home

Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:41:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

With more than 1,800 young American lives lost, does Bush think an Emily Litella "Never Mind" moment will do anything but enrage us and sour the troops?

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say. What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "

Can you spell f-a-i-l-u-r-e?

< Christopher Walken Announces Run for President | Newsweek: FBI Feared Abramoff Would Flee to Israel >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq | 60 comments (60 topical)
    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Can you spell f-a-i-l-u-r-e? B-U-S-H

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Any honest Republican (I'd like to think I'm one) should admit that modest expectations about what government can achieve (in foreign or domestic policy) should be the rule.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    I wonder if they are going to tell Bush. They forgot to tell him about GSAVE.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Yeah but for some folks this thing went just swimmingly... those "rangers" and/or "pioneers" that are walking away counting about 200 billion of our dollars.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    So now instead of spreading peace-loving Democracy, we're legitimizing a theocracy?

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Why not, Roy? It's the same thing they're trying to do here.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    roy-Do they need our stamp of approval to figure out what kind of counry they want to be. We are the greatest country in the world, from my point of view, but it is not a mutually exclusive distinction, others may be the greatest as well.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    No time to comment much. I've got a constitution due on Monday.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Really, Che? The dog ate mine. He's snoring in Waco, from eating a huge hole in our national security and economy. His primary pleasure is cr*pping our national wealth out into the bank accounts of his supporters. While they applaud, in private cabals of smirking treason. He's anal. His "failures" to produce the Magic Kingdom he promised the rubes is just more Bush road-apples. Turd blossoms, so to speak. God's blessing and total bullsh*t coming together in one cruel man. It's a miracle.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    sounds like "defining down" victory to me. the fact is, we were told that iraq was going to be the second real democracy in the middle-east, not that there was only so much that could be done. not that i actually expected this to occur, but let's not play fast and loose with the facts. us "libs" needn't make things up or exaggerate, this administration, and its congressional allies, has provided more than enough actual, confirmable incompetence to turn it into swiss cheese. i have a sneaking suspicion that the schmidt election is a harbinger for the republicans: iraq, the ineptitude displayed on real homeland security, budgetary disasters, all provide substantive grist for democratic mills. all they have to do is get out there and lay the facts before the american public. 2006 should be very entertaining. one note of caution: hide the paper shredders in the white house and republican offices on the hill, lest damning evidence be destroyed before the incumbents are ousted.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#11)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    That is part of the deal made with iran, the next move you will never see or understand, but keep your eyes open, its going to be fun to watch how bush will sell the deal to you, without you knowing what your buying.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    This goes hand in hand with changing the name of our "thing" to struggle instead of war... Mid terms coming up, cannot have the incumbents accused of supporting a WAR when a STRUGGLE AGAINST EXREMISM sounds SO much better... And why promise dreams of a new paradise in the middle east when you can just say "At least Saddam is gone..." And before the wrong wingers come at me with their typical "he was so naughty blah blah blah..." Yes I am glad he is gone. Do I think it worth 1800 dead and how many thousands of mutilated American soldiers? no.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    So it is to be "deja vu all over again", declare victory and leave. So having opened the gates of hell what are some of the possible long term consequences. 1. Obviously, Iran is the big winner. The last 30 years of US foreign policy have been dedicated to keeping Iran isolated even if it meant supporting Saddam. The close cooperation between Iran and the Shias in Iraq will help strength the quest for power and influence by Shias throughout the ME including Saudi Arabia. 2. The limitations of US military power have been exposed for all the world to see. All you have to fear from the US is cruise missiles and nukes, which is substantial, yet it changes the rules of the game. 3. decreased influence throughout the ME and central Asia. We've lost use of the major base in Uzbekistan. 4. Increased instability in the ME as Iran will continue to provide support for Shia's in other countries. 5. Decreased access to ME oil. Now that demand in other parts of the world is increasing they can sell their oil to others, and charge us exorbitant prices. 6. The decline of the "petrodollar". Iraq had changed from the dollar to the euro under Saddam , look for Iran to continue that policy 7. Increased hatred of the US by Muslims throughout the world. 8. Having treated our allies like crap, the US will find itself more isolated in the international community and unable to influence events that affect it. Many people including some of the Pentagon's military planners had predicted before the invasion all these events as possible results of invading Iraq. The only US winners will be Halliburton and KBR

