Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Bush’s Claims Of ‘Satisfactory Performance’ In Iraq Debunked
thinkprogress.org — The NSN explained, the “benchmarks claimed as ’satisfactory’ … demonstrate minimal progress, not achievement” and “others have been achieved on the surface, but fail to accomplish the overall purpose of the specific measurement.”
rmpowe- 796 diggs
- digg it
- jamie1415, on 10/11/2007, -11/+7I'm not a fan of the newspapers that repeat WH garbage...
- aliengoods, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8So you hate just about all newspapers?
- pissflaps, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4They put Fox News to print now?
- sonofdy1, on 10/11/2007, -31/+6Democrats desprately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
- mookiemookie, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11How do you argue with numbers and published facts?
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Delusion can make you argue with anything.
- ElWizardo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9You argue them with fudged numbers and lies. By the way... If you see Victory, tell him he left his teeth in the glass by the bed.
- crweaks23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6sonofdy1... You post a lot of things similar to this comment, with recent diggs on stories such as "Edwards' Headquarters Becoming Nuisance to Neighbors" and "Media Matters: Hillary’s Lap Dogs." Although I completely disagree with you, I don't want to argue or begin the (inevitable) partisan name calling game.
What I really want to know how you have come to the conclusion that we are victorious? If you can provide me with something tangible I would listen intently. If you truly think that I say that this "war" is lost because I want it to be, please, please, please, if nothing else, understand this: I WANT TO "WIN", TOO! I didn't want this "war" started, true, but having no say in the matter, I would have loved for our troops to march into Iraq, destroy Saddam, dismantle Al Qaeda, and get our priorities focued back on Afghanistan. You can't possibly think that I WANT America to look foolish to the rest of the world by admitting our failures in the Middle East... or can you??
Believe me... no, TRUST me, if there was any sense of victory in Iraq, I would be just as happy as you. The difference between you and I is that I am willing to admit I may have been wrong about something in favor of the lives of thousands of people. It seems to me that you are not willing to see the light on this issue - and you are not alone - for no other reason other than the fact that you don't want to be wrong, and you don't want US (America) to be wrong. Unfortunately, you can't change what's real by believing what is not.
It's time to fold your hand, because everyone else at the table knows you don't have anything. Pushing more chips into the pot will only result in losing more chips.- crweaks23, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Offtopic: How do you put line breaks into the new commenting system? I've done it before, and have no idea how.
- mightydavefish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You are the dumbest moron on digg.
I used to think you were just retarded, but lately I've begun wondering if you get paid to be this stupid.
It's hard to believe any idiot would waste as much time defending corruption, lies, scandals, and failure as much as you do.
- Insightful, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5Yeah! I like the Michael Moore style beat down of WH talking points!
- otheruser, on 10/11/2007, -4/+37Only 8 out of 18 benchmarks were "satisfactorily" met. Without paying attention to the fact that most were just barely met, as is indicated by this report, that's 44%.
How the ***** is that victory?- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19Dude, when your own approval rating is at 29%, that 44% looks like a HUGE VICTORY :p
- Bdog2g2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Yeah, but from a grade perspective 29% or 44%, its still a ***** "
I'm sure Bush is trying to argue that this would be a "high F".- Drexus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I could see Bush getting very upset that an "F" was on the report card. He would publicly fight to get that "F+"... and all that implies.
- xGORDOx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+48 out of 18 at the half-way point.
Remember, the report wasn't actually due until the end of September.
Partisanship aside, do you want your grade counted towards your GPA at only half-way through the semester?
Also, this is from thinkprogress, the WH could have had proof that all 18 were met, and Thinkprogress would have found some way to find fault and disprove.- Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Well, the clever thing Bush has done here is ascribe some sort of meaning to the *number* of benchmarks met, which assumes that all of the benchmarks carry equal weight and importance, when in fact it's completely arbitrary.
If he really wanted to go overboard, he could've chosen 50 benchmarks, and then stacked the deck with entries like "The Iraqi government must purchase two dozen gavels" and "Members of the Iraqi government must wash their hands after using the bathroom at least 50% of the time." Then instead of the Iraqi government failing miserably on the 8 benchmarks that matter, Bush could claim the Iraqis had successfully met 42 of 50 benchmarks.
