What the future holds for Iraq

American military officials have opened the door to keeping combat troops in Mosul and perhaps other areas of Iraq beyond the June 30 deadline. But so far, Iraqi leaders seem to be rejecting the idea, at least in public.

In an interview with the BBC, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki argued that U.S. troops aren’t needed:

“As we agreed at the beginning when we signed the withdrawal agreement, these deadlines are final and absolute and not open to postponement.

“And there’s no need for delay, because the kind of attacks we’re seeing now, using mentally ill women, loading them up with explosives and having them blow themselves up — that will go on.

“So the presence of armed forces, with tanks and armoured vehicles inside the towns, is useless in this context.

“This is intelligence work, and our people are stronger than the Americans at that, because we’re dealing with our own people.

“We are absolutely convinced that the withdrawal will not lead to a collapse of security. Our own forces are capable of protecting the security and political processes completely, as is already happening.”

In private, other sorts of arrangements are still possible, with U.S. troops given a low-profile but continuing security role in some areas while giving Maliki enough cover to deny that’s what’s happening. But longer term, certain trends seem to be taking shape in Iraq.

Originally, the surge was marketed as a way to suppress insurgent violence and thus buy time for the Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — to come to some sort of political accommodation among Shia, Sunni, Kurds and other groups. And in strictly military terms, it worked better than I and others had predicted. Violence did fall significantly, in part because Iraq’s Sunni leaders had grown sick and tired of the brutality practiced by insurgents from their own communities and began to cooperate against them.

However, the desired political accommodation has not occurred. Maliki has instead used the time to strengthen his own security apparatus, including the Iraqi military. As a result, he is increasingly confident of his ability to squelch opposition and is taking a harder and harder line against the Sunni, both politically and militarily.

With the US role shrinking, Maliki seems ready to step in and further consolidate that power. He continues to rebuff U.S. pressure to woo the Sunni politically, preferring a heavier-handed approach. The renewed violence — more than 150 people killed in two bombings last week against Shia targets — represents the Sunni counterattack. Once again, Iraqi politics is being fought out through bombs and bullets, not ballots.

But overall, the Sunni are weaker militarily than they were a year or two ago, and the Shia-dominated Iraqi government is quite a bit stronger. We will probably see a higher level of violence in months to come, but we’ll also see a more authoritarian, repressive Iraqi government eventually able to enforce its dictates.

The end result won’t be a Western-style democracy, but it also won’t be Saddam’s Iraq.

104 comments Add your comment

Paul

April 27th, 2009
12:17 pm

Sounds about right.

Wonder if the Obama Administration has applied the same ‘lessons learned’ to Afghanistan? Seems we’re still trying to bring Western Democracy to a Middle Ages tribal society, whose interpretation of religion runs counter to much of what consider democratically self evident.

I Report/ You Whine

April 27th, 2009
12:18 pm

Violence did fall significantly, in part because Iraq’s Sunni leaders had grown sick and tired of the brutality practiced by insurgents from their own communities and began to cooperate against them.

Oh yeah, and so now they are no longer sick and tired but are longing for murder and mayhem, eh?

Elections have consequences as do ignorant worldwide surrender monkey tours and public displays of self abuse.

Obozo has emboldened the terrorists, just like we said he would.

sd

April 27th, 2009
12:19 pm

Sounds good Maliki. Have fun. Its been real. Take it easy!

getalife

April 27th, 2009
12:24 pm

We are staying.

Malarki is playing politics.

sd

April 27th, 2009
12:39 pm

When is the ticker tape parade? Soon I hope. I am going to grab a nurse today and bend her backwards and give her a big kiss. I mean, its what you do when your country “wins” a war.

Jake

April 27th, 2009
12:41 pm

Just say it Jay, it sounds alot like mission accomplished!

AmVet

April 27th, 2009
1:05 pm

Bring our guys home. NOW.

Not one more American life needs to be lost or ruined due to this six year folly.

BushCo has so much blood on its hands, it’s criminal.

Fortunately it cost the neo-cons virtually all of their political power.

And they are likely never to see it return.

Redneck Convert

April 27th, 2009
1:08 pm

Well, I see the Swiss people made it against the law to do mountain hiking while buck-nekkid. Good for them. It’s about time a country stood up against the people that like to flaunt their shortcomings to everybody. Me and the missus stumbled on a bunch of these nudists one day while walking on a beach in Florida. We were just flabbergasted. Anyhow, I got the missus out of there lickedy split, but she kept looking back. Said she was afraid one of them was following us.

Anyhow, I’m awful glad My President got this war in Iraq to about end with the Surge. Let them kill theirselfs if they want to after we leave. We won and it don’t matter if another kind of Saddam takes over the country. They’ll blow theirselfs up for the next 30 yrs. or so but pretty soon it won’t work because there will be nobody left to get blowed up. See, you can’t make kids if you’re in a graveyard.

Have a good day everybody.

N.J,

April 27th, 2009
1:17 pm

Violent attacks have been occuring at consistently the same daily rate since the start of the war in Iraq. As in all things, the Bush Administration simply redefined the term “violence attack” and “terrorist attack” in order to provide some sort of “proof” that the surge was effective. However several American Newspaper chains publish a daily record of such attacks, without excluding any, and these indicate that violence has not been reduced at all.

What the U.S. taxpayer has gotten for its trillions is basically replacing one dictatorship with another. The party of Maliki is:

In the West al-Dawa was widely viewed as a terrorist organization during the Iran–Iraq War, especially since the West tended to be more supportive of Iraq during that conflict. It is thought responsible for a host of assassination attempts in Iraq against the president, prime minister and others, as well as attacks against Western and Sunni targets elsewhere. It attempted to assassinate Tariq Aziz, Hussein’s longtime loyalist, in 1980; and Saddam Hussein himself in 1982 and 1987. Following Saddam’s 2003 overthrow, the former President was ultimately hanged for murder and torture relating to reprisals carried out following a Dawa assassination attempt on himself.

1983 Kuwait Bombing

In 1983 Dawa simultaneously bombed the American and French embassies in Kuwait and several other domestic and foreign targets in Kuwait. This led to the imprisonment of the “Kuwait 17″ in Kuwait, 12 of which were Iraqis in al-Dawa. The bombing of the American embassy was an early instance of suicide bombing in the Middle East, along with the Hezbollah’s bombings of the American Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon earlier that year.

Freeing the al-Dawa prisoners in Kuwait was one of the main objectives of a string of kidnappings and bombings perpetrated by Hezbollah over the next several years…

Largely, most of the people imprisoned by Saddam Hussein were imprisoned because the presidents of the U.S. at the time, Reagan and Bush 41 asked him to go after the “terrorists” that bombed the American Embassy in Kuiwait.