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    "let's not play fast and loose with the facts." Oh, no, we mustn't! That's for the Bushies, in their next iteration of their treason and calumny against our national security. Can't wait for them to BLOW THE DOORS OFF THE WHOLE MESS with a nuke in Tehran. But we mustn't fear leaving a traitor in charge of the country, while we shyly point and whisper among ourselves, with our factual white hats on. Stolen elections, illegal war, predation on civil rights, claims of impunity and Divine Rights of Kings -- no, nothing to worry about. No need to trouble yourselves -- the midterms will fix the problem, or else it won't. Any bastard gets to be president if they can steal it, right? Enjoy the War-athon at the Pentagon and Be Happy.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    “Can you spell f-a-i-l-u-r-e?”
    I was very pessimistic about the chance of a stable and democratic Iraq; I thought it more likely to slide into a protracted civil Suni/Shia conflict. The orderly election for the interim government was something, albeit miles from a functioning, self-perpetuating democracy. But now it seems there may actually be consensus on the largest sticking point, oil and federalism. If it is ratified in an orderly and relatively violence free election you folks are going to need to rethink the vitriol. For Christ sake, I read Peaches actually admit she had initially been disappointed by the progress in Iraq because she wanted the President to fail. If the left defines itself as an opposition, you know, you really let right define you. And I think they’re doing a pretty good job at defining you all as a bunch of jackals; cheerleaders for a failed democracy in Iraq.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    btw - i get frustrated when i read (everywhere) "more than 1,800 young American lives lost..." - i understand that this is shorthand for "american military deaths" but there are also american non-military deaths. im sure these deaths are equally important to the families involved. there are also 113 dead U.S. contractors contractors (for starters) Operation Milestone Millstone is counting down the days till we get to the milestone of 2000 dead americans (soldiers and contractors). it looks as though we'll cross that number toward the end of the Inappropriate Sniggerer's crawford holiday, which will be kinda, ummm, poignant.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#17)
    by John Mann on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    As long as the United States controls Iraq's oil supply, it's "Mission Accomplished". All the nonsense about "democracy" and "a noble cause" and "getting rid of that tyrant" are nothing more than big fat red herrings.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    cheerleaders for a failed democracy in Iraq.
    Pig - your an ass. We are not cheerleading what you are hearing is an "I told you so". This mess was predicted by many including Pentagon planners before the invasion. But thanks for your daily attack and bs

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    and BTW if your still buying this "establishing democracy" crap you are an administration apologist

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    "When all else fails.......... Lower your......... We won't fail agin!"

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#21)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    pig,
    I was very pessimistic about the chance of a stable and democratic Iraq; I thought it more likely to slide into a protracted civil Suni/Shia conflict.
    I don't recall you ever expressing any pessimism about the "chance of a stable and democratic Iraq." Show me a single post where you express this pessimism.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    A perceptive reader writes to say that the short deadline for the parliamentary acceptance of the constitution means that most members of parliament probably won't have time to read or study it carefully before the vote, and there will certainly be no proper debate on it. Is it right to expect parliament to approve a constitution it has barely read, which is highly controversial, without time for study and debate? Isn't that making parliament a mere rubber stamp? The deadline is a US political issue, not an imperative of Iraqi politics.
    LINK

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    TL One of the best posts yet! This ties together the question posed by Mrs Sheehan "Why did my son die?" with the op/ed by Frank Rich, in which he claims that Bush is thinking about withdrawing in time to save some Republicans who are running for reelection next year. I hope all my conservative friends read this article. Read it and let it sink in. Remember all that propaganda you used to repeat on blogs like this about how great things were going? Tell me again why over 1800 American servicemen lost their lives. For a democracy? According the a government official ""We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic." All the idealistic bs from the neocons about why we invaded and occupied seems to have now evaporated. "We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said. Maybe we should have taken Senator Aiken's advice about Vietnam - declare victory and leave. This might have saved us billions of dollars, and, more importantly, American lives.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    A question this article raises in my mind is why no serious anti-war movement has emerged? Hillary won't lead it. Neither will Dean. By why is there relatively little organized protest??