Of course, that would have been only slightly more transparently silly than what he actually did, which was load the list of 18 benchmarks with procedural votes that carry no weight or meaning, and claim the news from Iraq is some sort of mixed bag rather than an abject, hopeless failure.- xGORDOx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1But bush didn't set the benchmarks, that's the difference. The benchmarks come from the Baker Commission.
It would be one thing set your own benchmarks and claim success, but it's entirely different when they are set by an independent commission.
Regardless, if you hate Bush, you'll never see anything positive, that is essentially why crap from Thinkprogress holds no weight or legitimacy. - Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Awww, that's cute. You actually think the Baker Commission was a completely independent entity that accurately represented the spectrum of American public opinion about the war.
- xGORDOx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1It's more independent than if Bush created the benchmarks himslef as you implied.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"more independent"
Kinda like you're less guilty of robbing a bank if you drove the car to get away? WRONG!!! If you have staunch supporters on a commission like this, Bush would have been more credible writing them himself (in crayon of course) than have a lackey do it for him. - xGORDOx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1If you already blame Bush for every evil in the world, which I'm assuming you do, then no matter what I say, you're going to disagree.
Keep beating the dead horse pal. - Bdog2g2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The horse is beaten from both sides numb nuts. I blame bush for everything he's done. I hold him accountable for the actions he has taken. I don't have to look hard to blame him for much, he does half the work for us.
What's worse than blaming bush for everything, is everyone who praises for everything.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"more independent"
- xGORDOx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1But bush didn't set the benchmarks, that's the difference. The benchmarks come from the Baker Commission.
- Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Well, the clever thing Bush has done here is ascribe some sort of meaning to the *number* of benchmarks met, which assumes that all of the benchmarks carry equal weight and importance, when in fact it's completely arbitrary.
- angusm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1War is peace, freedom is slavery, yes is no ... defeat is victory.
There, that was easy, wasn't it?
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14how would victory in Iraq even benefit the U.S.? If we got violence under control and Iraq stabilized and produced a democratic government, they would not be our allies and we would have propped up another theocracy/democracy. It would have cost ass loads of money and the world would be no different than if Saddam was still in power. I see no reason why not to leave. The genocide that could happen in Iraq is as much as our concern as Sudan, Congo, or Sri Lanka. If the world thinks it is a huge problem then send in the UN, the U.S. shouldn't have to foot this cost.
- xiliquiern, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Why would it be a benefit? Well, assuming everything goes/went swimmingly, we would have a "Friend of America" in the Middle East - a rarity. That friend would provide airbase support to our troops, essentially serving as a giant forward firebase for our military in any future operations in the Middle East. That friend would also happen to be an oil producing nation. It would show to international community that democracy can be successfully grown and cultivated in a society where it is not the norm. It would send a message that the U.S. is still on top of things. It would be shown to be a meaningful victory in the "War on Terror" - the toppling of Saddam and the institution of a new Western friendly democracy. Of course, at this point, a lot of those benefits will be overshadowed by the negatives that have occurred their since our invasion - I think fewer and fewer people are wanting a "win" out of Iraq and just want to be done with it, one way or another.
While there are benefits to winning Iraq and instituting a democracy friendly to the U.S. there, I still do not see the reasoning behind the invasion and I believe it to be incredibly poorly executed. To me it is the same as desiring a "friend" closer to Russia and randomly invading Latvia, reasoning as an attempt to quash world hunger.- jambox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Well, assuming everything goes/went swimmingly, we would have a "Friend of America" in the Middle East"
That's exactly the sort of dreamy, idealistic nonsense that got the US stuck in this hole in the first place. It was never going to happen, it would never be accepted. Even if by some miracle the Iraqis accepted the US presence, it's neighbours never, ever would.
"serving as a giant forward firebase for our military in any future operations in the Middle East."
That sentence send a chill down my spine. There will not be any more military operations in the Middle East because of this fiasco. What do you need that for, anyway? To threaten and intimidate more innocent civilians? To help Israel? This is just crazy.
"t would be shown to be a meaningful victory in the "War on Terror" - the toppling of Saddam "
What the hell has Saddam got to do with TWOT? I hate to have to go over this again, but he hated militant Islamists.