El Jefe

April 27th, 2009
1:20 pm

With His Majesty in charge, what do we hae to worry about. He will solve all the problems. As he told harry Reid, “I have a gift”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_reid_obama

Susan Myers

April 27th, 2009
1:40 pm

What a waste of time, money and human beings. Thanks again GWB & Co., we won’t forget.

ByteMe

April 27th, 2009
1:50 pm

Swine flu has killed 140+ in Mexico. Shops and schools in Mexico City are closed.

And now Mexico City gets hit with a 6.0 earthquake.

What’s next? Locusts? Cattle disease?

What’s next, God?

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

April 27th, 2009
1:52 pm

Jay, you really need an editor for this blog to ensure that your thoughts come accross crystal clear. I’ll take on the task to day.

When you wrote, “The end result won’t be a Western-style democracy, but it also won’t be Saddam’s Iraq”, it clearly did not express your true feelings.

What you should have written was, “Dear Santa, what I want for Christmas is that there won’t be a Western-style democracy in Iraq, I would rather have something along the lines of Saddam’s Iraq so that no one will acknowledge the glorious and noble victory to which President Bush led this exceptional nation.”

Now doesn’t the second version more closely express your innermost feelings. President Bush left a gimme put for President Ob-amateur and, while it looks certain that he will, I hope he does not screw it up and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
1:55 pm

“Violent attacks have been occuring at consistently the same daily rate since the start of the war in Iraq”

Nonsense.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Bosch

April 27th, 2009
1:58 pm

ByteMe,

I think it’s boils, and water turning to blood. Payback for the drug violence – karma’s a bitch.

What’s next in Iraq? Same damn thing. More violence, more violence, more violence. Bush & Co. were completely retarded to think you can change this country to our advantage. In ten years it will be just as it was before except it will be governed by a more fundamentalist faction of loonies.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
2:03 pm

Bosch –

” More violence, more violence, more violence”

Actually it has been less violence, less violence, less violence for the past two years or so.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

“In ten years it will be just as it was before except it will be governed by a more fundamentalist faction of loonies.”

Actually the fundamentalist parties lost big in the last elections.

It seems that most of the comments in this thread don’t have much to do with the reality on the ground.

what

April 27th, 2009
2:04 pm

sorry to be off topic but what about the 5 congresspersons arrested today for protesting darfur?

Typical Moonbat During The Bush Years, If Bush Was Still Here

April 27th, 2009
2:12 pm

EU: Don’t travel to USA and Mexico…

40 CASES IN UNITED STATES…

“Cheney and Bush have unleashed biological war for oil against us!!!!”

“Oh, the humanity!”

Susan Myers

April 27th, 2009
2:15 pm

“Once you leave the womb, conservatives don’t care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.”

George Carlin

Mike

April 27th, 2009
2:16 pm

While we are talking about casualty counts, let’s compare civilian deaths in Iraq since the war started (roughly 90k) to the deaths caused by the sanctions that “were working”:

“The grim question of how many people have died in Iraq has sparked heated debate over the years. The controversy dates from 1995, when researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. The New York Times picked up the story and declared “Iraq Sanctions Kill Children.” CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers and depicted sanctions as a murderous assault on children. This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers, coldly stated, “The price is worth it.”"

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

If Albright thinks that the deaths of 567k children was “worth it” to accomplish nothing, what does that say about the civilian costs of the current war?

Copyleft

April 27th, 2009
2:17 pm

Mike, the ‘reality on the ground’ is that our invasion was completely unnecessary and a huge waste of time, lives, and money.

Another “reality” is that the Iraqis don’t want us there.

Those are facts. Is anyone still lost enough in Bush-loving delusion to pretend otherwise?

Mike

April 27th, 2009
2:19 pm

Susan Myers –

My favorite comment from George Carlin was on the Bill Maher show when he said that rich, white guys don’t care about minorities. Except for him and Maher of course.

Carlin used to be a genius. Unfortunately, later in his career, he turned into a very nasty, intolerant and worst of all, unfunny partisan.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
2:25 pm

Copyleft –

Hmm. So I guess you prefer the sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Was that as Albright said, “worth it”? Did the Iraqis “want” our sanctions regime?

It’s easy to point fingers and make ad-hominem attacks. Please tell me what your alternative solution to the war was. Continuing the sanctions indefinitely and waiting for Uday to take over, regardless of the cost to Iraqi civilians? Feel free to launch ad hominem attacks, but please answer the question.

Powell was right when he said “you broke it, you bought it”. What many critics of the war refuse to acknowledge was that we “broke it” in 91 with the UN’s approval.

Ray

April 27th, 2009
2:27 pm

Susan,

It’s obvious to me that your stupid comment belays the fact that you and Mr. Carlin know absolutely nothing about the US Military. “Cute” phrases like this show that you, like most liberal whiners” are just as ignorant as Bookman when it comes to the military’s role in your life and the life of most other Americans. “Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers”…. that’s ignorant nonsense but you can thank the military, mostly conservatives, for your right to say it.

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 27th, 2009
2:28 pm

The end result won’t be a Western-style democracy, but it also won’t be Saddam’s Iraq

Sounds about right to me.

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 27th, 2009
2:29 pm

Hot damn, I finally succeeded in correctly placing something in italics!!!

Mike

April 27th, 2009
2:30 pm

It is also pretty pathetic that folks like Susan and Carlin are so hateful and intolerant that they really think that people who don’t share their narrow-minded views want their children to die. What a disgrace.

Susan Myers

April 27th, 2009
2:30 pm

The Iraqis want us out. We’ve destroyed their land and killed too many innocent people. We should have the decency to allow them to rebuild their land and bring their people home. We will never win their hearts and minds, and for good reason.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
2:36 pm

Susan Myers –

So, step out of your habit of providing us with boiler plate rhetoric and tell us the alternative to the Iraq War. Are you saying that we should have kept the UN sanctions regime that killed many more times the Iraqi citizens and prevented them from “rebuilding their land”? Be specific.

Paul

April 27th, 2009
2:38 pm

NJ

[[Violent attacks have been occuring at consistently the same daily rate since the start of the war in Iraq. ]]

Rarely has a long post lost credibility with the very first sentence. Congratulations!

(For reference, reread Jay’s piece where he begins “And in strictly military terms, it worked better than I and others had predicted. Violence did fall significantly…”

Ummm, Bosch, “Bush & Co. were completely retarded to think you can change this country to our advantage”

So what, exactly, is Pres Obama trying to do in Afghanistan, hmmm?