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Horse- From an exchange with Hockey Dad last December, before he stepped off the edge of civility.
    SD- That being said, lets assume we are not going to drop and run but are going to stay until the country is stable. PW- I agree with your grim assessment. There are many outcomes that are less than desirable. Bottom line, we should just leave. Iraq belongs to Iraqis; let them work it out.
    Searching the TL archives is very difficult, and I admit there may not be so many examples of my pessimism; I tend not to add to the voices in an echo chamber. But I assure you; most of my discussions of the chances for democracy in Iraq have neither been optimistic nor relegated to the Talk Left boards. Look, when the invasion started and marines began to be killed there was a lot of hype about Vietnam II, and thousand of US dead. The war to date has been relatively painless, a couple thousand US dead over a couple years and a government and constitution soon to be in place. Sham or not, this is a much greater accomplishment than I had expected, and certainly not Vietnam revisited. Maybe I’m easy to please, I half expected Iran to double in size.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Pigwiggle, the only "relatively painless war" is one no one gets shot in. That thought process got us into this mess in the first place. The only reason it won't turn into another Vietnam is that this one was timed to fit the election cycle. Gear it up in '02 so bushleague can brand everyone opposed as unpatriotic. Wind it down for '06 so they can say "Look! We won!" And by the way, Iran may not end up doubling in geographic size, but with the soon-to-come Islamic Republic of Iraq they will double in influence. Congratulations.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    I always thought "Lowered Expectations" was a SNL skit, making fun of a dating service. The current administration has adopted it as their mission statement.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    The war to date has been relatively painless, a couple thousand US dead over a couple years
    Painless is a very relative term. I guess you live in a world where you don't feel anything that doesn't directly affect you. I imagine that there are a couple thousand American families that would tend to think your an insensitive a-hole, just like I do. How many thousands of Iraqis died that were no threat to you? Who cares, right? They have a constitution (that won't be worth the paper it's written on) so it was all worth it. Go sell that story to the survivors.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    and by the way, PW, since my predictions on this abortion have so far been proven correct from day one, let me add another. The Iraqis will approve a constitution and have an election to get us out of there. There is absolutely no historical or societal sympathy for democracy there - but they do understand guns and tanks. Once we leave they'll do whatever the heck they want, which probably means killing a lot of Sunnis. When Sistani dies, al Sadr takes over. I think everyone who thinks of a war as being "relatively painless" needs to be drafted. (And if you were already drafted once, you need to be drafted again, because the lesson obviously didn't take.)