Even if it had been a success, which it obviously hasn't, I doubt it would have provided any meaningful benefits.
- jambox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Well, assuming everything goes/went swimmingly, we would have a "Friend of America" in the Middle East"
- xiliquiern, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Why would it be a benefit? Well, assuming everything goes/went swimmingly, we would have a "Friend of America" in the Middle East - a rarity. That friend would provide airbase support to our troops, essentially serving as a giant forward firebase for our military in any future operations in the Middle East. That friend would also happen to be an oil producing nation. It would show to international community that democracy can be successfully grown and cultivated in a society where it is not the norm. It would send a message that the U.S. is still on top of things. It would be shown to be a meaningful victory in the "War on Terror" - the toppling of Saddam and the institution of a new Western friendly democracy. Of course, at this point, a lot of those benefits will be overshadowed by the negatives that have occurred their since our invasion - I think fewer and fewer people are wanting a "win" out of Iraq and just want to be done with it, one way or another.
- toothbrush12345, on 10/11/2007, -18/+4more spam from the source
- hawkeye17, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Dug down as 'more spam".
- zaibatsu, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12It's just so sad that a majority of the country took this long to catch a clue.
- nonchai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4read this to see why bush was elected: a journalist spends time with conservatives on a cruise organised by a leadig conservative magazine:
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Cruising_with_the_right_wing_nut_jobs - seraph82, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Debunked by information in newspapers from America? Cool. I bet they know exactly what's going on over there. In fact, I bet they've gotten a large quantity of news that they've sorted through an picked out the most well balanced articles that show both the good and the bad.
Wait, I bet it's the exact opposite of what I said.- mtjohnson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3So you want your news organizations to choose which items to report so as to get a 'balanced view of both the good and the bad'?
I'd rather have my news organizations report on reality and facts. Just a guess, your favorite channel is FoxNews, right?- FredoBerfil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I've always thought that it's telling how Fox News' motto is "fair and balanced." When you really think about it, sometimes being "fair" means not being "balanced." Trying to take a "balanced" view of this monstrously disastrous Iraq debacle does a disservice to the obvious totality of facts on the ground - the Iraq was was a mistake, it's not making us any safer, "victory" is a completely undefined moving target that doesn't exist, and our "president" is utterly delusional. Any attempt to "balance" these obvious facts is just Orwellian.
- FlaG8r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The report's publicized conclusions are debunked by the rest of the report itself. It really has nothing to do with how fair or balanced or knowledgeable the media are.
- mtjohnson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3So you want your news organizations to choose which items to report so as to get a 'balanced view of both the good and the bad'?
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3More thinkprogress spam.
Congratulations. With the number of posts from whacko sites like this, the front page reads like a tabloid. Was that your goal?
Automatically buried as inaccurate.- revjustin2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I dugg you down before I even read your comment based on your cool icon, hoss. Wanna talk about whacko? Let's talk about who won the civil war..err...the war of northern aggression.
- Deputy_Doodah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2How open-minded and tolerant of you.
- revjustin2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I dugg you down before I even read your comment based on your cool icon, hoss. Wanna talk about whacko? Let's talk about who won the civil war..err...the war of northern aggression.
- NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"It depends on what your definition of 'satisfactory' is."
- brianbennett, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I think y'all should give the Iraqi government a break. They have to govern with the incessant sound of gunfire and bombs, death threats and the occasional assassination. Our politicians live in the lap of luxury and they can't get ***** done either.
- flaknugget, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Yup that Georgie says a lot of funny things.
- boomtown15, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I liked how the article mentions "The White House achieved its objective of spinning the media’s analysis." Since when has the media's analysis become the standard for gathering data/intelligence. Give me a break! If anything the media is always putting a spin on the news, not the white house. What a lousy article. Not even worth reading when thats the first line. Really not a credible source. I am not surprised by the junk that is once again on Digg.
- empirefalling, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17The Iraqis never asked to be liberated...The US destroyed a nation and it's people.
- mco5t9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yes, I'm sure they just loved Saddam and his two sons. But why do polls show a majority, even today, despite all the violence, prefer the new Iraq to the one under the old regime.