:-)

what 2:05

The arrested ones were Democratic lawmakers?!!? The same ones who excoriate Pres Bush and his advisors for breaking the law?

Well, fair’s fair. To be consistent, Spkr Pelosi should strip them of their committee assignments and order up articles of impeachment. Never an excuse for breaking the law, is there?

Susan Myers

[[Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.”]]

Pres Obama’s expanding the size of the Army and Marine Corps. He’s ordering tens of thousands more into Afghanistan and has spoken of a follow-on act into Pakistan.

Pres Obama is a conservative?!!?

Wow. The things I learn here…

CopyLeft

[[Another “reality” is that the Iraqis don’t want us there.]]

I agree. We should play “so long, adieu” from the Sound of Music as we leave. But I still don’t get it… so why is Pres Obama staying?

Susan Myers

April 27th, 2009
2:40 pm

Iraq Says U.S. Raid “A Crime”, Violated Security Pact

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53P18C20090426

Paul

April 27th, 2009
2:42 pm

Susan Myers 2:40

So you’re saying Pres Obama presided over a war crime?!!?

Mike

April 27th, 2009
2:42 pm

Susan Myers –

That’s super. Care to share with us your alternative to the Iraq War, such as maintaining the sanctions regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children?

Please show us that you can do more than copy and paste other people’s words.

Bosch

April 27th, 2009
2:46 pm

Paul,

He’s not trying to topple any existing forms of government. Not saying he shouldn’t be damn careful of what he’s doing. The whole thing makes me nervous.

Only people with very limited scope of the world think that we swoop in to any country – just to right all of the wrongs in the world – because most intelligent people know that whose right and whose wrong is all a matter of perspective.

If that were the case, we’d have already swooped into Darfur, North Korea, Cuba, and China.

N.J,

April 27th, 2009
2:47 pm

No, it won’t be Saddams Iraq. What it will be is Maliki’s Iran.

The party that Maliki heads was the FIRST Islamic Fundamentalist political party to be founded in the Muslim World. While the Muslim Brotherhood existed before this, it was not a politically oriented party before Dawa was created in the late 1950’s. It was this party that became the inspiration for the Ayatollahs of Iran, and they split with Dawa over the issue of who should lead the party, the clerics or the Ummah (the body of Muslim worshipers)

The western world failed in its efforts to create secular democracies in the Middle East, because they resulted in strongmen like Saddam Huusein, Assad of Syria, Nasser of Egypt, etc. Not a single post world War I ruler and their government has survived in the Middle East except the monarchy in Jordan.

By attempting to create some sort of Islamic based democracy in the middle east, the U.S. has stuck its foot in another mess that will be no more sucessful than the previous attempts to control that region. It will not be controlled by, nor amenable to any sort of government created by western ideas than western secularism was able to control it.

The primary argument is correct. The Iraqis were not responsible for 9/11, and in fact Saddam was the most powerful check against the Islamic Fundamenalists in the middle east. His people did not like him, but they liked the high standard of living he provided for them as much as the people of Saudi Arabia tolerate the right wing Islamic fundamentalist monarchy that rules over them. The Iraqis did not raise a finger to get rid of Saddam, and Saddam was no more brutal a ruler than the Saudi famiy is.

My alternative to the war in Iraq was to leave the Iraqis to solve the problems of their own rule and for the United States to stop sticking its nose into the governments and societies of other peoples. If they were not inclined to get rid of their rulers on their own, then we should not be doing it for them. There are many countries that suffer under far worse rule, and do not benefit anywhere near as much economically from their rule than Iraqi’s did under Saddam. There are nations all over the planet that have far worse rule, nations that have enormous oil wealth, yet the citizens live in grinding poverty because that wealth is totally controlled and owned by the small ruling elite in most cases and in many, by a single dicatator.

The U.S. has made many errors in the Middle East because of America’s reliance on petroleum. Europe takes a different position, and when you factor in the cost of maintaining a huge military presence in the middle east, America pays as much for a gallon of gasoline as the European do. We simple do not factor in the taxes it takes to control access to that oil.

While Jimmy Carter is reviled by conservatives, he told the truth 30 years ago when he said we can maintain our complete independence and freedom if we are willing to do with less reliance on other nations for our energy needs, and we will lose our total freedom and independence if we decide we are going to rely on China, the Middle East and other nations to look after our interests before they look out for their own.

The current economic crisis can be traced back to the event that took America from being a nation that was almost totally self reliant when it came to energy in the late 1970’s a nation that other nations owed money to, to one that is almost totally reliant on other nations for not just our energy sources, but our ability to even pay for our military power. Essentially our foreign policy now relies on America borrowing money from Red China, and getting our oil from an Islamic Fundamentalist nation.

Anyone who has any sense would not feel comfortable in that situation.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
2:53 pm

Bosch –

“If that were the case, we’d have already swooped into Darfur, North Korea, Cuba, and China.”

One difference: we were part of UN sanctioned multi-national force that impsed sanction on Iraq in 91. We all became responsible for Iraq at that point, although the US is one of the very few countries that decided to live up to its responsibilities.

NJ –

“My alternative to the war in Iraq was to leave the Iraqis to solve the problems of their own rule and for the United States to stop sticking its nose into the governments and societies of other peoples.”

It wasn’t just the US. It was a UN sanctioned diverse coalition of countries including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

AmVet

April 27th, 2009
2:55 pm

So, the apologists and justifiers are still at it. Shucking and grinning for Bush’s botched and chosen war. PNAC rules!

The neo-con clusterf&ck based on deceit, lies and a personal grudge wasn’t worth one damned American life, in this vet’s opinion.

And the irrefutable fact is that the consequences are that American people tossed the chickenhawks to the curb in the past two elections. Precisely because of this “greatest foreign policy blunder in modern history”. (Thank you Sen. Hagel.)

And their disgrace will never be forgotten. Or by many Americans, forgiven…

Copyleft

April 27th, 2009
2:57 pm

Mike: The alternative was to continue our policy of containment and sanctions with Saddam, which was working quite well. He was ZERO threat–not only to us, but to any of our allies in the region.

An even better course would have been to focus our efforts on Afghanistan, where our ACTUAL enemies were operating, rather than getting sidetracked into a nation that GW Bush had a personal mad-on for, despite the lack of any credible evidence of a threat to the U.S.