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    pig, I don't have to be civil to people who insult me. Relatively painless- now you have descended to scum. Those 2000 Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are not pieces on a game board, they were real people with sons daughters fathers and mothers. And they died for what? Dont worry Iran will be twice as big. They already support the Shias in Iraq and will aid the Shias in Saudi Arabia get rid of the royal family. Why do you think we supported Saddam for so long? Pig calls himself a libertarian - sounds like a neocon to me.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#31)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    From Col. Patrick Lang
    The US Military wants out. The force will do its duty no matter what and understands its obligations to the US Constitution and civilian control of foreign policy. The troops, when questioned in the field, will always say, "we are in the fight," and they are. God bless Them! Nevertheless, as has been said elsewhere this week, the officer corps is mindful of the fate and future of the military's institutions, and it now believes that those institutions are at risk if the war is continued at the present over all force levels in the Armed Forces and with the delusional ideas of a "Minister of War" like Donald Rumsfeld ......
    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#32)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    War isn’t painless crowd- If I were to say something like surgery to excise a chronic ingrown nail was relatively painless you should understand exactly what I mean. Would you chide me for calling surgery painless, or otherwise jeer, “the only painless surgery is no surgery”? Of course not, you know any surgery is difficult, dangerous, and painful, but excision of a nail is not nearly as difficult, dangerous, and painful as cracking a chest for a bypass. The best war is the war never fought, but the current war is less fatal by nearly an order of magnitude than any other war the US has fought. Ernesto-
    “Painless is a very relative term. I guess you live in a world where you don't feel anything that doesn't directly affect you.”
    You’re fairly close; just like you I am emotionally moved by those things that most directly affect me. This is what allows us to waste our time blogging about a war that has killed perhaps 100,000folks/year instead of, say, selling all our unnecessary crap (computers, cell phones, cars, etc.) and going to India to provide safe water and nutrition for the 1 million children that will otherwise die this year. But that’s not to say I am unmoved by the toll of the war. My wife’s brother will likely be deployed to Iraq soon; and this while she sees the steady trickle of young men coming through the VA, frequently her patients. But none of this changes the relatively low toll of this war. Ugg, and for you simple folks, that is compared to other US wars, not relative to peace.
    “How many thousands of Iraqis died that were no threat to you?”
    I did them a bit more than you did last November; I didn’t vote for the man that authorized the invasion or the man that asked for the authorization (both of whom promised to keep up the hostilities). Perhaps you’re projecting from guilt? SD-
    “I don't have to be civil to people who insult me.”
    It was instructive looking back through our exchanges (on Johns challenge). I am quite pleased at they way I have handled myself in the face of your persistent and malicious attacks on my character. Sure, I put in a jab or a snipe occasionally, but it has always been in response to, and about, your rude and often low insults. Today is a good example; you call me an a$$ and I comeback with Hockey Dad, you know, to say that you are being abusive and short tempered. I kept it light, and tried to be clever, you were crass and low; yours was ad homonym, mine was a comment about the attack. So, I challenge you to go back through the archives and take a look. It should tell you something about the man you are (and the man you think you are).

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Pigwiggle if you compared war to ingrown toenail surgery I'd say you were an idiot. If we get into a war that either serves our realpolitick national interests or actually does something to spread that "shining city on the hill," then 100,000 deaths aren't too many. If we get into a war so that a political party can win elections - Democrat, Republican, or whatever - the one death is too many. You and President Bush seem to think this is a game - "well, if we only get a few thousand husbands and fathers killed it's okay." This thing started by being labeled as stopping an imminent threat to the Nation. Whoops! Sorry - we weren't right there (even though lots of folks told us there weren't any WMDs in Iraq). When we were caught in that lie, we decided to "bring democracy to the Middle East." Whoops! Can't do that either - now it looks like an Islamic Republic is what we're going to get (same as Iran, except it's our blood paying for it). And you're trying to say "it's okay - we only had 1800 people killed." For what?

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#34)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    oh pig give up your self-rightous tripe. You can be proud you're an idiot i don't care. You insult us and then complain when we're not polite. Well tough. You are a typical bully like PPJ think you can just insult everyone and then whine when people stand up to you. What a wuss and a bully. dont like the words tough I dont give a rats a** what you think