- Gryffydd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Do you realize what Saddam and his progeny would have done to the people if they "asked to be liberated?"
- jp3550, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Is anyone actually surpised he 'mislead' the public? This is a given.
- boomtown15, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1The Iraqis, I am sure never "asked" to be beaten, raped, tortured and left for dead. This is what cruel dictators do. Doesn't anyone believe that there was evil over there that needed to be stopped. I understand not everything has went as planned, but I do still believe in our country and the help we are trying to provide. At least we are trying and we are fighting. Other countries don't even care enough to help out. I guarantee that are many Iraqis that are grateful for the freedom that they have with Sadaam is going to work out within the next year or couple of years. Things of this scale take a long time to resolve themselves. Its good that the Iraqi people are finally making some progress. Oh and by the way, satisfactory means that the goals met the standards. Did you think the Iraqis would be able to go "above and beyond." Come on now stop spinning everything in your direction. You make it sound like satisfactory is bad. It means the goals were met ... Period.
- mtjohnson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1^^ Scariest thing I've read so far this morning.
- boomtown15, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Wow, I am glad I read that comment. What a waste. How about you explain yourself instead of attacking. Do you not have any real replies to my comments? I would rather read those.
- mtjohnson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1^^ Scariest thing I've read so far this morning.
- Godlike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
- Iamnotwhoiam, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Ok SO when was Digg bought by the D.N.C.
Yet another ***** story - readthis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why would Iraq give into US pressure to give up 80% of their oil revenues to American companies?--Thats 21 trillion dollars over 35 years. Whoa!
- boomtown15, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0If the US solely wanted to take the oil couldn't we have already done that?
- jambox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Depends how big your hose is.
Oil hose, that is!
- jambox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Depends how big your hose is.
- revjustin2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@boomtown
"The Iraqis, I am sure never "asked" to be beaten, raped, tortured and left for dead. This is what cruel dictators do."
You see, I thought that you were making some kind of comment about what the US is doing to Iraqis right now, but as I read through the rest of your comment, I realized that you were actually talking about Saddam. It is hard for me to swallow that there is someone out there who can look at what is going on in Iraq and think it's a good thing.
Don't you believe that the US is doing the same thing that it accused said evil dictator of doing? Or is our beating, raping, torturing, and leaving for dead okay because we have "democracy" on our side?
Also you use the word "freedom" in relation to what Iraqis now have. Are you kidding me? In what way is life in Iraq "free"? Ask the families of dead Iraq children killed in US bombings if "freedom" and "democracy" was worth the life of their child.
People forget that war, any war, is all about killing people. The US is killing people. Lots of people. In the end, will all those people be worth it? Maybe to Hailburton, but not to me.- clayanderson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Oh, c'mon! With perhaps a few exceptions like Abu Ghraib, our soldiers are not "beating, raping, torturing, leaving for dead". Have we killed people? Yes -- mostly aggressors who are trying to destabilize the situation for their own political gain. However, the killing of innocents (apart from some unfortunate 'collateral damage' of war) has not happened by our hands. It has been Iraqis killing Iraqis. I will grant you that it is our doing that has created the unstable circumstances for such killings to occur, but that is a degree different from having the actual blood on our hands.
We cut off the head of the snake, a brutal dictator. But in the place of that snake, other smaller ones have arisen and are fighting each other for power. In the middle of this mess are a lot of innocents. They were not in a good situation under Saddam, and you're rigiht: they're still not in a good situation.
And whether or not we should have gone into Iraq in the first place is a legitimate question. But to compare what we've done with the actions of Saddam is stupid, naive, reactionary, and immature. - brycelb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I guess you'll have to choke on it then.
- clayanderson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Oh, c'mon! With perhaps a few exceptions like Abu Ghraib, our soldiers are not "beating, raping, torturing, leaving for dead". Have we killed people? Yes -- mostly aggressors who are trying to destabilize the situation for their own political gain. However, the killing of innocents (apart from some unfortunate 'collateral damage' of war) has not happened by our hands. It has been Iraqis killing Iraqis. I will grant you that it is our doing that has created the unstable circumstances for such killings to occur, but that is a degree different from having the actual blood on our hands.