Did the containment and sanctions make life miserable for the Iraqis? No; Saddam’s policies did that. And if the Iraqis wanted to rise up and overthrow him, America should have sent them any number of good wishes and encouragement. But ending a tyrannical regime in another country is NOT OUR PROBLEM. It’s THEIRS.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
2:59 pm

AmVet –

Thanks for your usual brand of vulgarity and ad-hominem attacks, as well as reminding us you are a vet (as if we could ever forget).

Please tell us what the alternative the war was. Continuing the sanctions regime that was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

N.J,

April 27th, 2009
2:59 pm

Redneck Covert’s statement is about the most absurd I have ever heard.

What he and his kind have never done is actually DEFINE victory.

After World War II, there was a victory because the fascist nations of Japan,Italy and Germany were defeated and Japan, Germany and Italy became real democracies. All we did in Iraq was spill a lot of American and Iraqi blood and exchange a secular dictatorship with a religious dictatorship. Iraq is no more a democracy than it was when Saddam was in power.

The alternative to the Iraq War is the very basis of what the United States government was founded on and what the founding fathers told future Americans to avoid when it came to international affairs. They told us to keep out of other nations wars, politics and business.

This was invoked in George Washington’s farewell address to the world as well as in the Monroe Doctine which basically says “You keep out of our hemisphere and we will keep out of yours”

Paul

April 27th, 2009
3:00 pm

Copyleft

[[But ending a tyrannical regime in another country is NOT OUR PROBLEM. It’s THEIRS.]]

Sounds like a good thing to tell those five Democratic Congressmen who just got arrested at the Sudanese embassy.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
3:00 pm

Copyleft –

“Did the containment and sanctions make life miserable for the Iraqis? No”

Please read and learn:

“Most of these deaths are associated with sanctions, according to Garfield, but some are also attributable to destruction caused by the Gulf War air campaign, which dropped 90,000 tons of bombs in forty-three days, a far more intensive attack than the current strikes against Afghanistan. The bombing devastated Iraq’s civilian infrastructure, destroying eighteen of twenty electricity-generating plants and disabling vital water-pumping and sanitation systems. Untreated sewage flowed into rivers used for drinking water, resulting in a rapid spread of infectious disease. Comprehensive trade sanctions compounded the effects of the war, making it difficult to rebuild, and adding new horrors of hunger and malnutrition.”

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

Bosch

April 27th, 2009
3:00 pm

Mike,

And when have we ever paid attention to anything the UN told us? Huh? Don’t make me laugh. Bush pretty much told the UN to frak off.

I’ve had this conversation 100 times or more on this blog – and my story or my opinion will never change – see paragraph 2 at my 2:46 comment to Paul –

In the years since we invaded, we know alot more of what went wrong with the planning and the invasion and why Iraq did not work. Too bad you have to hang on to the same SIX YEAR old talking points of why we went in.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

April 27th, 2009
3:00 pm

AmVet

April 27th, 2009
2:55 pm

“And their disgrace will never be forgotten. Or by many Americans, forgiven…”, is that so?

More likely, once the stench of the most foul political winds that now blow stops, history will conclude that this most exceptional of all nation’s liberation of the Iraqi people led by the courageous President Bush was, in fact, perhaps the second most important and noble act undertaken for the benefit of others in human history.

The Ob-amateur’s, Looney Jimmey Carter, Sindy Sheeman, and the others will end up on history’s scrap heap of the reviled and mocked firmly next to Neville Chamberlain.

Susan Myers

April 27th, 2009
3:02 pm

As an American, nothing has embarrassed me more than the war crimes, the violations of constitutional rights, and the violations of human rights by the Bush Administration. After the Bush invasion of Iraq, the world turned against us, and rightly so, for the actions of the U.S. Government were reprehensible and vile. Bush didn’t protect the U.S. Rather, he endangered the U.S. Should he be prosecuted? Certainly he should. He should be allowed to present his defense, and Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of them, too.

Bosch

April 27th, 2009
3:03 pm

Psssssttt….

N.J.,

Redneck Convert is a parody of our wingnutty friends.

ty webb

April 27th, 2009
3:03 pm

mike and paul,
I think ya’ll maybe wasting your time with Susan.

Jay,
The insurgents are strapping mentally ill women with explosives for these attacks. Are these the same insurgents the Michael Moore/Daily Kos wing of the democrat party are always comparing to our founding fathers?

Mike

April 27th, 2009
3:05 pm

N.J. –

Hate to tell you this, but we live in a global economy far beyond the scope of the era of the Founding Fathers. It would be nice to let Iran take over the Middle East in the 80s or Saddam to take it over in the 90s, but the truth is that oil has been the fuel of an industrialization that has led billions out of poverty. Ask China and India.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
3:09 pm

Bosch –

“And when have we ever paid attention to anything the UN told us? Huh? Don’t make me laugh. Bush pretty much told the UN to frak off.”

Your knee-jerk response does not address my point, namely that the “international community” as a whole chose to engage Iraq in 91 and that is what makes it different than the other examples you cite (and referenced in your follow up). Nobody ever said the UN “told us” to do anything.

Also, Bush spent a lot of time and effort trying to get the UN on board, something that none of his critics seem to want to remember.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

April 27th, 2009
3:10 pm

Susan Myers 3:02 pm

I’m not certain that you are the quickest on the uptake; you see the rest of the world hated America long before President Bush beacuse we are most exceptional and they are, frankly, the “great unwashed.”

So-called War crimes, we committed no so-called war crimes. You need to read the Nuremberg transcripts or descriptions of that which the Japanese inflicted on prisoners during WWII to see what a war crime is. Loud music, bugs in a box, simulated drowning, sleep deprevation – far worse things go on during pledge week at an Ivy League school. These has only been classified as so-called war crimes as a result of BDS.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
3:11 pm

Susan Myers –

More boilerplate rhetoric. Yawn.

Please give us your alternative to the Iraq War, keeping in mind that the sanctions regime (which was in place for both Clinton terms) killed far more Iraqis than the current war.

Or just spout more boilerplate nonsense. Whichever.

Susan Myers

April 27th, 2009
3:13 pm

I have heard the argument that a criminal investigation would weaken our country. Not true, it won’t weaken our country, it will strengthen it. It will also make us stronger in the world’s opinion. Contrary to the neocons, we do have to co-exist in this world with other nations, especially since, thanks to Bush, we owe countries so much monetarily.

Bush broke many laws and for once he should have to suffer the consequences of his actions, something he should have been forced to do years ago.