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#35)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Miss-
    “Pigwiggle if you compared war to ingrown toenail surgery I'd say you were an idiot.”
    Right, and if you actually thought I was making that comparison I’d say the same. Did you really miss the point or are you just finding it easier to nitpick?
    “And you're trying to say "it's okay - we only had 1800 people killed."
    Uh, exactly where did I say that? I think my point was plain; the general pessimism here doesn’t seem to be founded and I listed a couple of reason why. SD- You aren’t standing up to anything; you’re slinging insults like a child in a tantrum. If you don’t like what I’m saying come with some reasoned arguments. Really, there was a time you did; get yourself together.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#36)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    "A question this article raises in my mind is why no serious anti-war movement has emerged? Hillary won't lead it. Neither will Dean. By why is there relatively little organized protest??" simply put, because there is no draft. as a consequence, only a very small % of americans are directly or indirectly at risk. the rest of us go through our day shopping, to show those nasty terrorists a thing or three! oh, to show our "support" for the troops, we put flag decals on our pick-em up trucks, the ones that get 10mpg. of course "your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore, it's already overcrowded, from your dirty little war" also, we write letters to the editor of our local paper, and post on blogs, accusing anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with the present administration's positions on, well, darn near everything, of being unpatriotic, and not "supporting" our troops.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    cpinva- I agree that no draft (and no graphic war reporting) makes the war more remote for most of us. Somehow, this war defies conventional logic. How do you explain the Hackett upset? As a recent marine he beat all odds running on an anti war platform. He may have lost but the race was a big barometer for the '06 elections. Also, how do you explain Bush's intense pressure to finish the Iraq constitution by tomorrow (aug 15), when they really need another six months. War presidents always have won as a rule, but now Bush, with his gift of political savvy, has realized that the war is working against him ergo he has to end the war ASAP or lose control of congress in '06.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#38)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    pig, If you've been pessimistic about Iraq all along, then I guess I had you figured wrong. Many of your posts have been either pro-Bush or anti-Democrat. People don't usually support wars if they are pessimistic about the chances of success. Sorry if I got you confused for someone else. Isn't it interesting that while the Bush adminstration is becoming less optimistic, you are becoming more optimistic. I think the key to understanding this is that as you acknowledged you are "easy to please." You are less likely to be disappointed by Bush if you start off with lowered expectations.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Pigwiggle, If you make a comparison like that you can darn well expect to be chastised for it. In reading your posts, I try to get a feel for the libertarian psychology. It seems to me that you have a rather detached view of humanity as a whole. Wars and disasters, poverty and mental illness are part of some Darwinian population control. Yet I never see any altruism in the philosophy. Do you see government (or some form of social infrastructure) as benevolent in any way?

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    geez, pig - if you say something at least have the guts to not run away from it the very next post. part of free speech is taking the responsibility to stand up for what you say rather than saying "that's not what I said" when someone calls you on it.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    I did them a bit more than you did last November; I didn’t vote for the man that authorized the invasion or the man that asked for the authorization (both of whom promised to keep up the hostilities).
    Well it's too bad you're guy didn't make it. But that's a moot point now. The topic is your poo-pooing how much of a disaster the PNAC plan has been, is, and will continue to be for many years. Unless you were oblivious to the background of the dudes who thought this thing up, there's no way you should have gone along for the ride at any point. How else could you trust a plan hatched by the PNAC gang? You don't get a nickname like "Prince of Darkness" for nuthin ya know. You are a sucker, they saw you coming a mile away...and now they wanna sell you a war with Iran. Don't buy it!

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    As a recent marine he beat all odds running on an anti war platform. He may have lost but the race was a big barometer for the '06 elections.
    Except in isolated cases, the Democrats probably cannot run on an anti-war platform because the DLC has seen fit to tap into many of the same big donors that keep the Republicans so sleazy and violent. Otherwise they could take back Congress by taking the gloves off and calling for the heads of those who looted the treasury for an overseas crime spree. Oh for the days of the populist Democrats...

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#43)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Your dearest wish won't come true, guys. But while you're dreamng about it, wipe your chins.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Posted by Fight for Justice: "why is there relatively little organized protest??" You must be kidding. The US has the largest, most informed, and best-organized war protest movement in history, well underway. The Vietnam war protest was 'larger' because of the visible (as in televised) student protests, which resulted from THE DRAFT. September 23 is the next giant protest. Get on board, and quit grousing about size. The media won't cover it, like all the rest of the thousands of protests taking place every day in this country. But that is no reason to ignore the positive effects of protest on the local community, which is where change comes from, since the PRIMARY issue is vote-fraud. Until we have our voting rights back, this problem will continue. pig: "I think they’re doing a pretty good job at defining you all as a bunch of jackals;" HILARIOUS. One hundred thirty THOUSAND dead bodies, and WE'RE the jackals? YOU are, pig. You are the jackal you see when you look in the mirror.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Dick, the blood on your face won't wash off. The spittle on our chins is there for a reason. It's called Free Speech. You and your coward brothers banging the drum for racist war and genocide, you have a lot to answer for in your upcoming (so many of you say) meeting with your Unmaker. Don't forget to wear your flag pin.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Pig: "Maybe I’m easy to please, I half expected Iran to double in size." Yeah, so did Sanchez. He ordered the British to attack the Iranian border troops, but the Brits refused. They are also refusing to join in the next attack (on Iran). The 400 shoulder-fired missiles, the 280 tons of high explosives, the cesium and strontium taken from the OPEN DOORS at Tuwaitha -- these things have not gone away; they are circulating and we can all thank Bush for the death and destruction these Xmas presents WILL cause. Outing spies, burning moles, ignoring AQ operatives, protecting Saudi families like the Al-Ghamdi family that supplied TWO of the 9i1 hijackers AND their eldest son who blew up a tent full of US soldiers, not to mention all the rest of Bush's hard work -- that is the truth of this policy.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Posted by mississippi scott: "The Iraqis will approve a constitution and have an election to get us out of there." No, that's a non-starter. Fifteen permanent airbases worth of non-starter. "There is absolutely no historical or societal sympathy for democracy there - but they do understand guns and tanks." Equally untrue. Iraq was a secular state with a functional democracy before the CIA installed Hussein. They had a constitution, and they had more civil rights than they do now, especially the women. It's not a good plan to sign onto the racist view of Iraqis in order to join the thugs in theirs.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    paul: If there is a big antiwar movement as you assert, who are its leaders? I read the news, but I've missed the big movement. And what does vote fraud have to do with protesting the war?

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#49)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    paul, if you truly believe that the only way the democrats can take back the WH and congress is by sinking to the level of the republicans, than they've already won, and the dems are a pathetic bunch of losers. this administration has provided so many acts of incompetence, warren harding is twirling in his grave, realizing he'll no longer occupy the top rung of the "idiot president" ladder. unfortunately, dems, for the past ten years or so, aided and abetted by a completely useless major media, have allowed the republicans to control the language. the rush's, seans and ann's have helped some, but their's is a relatively small choir, by comparison to the entire host. kerry did a dismal job last year, gore even worse in 2000. they both had truth on their sides, and squandered it. their campaign managers should have been taken out and shot, right after the final tallies. neither election should even have been that close, period. hackett came close because he is a former marine, with recent combat experience. had he not had that patina, in that district, he would have been fish bait. don't delude yourself. that, and his opponent is a particularly unpleasant individual. had the repubs put a better candidate out there, it wouldn't have been that close. yes, there is an anti-war movement in this country, with an only barely perceptable heart beat. until more people are directly at risk, it will remain on the periphery. that doesn't concern g.w., never will. as long as the republicans can avoid reinstituting the draft, they'll be safe on that score. now, when the children of the middle and upper classes start getting shipped off to baghdad, then all hell will break loose, but not before.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Posted by Fight: "paul: If there is a big antiwar movement as you assert, who are its leaders? I read the news, but I've missed the big movement." Read the news? Most of the protest movement is NOT covered. The corporate media is complicit. We've had several street marches in Los Angeles of 10,000+ over and over again... no press. The peaceful protest in NYC last year was HUGE. The US movement is quite diverse and the changes are at the grassroots. Do not expect to see an MLK Jr. It's millions of people who are working hard for change. "And what does vote fraud have to do with protesting the war?" The invasion only took place because of massive vote fraud. Five years of fake elections, so far. And there is no political solution to the war other than GETTING OUR VOTING RIGHTS BACK and removing the enemies who have foisted these policies on our country, stealing our peace in a mad dash to drain the treasury for every hairbrained scheme of the people in the Bush 1 admin that were called, for good reason, "The Crazies."

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    "kerry did a dismal job last year," He won the election. "gore even worse in 2000." HE won the election. "they both had truth on their sides, and squandered it." The elections were STOLEN. No amount of 'truth on your side' will stop a secret-software computer tabulator from swapping votes when ordered to over a wireless modem. Or tens of thousands of such machines. "neither election should even have been that close, period." Neither election was. "hackett came close because he is a former marine, with recent combat experience." I believe Hackett won that election, handily. Haven't heard yet about the vote fraud reports, but Ohio is still being run by Bush's campaign chair, a man implicated in the current Coingate scandal that has spawned THREE Grand Juries. Educate yourself on the vote fraud

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    correct link, sorry

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#53)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    According to a government official "We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic." The building of a democracy in Iraq was the last remaining justification for invading and occupying Iraq. Now it turns out that that goal will not be attainable. We lost over 1800 Americans for what?

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    We lost over 1800 Americans for what?
    The profit of a few. What till the average Iraqi starts getting his water and electric bills (when he gets water and electric service). Then they will see what the war was about. Money, it's gas.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#55)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Miss-
    “if you say something at least have the guts to not run away from it the very next post.”
    If I actually post something I will stand up for it, or retract when necessary; but I didn’t. Go ahead, rip the text out and repost it. Look, I am usually very careful of my wording, too careful to get sucked into defending your lame interpretation (more accurately your outright lie) of my post. So, go ahead, rip out the text and show me where I said "it's okay - we only had 1800 people killed.". PinLA-
    “One hundred thirty THOUSAND dead bodies, and WE'RE the jackals?”
    No, conservatives are doing a god job of defining the left, particularly the far left, as such. It’s simple, define yourself in opposition to someone and they define you. For example, conservatives say they are for progress in Iraq, so naturally you are not. Get it? You may recall that, like most here, I predicted a huge amount of violence surrounding the elections for the interim government. When there wasn’t, a lot of folks here simply moved on to deriding them as illegitimate and so forth instead of taking a moment to say how glad they were there wasn’t and that this was a good thing. It’s very easy for conservatives to show that off as disappointment.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#56)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Che-
    “If you make a comparison like that you can darn well expect to be chastised for it.”
    Perhaps, but again, I didn’t make that comparison. And OT, but I can resists.
    “It seems to me that you have a rather detached view of humanity as a whole … Wars and disasters … Darwinian population control”
    Not at all, in fact, I don’t think I see them any different than you. Take the example I used earlier of the 1 million children that will die in India of causes that would be trivial to prevent. You would think that any empathetic person would have difficulty going about their daily business with that weighing on them; so, are we not empathetic? Sure we are, if these children were in our neighborhood we would be out there right now. Or if they were in a neighboring state or even country we might be unable to comfortably sit and enjoy a glass of wine at the end of our day. We would be moved to do something.
    “Yet I never see any altruism in the philosophy. Do you see government (or some form of social infrastructure) as benevolent in any way?”
    Altruism is like the sasquatch, it’s a fiction. Folks are compelled for whatever reason, call it empathy, to make sacrifices for others that are less fortunate. In this regard I’m like everyone else. Last week an eagle scout came through my neighborhood collecting specific things for battered women’s shelters in India, and of course I couldn't help but give away my stuff. It hurt far less to give away my things than not, and so was really motivated by selfishness rather than ‘altruism’. Benevolence in government rarely works. It infringes on basic liberties and treats adults as if they were children incapable of making informed decisions, for good or ill.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#57)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." (Washington Post)
    So from "the beginning" Bush's plans for Iraq were based on "unreality." For those of you who were apologists for Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, what does it feel like to be played for a sucker? The only thing I have to add is said more eloquently by Eric Alterman.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#58)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    tTricked, duped, hornswoggled, bamboozled or hoodwinked. Sometimes flimflammed, gulled, dusted. Then there's decieved, betrayed, defrauded...

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    Paul: I'm eager to expose vote fraud. I'm from Cook County, IL, where the dead vote. In East St. Louis, several Democrat party officials were recently convicted for vote fraud. Then there's Kings County, Washington, where massive fraud made the difference in the gubernatorial race. The truth is that election fraud is not something Republicans have a monopoly on. As long as the investigations are nonpartisan, I'm confident you'll find at least as many if not more Democrats stealing votes.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    Fight-Not with the republicans owning the three major voting machine cos: Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software. And why do the Republicans want paperless machines and the dems are clamoring for the accountabiltiy paper records provide?

    Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq | 60 comments (60 topical)