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Pure left wing extremist spin. Thinkprogress spam is pure crap - this nonsense makes Bush look credible. What a complete waste of time.
- FredoBerfil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The truth hurts. Although it doesn't seem to hurt our strangely anesthetized president.
- JonLatane, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Bush has shown "satisfactory performance" the way kids who fail their freshman year of high school 3 times showed "satisfactory performance" in grades K-8.
- boomtown15, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0JonLatane
If you really think that the scales they base your High School performance on are the same as the scales they base the Iraq performance on then you are the idiot. Not Bush. I see these goals as PROGRESS, not necessarily victory.- kreneskyp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3hes right on the mark with his assessment. schools in this country push kids through just because they don't want 1) themselves, the teacher, to look bad 2) the school to look bad. Bush's cronies cherry picked some things they could try and list as satisfactory because they know they would lose all support if the truth was told.
- kreneskyp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3hes right on the mark with his assessment. schools in this country push kids through just because they don't want 1) themselves, the teacher, to look bad 2) the school to look bad. Bush's cronies cherry picked some things they could try and list as satisfactory because they know they would lose all support if the truth was told.
- boomtown15, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0JonLatane
- boomtown15, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@revjustin2
I agree with you that war is not something anyone should want. It almost always costs lives of innocent people. I don't think I have to explain to you that there was innocent torture and death before the US came. It appears from your last post that you understood that. I don't see how you think Bush or possibly the US is like Sadaam though. Do you really think we take innocent families and children and torture them. I for one don't believe that we are a country built on those values. Why is everyone so quick to give the US a bad wrap. I agree with you that there are probably innocent losses in Iraq and I am sure no one in the US is proud of that. However, I don't believe the US is "trying" to kill innocents. I see that as the ONE HUGE difference between the US and Sadaam, even if you think we are killing as many innocents as him (which I am sure we are not, and not on purpose). I don't believe we set out to kill, torture and rape innocents when we went to Iraq. I for one, would be happy as an Iraqi to say that one day my children or grandchildren may be free. Not governed by some tyrant who tortures and kills for pleasure. Maybe nothing is perfect now, but it will all be worth it in the end. Why is there no hope? Wars take a long time. Look at history. There's not many wars that took less than 5 years. Change takes a lot of time, but it needs people behind it, not against it. - FredoBerfil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm just surprised as to how people continue to tune into Bush's press conferences, as if they somehow expect he'll actually say something different, or connected to reality.
- rewen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The media wants us to think that they are failing in Iraq, but in reality they are doing exactly as planned. They want you to think terrorists have power and control and are a threat. They want you to be afraid and to give up your rights in order to 'defend' against them.
- bonesaw, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1When will you stupid assholes learn that ThinkProgress.org can never "debunk" anything because it's a radical leftist website with no capability of a critical thought?
Bury me please! You're an asshole - udahlen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Almost everything Bush says is false, and in most cases the exact opposite of what he says is the actual truth.
- jambox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well another crud article from thinkprogress.com - OTOH at least it balances out the equally ***** Fox News.
Look - perhaps it didn't strike you lot (Americans) at the time, but as soon as they decided to invade Iraq, most other people around the world thought,
"Ooooh - I bet that'll end up just like Vietnam!"
On to the war itself, then. So you'll end up running away with your tails between your legs, leaving a country in ruins and probably in the grip of the worst people imaginable to run it. You'll be very lucky if you haven't completely destabilised the entire region, causing war after war. Taking the lid off (previously fairly quiet) Sunni vs. Shiite sectarianism was a very, very, very bad idea.
After puzzling over how your fancy politicians could get it so badly wrong, I've come to the conclusion that it was all just a ploy to funnel taxpayers money towards a few favourite industries and therefore a handful of majority shareholders and their acolytes.
So well done! Destroyed a country (wasn't much of a country beforehand, admittedly) for the benefit of a few fat, white, rich people who pretend to be Christians but are really comepletely amoral. Congratulations, once again. Big round of applause. Clap. Clap. Clap. - EldenChang, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I think it is very simple explanation. The goal is to stay in Iraq as long as possible and stretch the war out as long as possible.
The USA only benefits from the war, not from peace.
Watch "ZEITGEIST" on Google video or go to
www.zeitgeistmovie.com - RealHyperX, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Bush is the best president we had in 40 years. ***** the liberals who want to debunk him. The economy is great, no attacks after 9/11. Things are good people. Liberals please go ***** yourselves!
- bizchris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I really hope this isn't considered spam - but this list really did help me in getting perspective - which is why I also decided to legitimately submit it. Check my history, I'm not a spammer at all...
http://digg.com/politics/Complete_list_of_Iraq_withdrawal_benchmarks - pishi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I made a picture from the one on that page...
http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/9397/freedomhp1.jpg - DiggYourMom, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Wow! I love little Republican fanboys! Let's face the facts...Republicans/Conservatives claim to be the protectors of the constitution, yet we've lost more rights in the last 8 years than in the last 50. Warrant-less wiretaps, subjugation of oversight committees, and back handed tactics (like the outing of Valerie Plame, politically motivated firings of active prosecutors, discrediting of legitimate dissenters). The Bush Administration can't even play nice with their own party. Look at all the defectors. Furthermore, his campaign dealings are, in my opinion, should be considered illegal. The discrediting of John McCain in South Carolina:
"McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife. Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict."
(bartcopnation dot com)
This is his own party! What's worse is that McCain is a true Veteran whose stood for your rights whether his agenda was popular or not. I'm not going to defend McCain's Iraq or Immigration policy, but let's at least admire him for being one of the few Republicans that give a ***** about the environment!
But what you forgot to mention is how much cowardice this Administration's shown. Don't you even dare tout this man as "Commander in Chief" or "Hero to the Military". Their stance in Iran is to placate the country, all the while they continue to train Iraqi insurgents in how to compromise armored Coalition Force vehicles. Iranian Special Forces march across the Iraq/Iran Border daily bringing more weapons and munitions into the country. So what does the Administration do about it? Plain in simple fact is nothing. They don't even have "harsh dialog" with their enemies.
You make a claim that the economy is great, but you fail to see that we're a "war-time" economy. Any government that spends a couple 100 billion dollars a year can expect a decently performing economy. As much as the Republicans knock on Clinton, I want to see them replicate the massive economic growth he did without a war. Continuing this train of thought, what happens when we pull out of this war? What happens when the military settles, and the American people decide they don't want to support a huge military anymore? Are you going to blame the government for downsizing forces again? Are you going to blame that candidate for having a poor economy because he's faced with an influx of workers without jobs to support them? But more importantly, are you going to blame that candidate (Republican or Democrat) for a huge trade deficit and an inability to persuade other countries to trade with us, after having been scared by this administration?
No attacks after 9/11? Perhaps you ought to travel to London, Madrid, or Glasgow. Sure it hasn't happened to our country yet. We may have foiled a few plots. But why is the Director of CIA and Homeland Security now saying that they believe another attack is imminent? Why are we hearing that Al Qaeda has not only rebuilt itself after war in Afghanistan, but has also spread it's influence into Gaza, Syria, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, the Sudan, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, etc?
Before you post another inflammatory comment like the one you did, I hope you take the time to gather a greater perspective for world events. It's alright that you support the incumbent administration, but perhaps you ought to post some tangible proof that supports your claims.
In the end, I'm going to leave you with this: General Mattis, commander of Marine Forces in Iraq during OIF-I and II said that we would only win this war by winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. His moto for the Marines was to be "No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy" (the originator of quote is unknown). The fact is, Army and Marine commanders knew that this war was not going to be won the decisive force; it takes political and moral resolve. How much has President Bush shown lately? - ronjohn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Don't worry let's just rely on his gut feeling.
- brycelb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0thinkprogress.org = humorous
It's hard to find ***** this good. - ibnabouna, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Everyone is jumping on Bush, because the media has portrayed him so poorly. I heard his entire press conference yesterday and must admit that, when listening to it as a whole, it struck me as sincere and hopeful. I am no Bush flunkey... there was just something about his press conference. Sure, everyone can't get enough Bush-bashing now, so they are digging in their heels. I agree we should let the military speak for itself. The House of Representatives was not given the constitutional authority to issue commands to military officers.
- chrizzle30, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Buried: Liberal Propaganda
- Compared2What, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Move this drivel to the BDS section so all the left-wing whacko DiggBotts can find it!
- fixedcoma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why do we always create these dead-end wars? Is this like an ego issue, a malice of power. Honestly i think something should be added to the constitution" no one person in the presidential office should have ties with national or international businesses( They shouldn't own stocks in this or that, let alone even owning a company) that would be corruption at its worst! Tell me i'm wrong !!!
- jimvspek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Here is the real reason we went into Iraq and eliminated Saddam Hussein and why we are not being told about it.
After 9/11 our greatest enemy was recognized as being radical Sunni Islam. Most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and were adherents to the violent and intolerant Wahhabiism teachings. Saudi Arabia has been actively involved in exporting this ideology around the world using oil money generated within that state.
This created a serious problem. We could not turn on our Saudi “friends” and there was not an easy way to attack the widely disbursed Sunni radicals. A creative response was needed.
Much of foreign policy is built on the time-tested principles of “divide and conquer” and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” To turn these principles into strategies, it was necessary to find a group, which was a natural enemy of the Sunni radicals. The obvious choice for this is the moderate Shiites who have their spiritual center in Iraq. An added reason for supporting these moderates is that they are not in line with the radical Shiites who now control the government of Iran. The installation of a moderate Shiite regime in Iraq would have the double benefit of becoming a thorn in the sides of both Iran and Saudi Arabia,
Of course, the best way to help the moderate Shiites was to take out their nemesis, Saddam Hussein, who had for many years stood as the bulwark against the hated forces of Shia. He had ruthlessly persecuted the Shiites in Iraq and mounted a lengthy and bloody war against Iran. The Sunni Muslims could ignore the Shiites, many of whom lived in their midst, because Saddam was holding them at bay.
Saddam had at one time been a close ally of the US, which was instrumental in bringing him to power and supplied him with armaments. Why did he turn against us? Remember “Iran-Contra?” Saddam was incensed when he found out that we were secretly funding and arming Iran in their fight with us. It became clear to him that all along, it has been our policy to contain his power. Research this strange episode and you will find commentators mystified as to the reasons behind it. No one states the obvious. We wanted to help Iran but needed to keep it a secret. VP Bush was the mastermind and even then we were playing the Sunni/Shia division.
I am convinced that the real reason we invaded Iraq, eliminated the Baath regime and abandoned our bases in Saudi Arabia is that we wanted to strengthen the power of the moderate Shiites in the region. At this time both sides hate us but also need us as they fight each other. The Bush administration constantly boasts that the proof for the success of our policies is that there have not been any attacks on our soil. Al Quaeda and the radical Sunnis are now concentrating their fury on the newly invigorated Shiite regime taking shape in Iraq. If it all turns out as we hope, the Shiites will be a major counterforce against radical Sunnis and the radical Shiites in Iran.
The nice thing about this theory is that it challenges the accepted wisdom that Bush and his cohorts were naïve in trying to set up a democracy in Iraq. This could never have been our goal. We are leaving the country a mess, but the radical Sunnis now have their traditional enemies to occupy them instead of us.
Even if the civil war in Iraq drags on with more violence or we are asked to leave, we will still have accomplished our primary goal of striking a blow against our most bitter enemy, radical Sunni Islam, and turned their attention to those whom they hate more than us. Having Saudi Sunnis in a dominant position as they coddle and export the virulent versions of their faith has not been healthy for the world or the Mideast region.
Time will tell if this has been a wise policy. Involving ourselves in the Mideast can have unforeseen consequences. Consider the bitter harvest we have reaped as a result of our support for the Mujadeen in Afghanistan. The ones we built up for that struggle are the same ones who turned on us later. On the other hand, if we accept this theory as the true rationale for our involvement in Iraq, it provides a much more reasonable explanation as to why we went in. It is certainly more credible than the official line that we embarked on this mission with the quixotic rationale of installing democracy in Iraq. That idea never did make sense and in my view was a mere pretense for the true, Machiavellian purposes laid out above. Unfortunately, if this is what we did, our government can never openly express it. Instead, we are left to merely observe and appreciate or dread the outcomes.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