Bosch

April 27th, 2009
3:14 pm

Mike,

And gee – in 91 it woked out – in 2003 – present it hasn’t worked out for us so well, we thought we were going to go in – be our usual bad ass self – and in six weeks – we’d be greeted as liberators – with Iraqi oil flowing in our streets here, and them paying us loads of cash to help them get rid of their evil dictator.

See? Didn’t work out – like I said earlier – too bad your STILL using the same old talking points to justify your opinon – the rest of us know better.

Bosch

April 27th, 2009
3:15 pm

Mike,

Another thing – Bush did try to get the UN to sign on – and they told him no – the international community said not to do it – most NORMAL people understand that when the international community tells you it’s a bad idea to do something – you should listen.

Chief of staff, Central State

April 27th, 2009
3:17 pm

Special dispatch from Central State Hospital, Milledgeville Ga: Frederick Douglass has undergone radical surgery to become broader
minded, and subquently a conservative. The lobotomy was a sucess, the
shock treatments were minimally effective, and we’re awaiting the results of the ball peen hammer to the temporal region. If all goes
well, expect Mr. Douglass to be at least as intelligent as Gov. Palin
of Alaska. Keep him in your prayers, and herald his return as a freshly
minted right winger.

AmVet

April 27th, 2009
3:17 pm

Mike, us?

You’ve got a gerbel in your pocket now? Your lone voice isn’t persuasive enough? You need imaginary friends to help in this endeavor?

Though you often speak for others, you simply don’t get it, do you?

Your opinions are of no value whatsoever to me. Dead serious. Why then are mine so important to you? You are completely obsessed with them. Why? Oh yeah, your unending search for the non-partisan truth. Ahem…

You clearly are very young and naive. And you think you know a great deal more than you do.

You are young, my son, and as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters. – Plato (427 B.C – 347 B.C.)

Which may explain why you voted for George W. Bush. Twice. As if being stupid once wasn’t enough. BTW, not that I give a tinker’s damn, but I noticed you didn’t mention who you voted for this in past election. You’ve got quite a losing track record going, it would seem.

This goes a LONG ways towards explaing your “non-partisan” loathing for the “liberals” here. And liberals only. Your non-partisanship seems extremely comfortable circle-jerking with the rabid right. As least the “classy” Wyld Byll Hytler isn’t a fraud like you.

He’s a raving chickenhawk and proud of it…

Mikey, you are what is known as a one man p!ssing contest. But I don’t think the ladies are impressed…

AmVet

April 27th, 2009
3:23 pm

Susan, I completely concur about Bush breaking many laws. He was in fact the most serially impeachable president in US history.

To wit, the American Bar Association, which is loaded with “conservative” Republican lawyers sent three different letters to the White House detailing where BushCo was in violation in five different areas of the law.

That the spineless US Congress did not pursue the man who used the US Constitution to wipe his arse, is proof to the shuckers and grinners that he is lily white and pure as the driven snow.

The immoral blind being led by the immoral blind…

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

April 27th, 2009
3:24 pm

Susan Myers 3:13 pm

And so, naive about the ways of the world, you write, “It will also make us stronger in the world’s opinion.”

Therein lise the problem with the liberal paradigm, for the liberals realize not that the dna strand in their world view is irretrievably broken and in direct opposition to reality.

For you see, the liberal views onther countries as sort of a kindly old school marm, who will grade us more harshly if she does not like us and cut us braks if were are generally pleasing to her. In fact, the relationship of other countries to our great nation, is more appropriately a Staurday-churchgoing diamond merchant (or, perhaps, more topically, Bernie Madorf)who is looking to obtain as much advantage as possible in every interaction. Whether he likes us or not matters little as if we are not prepared he would steal the fillings from our teeth whtehr he likes us or not.

Ray

April 27th, 2009
3:25 pm

Susan,

You continue to exhibit your ignorance of military affairs. Have you thought about just keeping quiet and then perhaps your ignorance will not be so visible. The extraction of information from these animals could be the one thing that saved your life or the life of someone close to you. They don’t respect human rights, yours or mine. “The world turned against us”….. what a bunch of crap. The world has done no such thing. There are about 10 countries whose opinion is important to us. Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the Netherlands. No one else matters. And if you look at troop involvement in Iraq, many of these same countries sent troops to help us. We don’t have friends in this world. You are so intent on catch phrases to describe “your opinion”…. Colin Powell put it pretty well when he said there are no such things as friends in the world, just nations of mutual interest. Who are you trying to impress? You,like all libs, think we should go on a popularity contest to see who will like us most. Only your narcissist president could think of that and he will find out that it shows his weaknesses and does not represent our country as a country of strength and resolve. If these “friends” of ours in other countries “turn against us”, it is certainly not because of Bush policies but because of perceived weakness in Mr. Wonderful. For an unpopular country, we sure have them lined up to get in.

Copyleft

April 27th, 2009
3:26 pm

Mike; You’re right, a lot of folks criticized the sanctions. Explain to “us,” please, how that translates into a sudden, urgent need to invade and overthrow the government of a country that was ZERO THREAT TO US WHATSOEVER.

Still can’t get around that point, can you?

Iraqis were dying by the thousands… so your solution is to invade and get some of our people killed alongside them? Stupid, stupid, stupid plan.

Tactically speaking, we might have reduced or eliminated the sanctions and seen how well Saddam remained contained–but that option didn’t come up for discussion in Neocon Central, did it?

You’ve asked for an alternative: I’ve provided two, one that was better for the U.S. while continuing to hurt Iraqis and another that arguably would have made things better for both nations. So continue, please, to justify an UTTERLY UNNECESSARY WAR.

ty webb

April 27th, 2009
3:27 pm

bosch,
Based on past actions, or shall I say inactions, I hardly think all of the UN’s advice should be followed.

Lib Dogooder

April 27th, 2009
3:28 pm

Surely each of you recall Iraq, prior to that illegal invasion by Bush. Never was there a Nation so enbracing of peace and prosperity. Citizens traveled freely hither and yon over the beautiful green countryside. Working together in a fashion similar to Mrs. Clinton’s village to assure the health and welfare of all citzens. But most especially the women and the children.

What evil has been wrought upon this peaceful and loving country and its gentle people by Bush and the United States of America?

For shame. For shame.

We must leave them immediately so that they can rejoin their pursuit of peace.

Copyleft

April 27th, 2009
3:29 pm

Wyld Byll and Ray are demonstrating the cowardly old neocon/chickenhawk way of viewing the world… as a collection of enemies and barely-constrained pets.

This “us against the world” mentality is a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course. And when we treat other nations with contempt, we’re always shocked at the resentment that comes back at us… sometimes in the form of hijackers and anthrax.

Neoconservatism had its day, and it FAILED. Hiding from the world and issuing threats from your bunker just makes you look silly. The rest of America, and the world, have moved on to bigger and better things.

Paul

April 27th, 2009
3:31 pm

Susan Myers

April 27th, 2009
3:33 pm

I suggest planning a summer vacation to Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, VA. Walk through the rows and rows of white markers and try to grasp what these people died for.

I’m sorry if you find it inconvenient or expensive to investigate what clearly looks like violations of international laws concerning torture and a preemptive war. Get over it. Go to Arlington and explain yourselves over the people who actually had guts and morals.

Bosch

April 27th, 2009
3:33 pm

Copyleft@ 3:29 – AMEN.

Paul,

Did you pass?

Paul

April 27th, 2009
3:34 pm

Susan Myers 3:02

But you told us at 2:40 that Pres Obama presided over a crime during a time of war. So I think that’s called a war crime? So that would make him a war criminal?

ty webb

I’m fascinated by absolutist, all or nothing morality views of the world. Kinda like evangelicals or fundamentalists with the Good vs Evil thing.

Mike

(sorry for butting in, AmVet)

[[Please tell us what the alternative the war was. Continuing the sanctions regime that was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?]]

In a word, “Yes.” We’ve tolerated such regimes for decades and likely will continue to do so. It’s just the way it is.

Now, if Pres Bush would have gone to the UN and labeled it a humanitarian mission, like those 5 Democratic Congressmen who got arrested did, then he would have had all kinds of Democratic support!

Labels. Gotta pick the right labels.

Susan Myers

[[I have heard the argument that a criminal investigation would weaken our country. Not true, it won’t weaken our country, it will strengthen it. It will also make us stronger in the world’s opinion. Contrary to the neocons…]]

Pres Obama’s opposed. He’s a neocon?

I Report/ You Whine

April 27th, 2009
3:36 pm

Aahhh, yes, another turncoat Conservative wakes up from the hopeandchange.duh fog-

The Obama administration’s ambition may well backfire, however. The huge scale of the administration’s early spending commitments–the very real risk that the administration may soon have to return to ask for another $1-trillion or more in bailout funds–has frightened conservative Democrats. Their fears about Obama’s overspending are already jeopardizing his hopes for more redistribution and more social engineering.

Obama’s next and more cherished round of over-ambitious plans may stumble over buyer’s remorse for his last round of over-ambitious plans.-David Frum

Bark, bark.

Grrrrrrrrr.

demwit

April 27th, 2009
3:38 pm

Does everyone get a vote in a non-”Western-style” democracy????

AmVet

April 27th, 2009
3:42 pm

OK, Paul, now you’ve gone all uppity on me!

Actually, your point is an excellent one.

If we invaded a sovereign country every time some lamebrain in power with a machismo problem wanted to “change things”, half of this nation would be in uniform right now and fighting in a couple of dozen spots, at least, around the globe.

BushCo’s Crusades were just the latest example of rich guys getting poor people’s kids (in many (most?) cases killed so they can feel good about themselves…

And after way too many wars in my lifetime, I say they can all go ____ themselves…

I Report/ You Whine

April 27th, 2009
3:43 pm

Hey, now maybe the Urinal will be able to see how much money they lose every week, hahahaha.

Funny, ain’t it?

I Report/ You Whine

April 27th, 2009
3:44 pm

Oops, wrong thread(-:

Bosch

April 27th, 2009
3:48 pm

Andy,

That was funny!

Ray

April 27th, 2009
3:49 pm

Copyleft,

Well, I hope the world doesn’t move too fast in its effort enjoy “bigger and better things”. We have survived our last 200 years by carrying a big stick. We stopped carrying that stick when our Southern borders were not guarded and look what happened as a result. Millions of unregistered aliens on the dole and being paid for with your tax dollars, producing about 4M new citizens every year. Doesn’t that bother you? If this represents moving on to better things, maybe I am behind the curve. The world is a collection of not so “barely-constrained pets” who would line up at our borders and fill this country, as the Mexicans have, not intent on becoming Americans but only enjoying our generosity while it lasts. The liberals would open the borders and allow all of these not so intent Americans to infiltrate our country. Neither political party has done sh** about it. Our nation’s sovereignty is one of our most important assets. Conservatives have certainly not failed, not by a long shot. But as we allow our nation to become a nation of dependency we destroy the very things that our country was founded on in the first place…… self responsibility, resolve, independent thought, hard work and love of country. No wonder no one is lined up at the border of Nigeria, Indonesia or Iran.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
4:06 pm

AmVet –

Your nonsensical and pointless ramblings are too tedious to actually read, let alone respond to.

Copyleft –

“Iraqis were dying by the thousands… so your solution is to invade and get some of our people killed alongside them? Stupid, stupid, stupid plan.”

Well, actually it was hundreds of thousands, but yes, as Colin Powell said, “You broke it, you bought it.”

“Tactically speaking, we might have reduced or eliminated the sanctions and seen how well Saddam remained contained”

Well if that vague pipe dream was an option, don’t you think the non-”neocon” Bill Clinton would have thought of it? Instead, his SOS Albright said that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children was “worth it”. (Her actual words.)

That’s not an alternative. That is a cop out.

As to why we invaded:

1) The Bush admin was full of folks who knew that the status quo in Iraq was not going to change with sanctions.

2) Bin-Laden used the Iraq sanctions as a justification for 9/11, a fact conveniently forgotten by those who complain that the current war enrages Arabs. Guess what, your plan enraged them too.

3) It’s easy to say that Iraq was not a threat. We did not know that at the time, as is evidenced by the quotes on the threat posed by Iraq by many Democrats at the time demonstrates. We know that they are not a threat now.

BTW: Why do you shout in caps? What is the point?

Mike

April 27th, 2009
4:07 pm

Susan Myers –

Why don’t you go to Arlington. Maybe you will learn that people are dying in Obama’s war too. Of course, you don’t care about that as Obama is a Democrat.

DebbieDoRight

April 27th, 2009
4:07 pm

Originally, the surge was marketed as a way to suppress insurgent violence and thus buy time for the Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — to come to some sort of political accommodation among Shia, Sunni, Kurds and other groups. And in strictly military terms, it worked better than I and others had predicted. Violence did fall significantly, in part because Iraq’s Sunni leaders had grown sick and tired of the brutality practiced by insurgents from their own communities and began to cooperate against them.

Sorry to disagree Jay, but I think the violence started back because the funds the Bush Administration paid the Sunnis for them to NOT fight amongst themselves, ran out.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
4:09 pm

Copyleft –

“And when we treat other nations with contempt, we’re always shocked at the resentment that comes back at us… sometimes in the form of hijackers and anthrax.”

You do know that the sanctions that you supported keeping in place were given as a justification for the 9/11 attacks, don’t you?

DebbieDoRight

April 27th, 2009
4:11 pm

3) It’s easy to say that Iraq was not a threat. We did not know that at the time, as is evidenced by the quotes on the threat posed by Iraq by many Democrats at the time demonstrates. We know that they are not a threat now.

They knew, they just didn’t want to hear the truth. The Brits, France AND our own intelligence community told the Bush administration that there was no justification to the rumor that Iraq had purchased yellow cake from Niger. However, Dumbya’s people decided to go after the bearer of the “bad news” and out an CIA operative — just to have their war.

Cindy

April 27th, 2009
4:21 pm

Point being, GWB fumbled into Iraq. His purpose was not to “free” the Iraqis from Hussein; it was to stop them from building WMD. But, duh, once in there he had to do something about the can of worms he opened, so new buzz words were created for the disaster. “Stay the course” was his battle cry. Then we got SECDEF Gates who made some changes to the GWB course.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
4:22 pm

DebbieDoRight –

“They knew, they just didn’t want to hear the truth. The Brits, France AND our own intelligence community told the Bush administration that there was no justification to the rumor that Iraq had purchased yellow cake from Niger. However, Dumbya’s people decided to go after the bearer of the “bad news” and out an CIA operative — just to have their war.”

Nonsense.

1) The yellowcake claim was not the only intelligence that led folks to believe Saddam had a WMD program.

2) The Brits still claim the yellowcake intel was valid.

3) Saddam’s own generals thought that he had a WMD program.

4) Plenty of Democrats, including Bill and Hillary Clinton are on the record as saying they thought Saddam had WMD.

5) Richard Armitege outed Valerie Plame and it happened after the war started.

I like the way you changed Bush’s name to Dumbya. It really makes your arguments more valid.

Jake

April 27th, 2009
4:28 pm

At best the Iraq war is a mitigated disaster. Possibly the worst consequence was removing one Hussein over there and installing another Hussein over here!

DebbieDoRight

April 27th, 2009
4:39 pm

1) The yellowcake claim was not the only intelligence that led folks to believe Saddam had a WMD program.

What were the other claims? And were they substantiated by our Intelligence communities and our outside sources?

2) The Brits still claim the yellowcake intel was valid. 3) Saddam’s own generals thought that he had a WMD program. 4) Plenty of Democrats, including Bill and Hillary Clinton are on the record as saying they thought Saddam had WMD.

The operative word here is THOUGHT — that’s why we have INTELLIGENCE gatherers to know for sure. Saddam was effectively crippled by the UN sanctions and inspections; that ’s why he threw the inspectors out of the country — he didn’t want anyone, not his enemies and ESPECIALLY not his generals, to know that he didn’t have anymore nuclear weapons. If you were holding a criminal at bay with a gun, are you going to tell the criminal that your gun really doesn’t have any bullets?

Think about it, if you are hated by your people, by your enemies, and by your friends, would you let them know that you are, in effect, powerless and useless? Saddam effectively played all of them for fools.

5) Richard Armitege outed Valerie Plame and it happened after the war started.

Ooops you’re correct!! It was after the war started, and Armitege didn’t do that on his own — sort of like Ollie North, a low level Colonel, couldn’t have authorized Iran-Contra on his own….

I like the way you changed Bush’s name to Dumbya. It really makes your arguments more valid.

Why gee, thanks Mike!!!

Jake

April 27th, 2009
4:40 pm

Debbie, Cindy, Susan, AmVet and other believers in the U.N. – While you might find it ethically distasteful you’re secretly thankful BushCo kept that Mideast oil flowing. If you disagree, please park your cars for a week and get back with me.

Mike

April 27th, 2009
4:46 pm

DDR -

“What were the other claims? And were they substantiated by our Intelligence communities and our outside sources?”

Are you kidding? Do you really think that the whole war was predicated on the yellowcake claim?

Here are some quotes from the Clinton admin, years before the yellowcake claim:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“Saddam was effectively crippled by the UN sanctions and inspections; that ’s why he threw the inspectors out of the country — he didn’t want anyone, not his enemies and ESPECIALLY not his generals, to know that he didn’t have anymore nuclear weapons. I”

So wait a second. You admit that Saddam had fooled his own generals, but you fault the Bush admin for not knowing? You seem to be making my argument for me.

If a convicted murderer tells his neighbors that he has machine guns but doesn’t, are you going to blame the cops for kicking the door in?

AmVet

April 27th, 2009
4:47 pm

Mikey for President! Of Iraq!

Or the Shuckers and Grinners for Botch Invasions Club!

Not only is the President, he’s a client!

DebbieDoRight

April 27th, 2009
5:19 pm

Those comments by Clinton were made AFTER he left office and he wasn’t privvy anymore to intelligence reports. I seriously don’t think he would’ve made the same comments if he would’ve seen the intelligence that came in prior to the Iraq invasion.

So wait a second. You admit that Saddam had fooled his own generals, but you fault the Bush admin for not knowing? You seem to be making my argument for me.

With the intelligence that was gathered, the US “should have” known better. Besides, according to a former top Bush Official, (in his book anyway), Scott McClellan wrote a blistering review of the administration and concluded that his longtime boss misled the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq. He stated that Bush told his top advisors to “Find me something on Iraq”; in order to predicate the War.

If a convicted murderer tells his neighbors that he has machine guns but doesn’t, are you going to blame the cops for kicking the door in?

No. But the cops still need a warrant and probable cause in order to get the warrant. The cops can’t just go and kick down the guys door because he’s talking bad and selling wolf tickets — they have to have probable cause.

John D

April 27th, 2009
5:27 pm

Mike, 4:46,

Nary a one of those are links. Are you familiar with what a link is? Nah, ‘course not. But you know how to make stuff up.

Paul

April 27th, 2009
5:38 pm

DDR 5:19

Actually, police can enter a residence without a warrant if they think there’s an imminent danger to life or property, or in the case of a crime in progress exception.

Last week I wrote that of course the Bush Administration invaded Iraq. They’d listened as outsiders to eight years of the Clinton Administration telling us Saddam was developing nukes, had WMDs, was an imminent threat, and on and on and on and on… and nothing happened. So then we get attacked (again) but this time it’s bigger and over here, then we wonder if this Saddam whackjob is gonna hand off stuff to this Osama whackjob, ’cause after all, everybody just knows he’s got the stuff and he’s an IMMINENT threat, so said the top Dems, and if anybody would know, they would!

Cool argument, huh?

I’ve said before, the “Lie” rhetoric didn’t begin until the war was going badly. (Whether he bungled interpretation or overplayed or underplayed other intel is another point – I mean the generalized ‘he lied ’cause he wanted to go to war thing). Then it became another political point.

And I’ve written before – can you imagine if, on Jan 25th of 2001 if Pres Bush had gone on tv and said “y’know, folks, I’ve listened what the previous administration and party leadership said about Saddam, about how he’s got those WMDs and wants nukes and he’s a danger and all that. Well, I’ve looked at the latest CIA reports and I think they’re wrong. Way wrong. Saddam doesn’t have nothing. He’s no danger. Accordingly, I’m gonna order a pullback. No more no fly zone (let NATO handle it). Nothing’s going to happen. Those guys were wrong. I’m right. I’ve decided.”

Dems would’ve called for his head.

Dang, it’s nice to have you back.

Hi AmVet

Every response to your 3:47 disappeared. Mike Peters book, late 90s — biggest challenge in the coming decades would be from Americans who saw heart-wrenching pictures of suffering and called on the military to intervene and ‘do something to stop it.’ Even when it didn’t affect us one iota.

Any bets on when the first call comes?

Paul

April 27th, 2009
5:46 pm

DDR – Midori

I saw Hugh Jackman in Boy From Oz in Manhattan. Then was at the backstage door when he came out. Nice guy. Real personable. His wife with him – she’s one of those ‘cougars’!

Paul

April 27th, 2009
5:47 pm

Wrong thread. Darn it, Report/Whine, you’ve gone and hexed the thread!

MWB

April 27th, 2009
6:00 pm

Paul at 5:46,

Hugh Jackman’s wife is not one of the cougars. Check before you post, man.

DebbieDoRight

April 27th, 2009
6:02 pm

Last week I wrote that of course the Bush Administration invaded Iraq. They’d listened as outsiders to eight years of the Clinton Administration telling us Saddam was developing nukes, had WMDs, was an imminent threat, and on and on and on and on… and nothing happened. So then we get attacked (again) but this time it’s bigger and over here, then we wonder if this Saddam whackjob is gonna hand off stuff to this Osama whackjob, ’cause after all, everybody just knows he’s got the stuff and he’s an IMMINENT threat, so said the top Dems, and if anybody would know, they would! Cool argument, huh?

Yes it was a good argument and worthy of healthy debate!!! Ok here I go: a) Even though Clinton’s folks were talking about how bad Saddam was BEFORE Bush took office, in 2002 when we went to war w/Iraq, his intelligence resources “should’ve known” that Saddam was impotent. b) Saddam was a dictator — dictators do not share their thrones with charismatic religious zealots — that’s suicide. c) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The majority of the 9/11 crew were from Saudia Arabia. d) You are correct, if Bush would’ve came on the tube and said, “Saddam is ok, i’m gonna leave him alone” the Dems would’ve had a hizzy fit. e) When Clinton left office, Bin Laden was public enemy no. 1 and his outgoing team informed the Bush’s team about Bin Laden and his crew; why didn’t the Bush’s listen to THAT?

I’ve said before, the “Lie” rhetoric didn’t begin until the war was going badly. (Whether he bungled interpretation or overplayed or underplayed other intel is another point – I mean the generalized ‘he lied ’cause he wanted to go to war thing). Then it became another political point.

Actually the rhetoric began BEFORE the invasion — however, the Democrats in Congress, being politicians and seeing that they had no voice (representation), to make changes; went along with the war, (some did), whether they believed in it or not. Their belief for them was irrelevant; their voting constituents believed and that’s all they cared about.

Dang, it’s nice to have you back.

Why thanks Mike!!! Nice to “talk” to someone who thinks and has a great point of view, (oops, gotta say “even though its different from mine” gotta put in that disclaimer!!) :oops:

Paul

April 27th, 2009
6:03 pm

MWB

It was in yesterday’s Parade magazine. Said she’s 8 years older than her husband.

Unless you meant the cougars are some girl band.

DebbieDoRight

April 27th, 2009
6:04 pm

I saw Hugh Jackman in Boy From Oz in Manhattan. Then was at the backstage door when he came out. Nice guy. Real personable. His wife with him – she’s one of those ‘cougars’!

Sigh….he’s gorgeous!!! Too bad about the marriage thing though!! :lol:

Paul

April 27th, 2009
6:12 pm

DDR

Nice counters. You’re the first one to take on that argument. I had the same thoughts when I wrote it as you did about “y’know, before we go to war we’d better be really sure…” but you’re the one who brought it up.

But you know, Richard Clarke was peddling the same argument to the Clinton Administration for years and they didn’t buy it. Bush was just like Clinton in that regard!

I didn’t say Saddam was involved – only posited a worst-case of “hey, we’ve been told this guy has nasty stuff. He hates us just like this OBL guy. Do you think Saddam may give him some of his stuff? OMG, we’ve gotta get him!” scenario.

And I agree – Dems would’ve had a hissy fit if Bush would’ve said “CIA’s wrong, Clinton’s wrong, I’m right and we’re outta here.”

The ‘lie’ thing – Gore’s “he lied” performance is just seared in as a launching point. Maybe others said it before the invasion, I just remembered it as more of an interpretation disagreement at that point.

Except for that IAEA retired major. That guy had guts.

[[Why thanks Mike!!!]]

No problem, Doris… Darla… Deedee….

MWB

April 27th, 2009
6:18 pm

Paul at 6:03,

Actually Deborra-Lee Furness is 13 years older than her husband Hugh Jackman.

Say, what would you call a man who is several years older than his wife?

Oh, and google The Cougar TV Show.

Paul

April 27th, 2009
6:21 pm

MWB

I didn’t read the article – my wife called it out as she was reading Parade. I did record the first episode of Cougar – a 40-year old with 21-year olds. And I knew better than to watch it with my wife sitting there….

What do you call a man who’s lots older than his wife?

Rich?

DebbieDoRight

April 27th, 2009
6:25 pm

No problem, Doris… Darla… Deedee….

HAHAHA!!! OK you got me!!! I was “talking” to Mike earlier and got lost……….I think I’m gonna blame my lack of concentration and my surge of forgetfulness, on a wide stance. That seems to work…………. :oops:

DebbieDoRight

April 27th, 2009
6:26 pm

What do you call a man who’s lots older than his wife?

Rich and has lots of Viagra