us that will be screwed.
Are Bush and Cheney completely insane? Are the oil executives this nuts?
August 29th, 2007 at 9:58 pmIt's been said that the definition of genius is being able to hold two conflicting view points at the same time.
Does that mean that Rep Tauscher is akin to einstein? Her laundry list of what Americans want and don't want from the Iraq war are completely at odds with each other and unrealistic.
There is no good or easy solution to the wwar in Iraq. If we pull out, the sectarian violence could equal the worst of Kosovo's. Some belive that it's possible that the entire ME would be destabilized.
On the other hand, insisting that "victory" is just around the corner is equally inaccurate, dangerous and delusional. At best, the US will merely be able to keep Iraq from becoming and even worse bloodbath than it already is. But the idea that we can just leave, and have everything be hunky-dory is unrealistic in the extreme.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:44 pmlame. the war is over. they're just wrapping things up. We're cleaning house a little and stabalyzing baghdad so their government will be comfortable enough to sign the papers that gives us their oil...
man you people really have no idea what the big picture is do you...
August 30th, 2007 at 4:14 amTauscher is right. The violence in Iraq is considerably worse than what we are being told. Our only option is to prepare to withdraw all troops out of Iraq. Bush can no longer win this war militarily, neither can he effect any political progress.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:07 am>The radical regime in Iran has made plain their goals and intentions.
what if the IRaqi's DEMOCRATICALLY CHOOSE to ally themselves with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas..with a government very similar to the one in Palestine.... will that be considered a victory for you Bigtwat?
Let me guess, if we just use enough force we can make the iraqis choose a pro-western government?
August 30th, 2007 at 8:36 amNote to Ronjazz about this statement: "I would prefer for our National Guard to guard our nation, not pillage and plunder and murder for the likes of you."
I think this is off the chart in terms of irresponsible character assassination. Members of the National Guard are our neighbors and children and friends and co-workers. They have families, and mortgages, and pretty much the same priorities in life that most of the rest of us do. They didn't take to murder and pillaging before going over, and if any of them are into it "over there" they'd probably be undesirables in Omaha or Augusta or Redwood City, too.
ps. You forgot rape. And somehow overlooked the potential reference to brownshirts.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm#167
Comment by RingoDingo — August 29, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
The Lancet report was produced with a flawed methodology as stated in the link I posted especially when the data is being attempted to be gathered in an active war zone. It's common knowledge that this is not something you attempt to do when the situation on the ground inside the war zone is soo fluid and then expect people to take it as fact.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pm#170
Comment by toasterhead — August 29, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
"The U.S. was not responsible for executing the attacks, but they are responsible for causing them to happen."
Oh, of course those poor souls that planned and carried out those attacks were desperate people just reacting to the oppression that they have incurred as a result of U.S. foreign policy. That's total BS! The people who planned and financed the 9/11 attacks were rich well to do thugs. These al Qaeda types, ALL OF THEM, are victims of their own hate filled ideology not of U.S. foreign policy.
"No, I don’t believe that. In fact, I believe the U.N. uses similar methods to count casualties after natural disasters."
The link you posted that states the number of Iraqis killed since the 2003 invasion cites the Lancet reports. BTW the U.N. was one of the main critics of this report you cited.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:45 pm#169
Comment by RingoDingo — August 29, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
"No one has conclusively proven that the US was responsible...."
Especially all of the wanna-be structural engineers who refuse to believe that planes could have taken down those towers and actually think that it was controlled demolition. Are you one of those idiots?
Maybe you should change your name to RingoDingbat.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pm#172
Comment by toasterhead — August 29, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please learn:
http://www.debunking911.com/
August 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pmThey are selling this war with PowerPoint presentations not with success on the ground. These are the Perfumed Princes that Col Hackworth used to write about. Far more into promotions than what is good for the troops and the country.
Sounds like she came in with enough background not to let them blow green smoke up her agenda.
If we get out, don't be suprised if the killing actually goes down. This is not Vietnam no matter what the Winged Waffling Warrior from Texas says. It just proves he doesn't read history.
And Pol Pot was killing in those fields before we pulled out.
August 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm