home

Can We Afford Continuing The Iraq Debacle?

While the Super Catfood Commission plots how to dismantle The New Deal, Iraq remains troubled:

A chilling series of fatal attacks across Iraq on Monday sent a disheartening message to the Iraqi and American governments: After hundreds of billions of dollars spent since the United States invasion in 2003, and tens of thousands of lives lost, insurgents remain a potent and perhaps resurging threat to Iraqis and the American troops still in the country.

Unless the US plans to stay in perpetuity, I believe a full blown civil war in Iraq is inevitable. There is nothing more the US can do. We can't afford to do more. Time to declare victory and leave.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Tuesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    We WILL be there in perpetuity (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    The largest embassy in the world (larger than the Vatican) is located in Baghdad - housing up to 4000 people.  We will always have some kind of military presence there.

    Great minds think alike, (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    apparently, jbindc.  I had the same thought, but you got there a couple of minutes first.  ;-)

    Parent
    I think we will have the same (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:41:11 PM EST
    experience in Iraq.  I don't care how big or how much money we put into our new embassy there.  The only thing we accomplished was creating a bigger better target for mortars.

    Parent
    So much for Obama (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    ending the occupation of Iraq. From all of the effort that was put into getting the Iraqi government to allow them to stay after the Dec., 2011 deadline, I wouldn't doubt the US plans to stay in perpetuity.

    Bottom line the plan is to drastically cut domestic and safety net programs to free up more funds for the endless wars and more and bigger tax breaks for corporations and the uber-wealthy.  

    can we not (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CST on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    declare victory?

    I mean, I get it, it's a turn of phrase.  But frankly, if we do end up leaving, I'd rather not have this one in the history books anywhere near the word "victory".  If anything it is a stark reminder of the fact that we should not preemptively invade a country and expect to have that turn out well.

    Have to agree with you on (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    the "victory" part.

    Parent
    We couldn't afford to start... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    the Iraq debacle, and that didn't stop us.

    When it comes to war and occupation, the credit card has no limit.  It's only when someone somewhere needs some help that the card gets declined, misery is pre-approved.

    The powers that be have decided (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:49:36 PM EST
    that the U.S. cannot in fact cannot afford the wars and maintaining domestic and safety net programs. They have decided what they want to keep funding. IOW the wars won. Domestic and safety net programs must be cut to the bone.  

    Parent
    We aren't getting any of that oil (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:19:09 AM EST
    if someone in that country doesn't want us to have it.  We have finally come to accept that.  They blow the pipelines all the time.  You can't get oil out without the pipelines, and you can't stop people from building bombs to blow them if you killed over 200,000 just because you could and now they hate you.  

    We hope to not look like monsters and we probably hope to build some sort of working relationship with someone in power who will sell us the oil at a good price.  The current power structure hates our guts though.

    Parent

    A Quartered Military (none / 0) (#49)
    by koshembos on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:15:55 PM EST
    As everyone above says, our wars abuse us and others, cut into our small safety net which actually must expend and never seem to end.

    We must beat into the head of the money grabbing elite, congress and our $1 billion reelection campaign president that we want to a quarter of the military we have now. Terrorism defense does not require wars. Mexico and Canada plan no attacks.

    If we will not stop them they will fight Martians. What a bunch of criminals!

    Parent

    We will (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    probably get out of there perhaps after the 2016 election but not before. We certainly are not getting out of there before 2016 as far as I can see.

    Will the oil still be there in 2016? (none / 0) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:26:34 PM EST
    If it is still there, we will still be there after 2016 unless the Iraqis throw us out.

     

    Parent

    Sooner (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    or later the people of this country are going to demand it and candidates who are for staying are going to start losing elections. I figure it's going to take a few more years for this to reach critical mass.

    Parent
    We went there for two reasons: (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    One was to establish a permenent military base in the region.

    The other was for oil.

    Neither condition has changed. We're there for the duration.

    It was never about the Iraqi people.

    There was, (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:51:57 PM EST
    I believe another reason in addition to the ones you mention.

    Bush Jr. was using American troops to avenge the honor of his Dad, formerly known as the "wimp".

    It is royalty using citizens as cannon fodder to sooth their egos.

    But, the fact that there was a whole lot of oil money to be made didn't hurt either.

    Parent

    Reason #4 (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    I think GWB was convinced his path to greatness went through Iraq. I don't doubt that if he had even limited success, he would have continued the march to Iran and Syria.

    He was going to be the president that brought stability to the Middle East.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:06:15 AM EST
    I actually think that was his main motivation, the neo-con fantascy of establishing Western-style democracy by force on the Middle East.  The oil and the bases were nice perks, but I think the main drive was that insane idea primarily.  He and Rummy thought they were going to go down in history as being the visionaries who "solved" the Middle East. Cheney, though, was only in it for the oil and the construction contracts.

    It's enough to give idealism a bad name.


    Parent

    Do you remember when NYT writer, (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 04:41:10 AM EST
    Tom Friedman, was asked that same question, "why do you think GWB decided to attack Iraq?"

    He answered that after 9-11 we needed to show that part of the world what happens to anyone who messes with good ole #1, U.S.A. he said the message was, "Suck on this!"

    Poor Tom, his mental deterioration was evident even then.


    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    first got his undeserved rosy glow due to his speech in which he referred to the war in Iraq as "dumb".

    Well, as we all know, it is worse than dumb.
    Killing hundreds of thousands of people deserved a somewhat more forceful description.

    What do you call someone who pursues an activity that he knows to be dumb? Stupid?

    I don't see any way that I could vote for Obama. No way.

    I would support an antiwar candidate.

    I will also admit that although I would not vote for the opposition party, if Obama were defeated a moderate smile would appear on my visage.

    Don't forget, it could be worse than it is now. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 04:50:08 PM EST
    The news that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is seeking the Republican presidential nomination may well send a tremor through the Muslim world.

    That's because Perry, an evangelical Christian who would make a formidable candidate, appears to actually believe the U.S. military is divinely directed and is liable to continue U.S. interventions in the region.

    At a prayer rally only this past August 6th in Houston's Reliant Stadium that attracted 30,000, he "called on Jesus to bless and guide the nation's military and political leaders," the New York Times reported.

    [snip]

    If the election comes down to a choice between incumbent Obama and Gov. Perry next year Americans who stand for peace and oppose the military-industrial complex will have no candidate to represent them.

    -- link



    Parent
    This (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 05:09:15 PM EST
    mumbo-jumbo from Perry is not much different than the rationales for continuing this war currently being offered.

    When Obama touts his Christianity while dropping bombs on Muslim people on a daily basis - how do you think the Muslim world feels about that? If it were me on the receiving end of this current spurt of American imperialism, Perry taking over would mean absolutely nothing. It would just be more of the same.

    But I obviously believe what you highlighted in bold: That I am not likely to have a candidate to vote for.

    I know. Things could be worse. But they are getting worse on a daily basis anyway.

    If that's what the next election comes down to, I would have to balance whatever apprehension I might feel about Obama's replacement with the pleasure I would experience of seeing Obama getting into that helicopter to be dropped off somewhere in Chicago.

    Parent

    I could even reword that pargraph and it would (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 05:12:55 PM EST
    still be true...

    If the election comes down to a choice between Obama and Obama Americans who stand for peace and oppose the military-industrial complex will have no candidate to represent them.


    Parent
    I can make it even simpler (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by cymro on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 06:08:00 PM EST
    "Americans who stand for peace and oppose the military-industrial complex will have no candidate to represent them." Period.

    Where are the credible candidates who will stand for peace and against the military-industrial complex?

    Parent

    Alan Grayson, maybe (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 06:22:52 PM EST
    Mike Gravel. Not too many others...

    Parent
    Have you seen (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:17:02 PM EST
    this?

    Speaking of tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb...

    Jeralyn of all people posted this link some time ago.

    Parent

    One of them (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:34:37 PM EST
    is a sockpuppet for the other one, apparently....

    Parent
    Surprisingly enough, Ron Paul (none / 0) (#66)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:39:54 AM EST
    but you would never know it by reading the papers.

    Parent
    Oh, please (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:08:07 AM EST
    Lotsa politicians of all stripes have "called on Jesus" to bless military operations.  I'm no fan of Rick Perry, but you better have something more substantive to object to with him than that.

    Parent
    Half the military calls on Jesus (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    to bless them :)  The other half, the Jewish, the Atheists, the Muslims, the Wiccans, the Scientologists....if they are dialing anyone up on their own behalf it is someone else :)

    Parent
    Smooth with a mild nutty flavor :) (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 12:09:28 PM EST
    If we can't afford to send out SocSec updates, how (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 06:13:51 PM EST
    can we afford to stay in all these wars? In all these far-flung extensions of our military?

    Read this interesting find by gob over at Corrente.

    And that's what's (none / 0) (#68)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    leading to our decline as a nation.

    We've been neglecting the nation itself for the sake of military adventures and that's led to making foolish trade agreements as an instrument of foreign policy.

    We're literally burning down the mother ship.

    Parent

    Won't happen under this President (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:43:49 PM EST
    Sadly.....he has different priorities than I do and he has different failures that he is unwilling to have placed under his name.  Iraq is one of them, but he doesn't mind gutting and setting up the next crash of the U.S. economy.

    Or the "safety net" (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:10:11 AM EST
    I wonder how he plans to cope with all those extra homeless elders cluttering up the streets?


    Parent
    The time to (none / 0) (#2)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:26:40 PM EST
    leave has long since passed- we should never have gone in there in the first place.  We're not leaving, at least not totally.  We're stuck to Iraq like the tar-baby, unfortunately.  Have you seen the pictures of the current US Embassy in Iraq?  It's not an embassy- it's an enormous fortress.  What does that tell us?  It's true that we can no longer afford staying, but short of a complete change of thinking in the administration (no matter which party wins in 2012) and the Pentagon, we're there.

    I don't really understand (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    What the long-term plans our administrations (Bush's and Obama's) are for Iraq.

    I mean, forget the Embassies, we've been building multi-billion dollar military basis right up to the "end of hostile involvement." The size, scope, complexity, and cost of those basis sure don't look like any kind of short-term involvement to me.


    Parent

    This is true (none / 0) (#34)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 05:12:53 PM EST
    And yet another indication that we're not totally withdrawing from Iraq any time soon.  Unfortunately.

    Parent
    Long-term plan is (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 12:51:23 AM EST
    I think, I assume, to assure more or less permanent enormous bases in the middle of the region just in case they're needed some day.

    It wasn't a trivial thing for either Gulf War I or II to have to work only from the few places that would accept and had the facilities for basing U.S. forces.  You may or may not remember that a whole wing of the 2nd Iraq war was stymied when somebody, I forget who, maybe Turkey, denied permission to go through or over their territory at the last minute.  In Gulf War I, I think we had a lot of troops based in Saudi, which was bad for them and bad for the Saudis.

    The Pentagon would like not to have to do it that way again.

    I really think it's that basic.  The government thinks, probably rightly, that there will continue to be trouble from that part of the world for many years to come.

    Why we need a gigantic embassy is another issue, but that was started under the previous administration, and God only knows what they had in mind <shudder>.


    Parent

    It's not just Iraq (none / 0) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 10:40:46 AM EST
    We have over 800 military installations outside the US.  Literally flushing national wealth down the drain.  We've made many trade agreements for the sake of foreign policy.

    Right now we have military presence in Germany, Japan and South Korea.  We are gifting expensive public goods and enriching the local economies of significant industrial rivals.  We are doing this at the expense of American industrial skills.  Tell me in what universe does this make any sense?

    We either scrap the whole enterprise or lose the nation itself.

    Parent

    While I don't disagree... (none / 0) (#3)
    by sweetthings on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    I have to wonder....can we honestly afford a civil war in Iraq?

    As the Arab Spring showed us, the Middle East is a fragile place. An Iraqi civil war would probably not remain contained....and if Iran or, god forbid, Saudi Arabia were to get caught up in the whirlwind, the blow to the oil market and the global economy would be catastrophic.

    I realize we can't afford to stay...but leaving may bring very bad things.

    We can't stop it (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    No we cant (none / 0) (#38)
    by star on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 06:04:47 PM EST
    Muslim world is on the verge of imploding from within. there are deep rumblings in the entire region. that religion has not undergone the change it needs to keep up with the rest of the world. Theocratic leaders and rulers have used religion blatantly to suppress and control entire populations. keeping people poor and uneducated is a strategy in the entire middle east.

    If we do not get over our dependence on their oil, we are going to get caught in the cross hairs.Continued and very expensive presence of our military in the region might push it out a few years, but cannot eventually prevent the unrest from happening.

    If we are lucky to have leaders with vision to invest in alternate energy sources on an emergency scale, then history might excuse us our folly in that region. Sadly I see no such leader and time is running out and we are bankrupting ourselves in the process.    

    Parent

    More important is (none / 0) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 12:55:23 AM EST
    that Middle Eastern oil is beginning to run out.  Imagine the fun over there when they don't have that money anymore to bribe their citizens into passivity.  "Peak oil" isn't just our problem, it's a far bigger problem for these countries, which haven't developed any other industries because the oil revenue has kept them so fat and happy.

    Parent
    It's gonna happen (none / 0) (#70)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 10:44:25 AM EST
    anyway, like it or not.

    In the final analysis it's their country.  They live there.  They'll settle it all on their own terms.  In many ways like Vietnam; it was their country, we never had a chance.

    Parent

    Iraq has been privatized (none / 0) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    with an assist from corporate-owned agents of the U.S. government

    our military is the indentured portion of the oligarchs' private security force

    Joe Biden was right (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:40:19 PM EST


    Joe biden (none / 0) (#21)
    by star on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    Is a likable idiot.i hated him for mentioning partion when he did.partition is a bloody and painful solution.
    Usa has no business fracturing another country.it had no business executing regime change in the first place..why compound the mistake furthur?
    Bidens talk sounded much like what brits must have thought before partitioning india and pak...those countries are still worse for it.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    considering that the current state of Iraq is artificial construct put together by British Imperialists 100 years ago, keeping it together might not be such a good thing either. The only way the country as currently constructed could be held together was by another brutal dictator.

    Parent
    The problem is Turkey (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    Turkey, a member of NATO, won't stand for any sort of autonomous Kurdish state. They are convinced, probably correctly, that if a Kurdish state were to come into existence on its southern border, its own Kurds would attempt to secede and join the new Kurdish state. This has always been the main reason why the US won't support such a thing.

    Parent
    I had forgotten (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 05:44:56 PM EST
    about the Turkey problem w/r/t to sectioning off Iraq. It gets back to there is NO solution.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by star on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 05:48:48 PM EST
    That it is a fragile framework and might splinter off as is. But if it happens internally, and not forced/planned by USA, it will be much easier for the locals to swallow. They have a  better grasp of the cultural and religious realities on the ground and therefore can deal with it . Moreover every country deserves its own dignity and its own mess to do what it pleases. When decided an outsider, it gets way more ugly .
    That the bloodshed that ensues will be on them and not on our collective conscience is a definite plus as far as I am concerned.  

    Parent
    Just like Yugoslavia ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by cymro on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 06:45:11 PM EST
    ... and the outcome will be the same too, eventually.

    From 1978 through 1993 I lived just down the road from Kirigin Cellars winery, and in the early 1980's I enjoyed several lunchtime visits chatting with the owner and founder, Nikola Kirigin-Chargin, on weekdays when there were few other visitors. Being from Croatia, he would always insist that "Yugoslavia is not a real country." Later events proved the truth of his viewpoint, and the strength of the desire for independence within the various culturally distinct regions.

    Even in the nominally United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a single political entity for several hundred years, some government authority eventually has had to be devolved to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, to blunt nationalist demands from the residents of those culturally distinct areas.

    Why should anyone expect Iraq's future to be different?

    Parent

    The Scots (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:01:22 AM EST
    refer to the English now as "white settlers," as I discovered traveling back roads there for a while a few years ago. Heh.  My English friends, meanwhile, wax utterly, sputteringly indignant at the very idea of any kind of separate Scottish identity, never mind independence from the mother ship.

    Parent
    The Welsh ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cymro on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 02:39:34 AM EST
    ... are not nearly as polite, especially when speaking in their native tongue! A popular Welsh drinking toast is Twll din pob saes, meaning "All english(men) are a*seholes".

    Parent
    Love the Welsh (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 11:23:14 AM EST
    love Wales, though I was only able to spend a day traveling around a small bit of it.

    I'm sure the Scots say worse things to each other about the English, but I was tickled that when I chatted with people and they asked and found out I was an American, several times the reaction was, "Oh, you're American!  I thought maybe you were a white settler."  (I had to ask what that meant the first time.)

    Parent

    Most Americans (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 12:57:46 AM EST
    have no clue about this, even otherwise relatively well informed folks.  People assume these countries' origins are no different than Western Europe.

    Parent
    "Right" (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    Was the incorrect word - I should have said "agrees with the commenter".

    Joe Biden in 2006

    The first is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues. Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely populated areas of mixed populations would receive both multisectarian and international police protection.

    Decentralization is hardly as radical as it may seem: the Iraqi Constitution, in fact, already provides for a federal structure and a procedure for provinces to combine into regional governments.

    Besides, things are already heading toward partition: increasingly, each community supports federalism, if only as a last resort. The Sunnis, who until recently believed they would retake power in Iraq, are beginning to recognize that they won't and don't want to live in a Shiite-controlled, highly centralized state with laws enforced by sectarian militias. The Shiites know they can dominate the government, but they can't defeat a Sunni insurrection. The Kurds will not give up their 15-year-old autonomy.

    Some will say moving toward strong regionalism would ignite sectarian cleansing. But that's exactly what is going on already, in ever-bigger waves. Others will argue that it would lead to partition. But a breakup is already under way. As it was in Bosnia, a strong federal system is a viable means to prevent both perils in Iraq.



    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    Didn't realize you were the original commenter.  Trying to work and get out of here and post at the same time.

    Parent
    Someone should introduce a bill (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    to reduce the deficit by withdrawing from Iraq immediately. It will be bipartisan--sort of.

    Might just be (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 01:02:11 AM EST
    actually.  It's the one thing the Tea Party types have right.

    Parent
    Long past time (none / 0) (#14)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:50:41 PM EST


    site violator (none / 0) (#47)
    by the capstan on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:07:21 PM EST


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#48)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:08:50 PM EST
    Same poster, hawking a different brand of shoes.

    We'll leave when the oil runs out. (none / 0) (#50)
    by LatinDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    The conflicts there will never end, even after oil depletion. Religious neurosis and tribalism will keep the Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds fighting for generations more. Sigh.

    Lengthy and detailed (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 03:25:58 AM EST
    lecture by Copenhagen cabbie this a.m.  2025 is goal for using mostly renewable energy sources. 45% in this city ride bikes to work. Free bikes available. Mayor Bloomberg and Sen. Shumer recently visited to check it out. Cabbie, take out traffic lane to add bike lanes. Ha. Homes are heated by trash to heat plant. Electric cars:  drive into station and a robot replaces battery in about 4 min.  New beach @ salt walter lagoon cost lots of money. I sd., but in U.S. we are laying off teachers. He sd. same in Denmark. Just add a couple more kids to each class.

    I am sure HRC thinks so (none / 0) (#65)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:36:09 AM EST
    as does her Boss.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/panetta-defense-cuts_n_928355.html

    Her & Obama's foreign policy, defense and national security policies are terrible and reason alone not to support Obama for a second term. It is no wonder she supported Goldwater.  

    A more than $35 billion annual cut to defense would ruin us, please.

    Wasn't she in high school when she (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    supported Goldwater?

    Parent
    Taking your lead from George Aiken (none / 0) (#72)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    hmmm?  I'm with you now as I was with him then.

    Wiki:  During the Vietnam war, Aiken is widely believed to have suggested that the U.S. should declare victory and bring the troops home. Actually, what he said was that "the United States could well declare unilaterally ... that we have 'won' in the sense that our armed forces are in control of most of the field and no potential enemy is in a position to establish its authority over South Vietnam," and that such a declaration "would herald the resumption of political warfare as the dominant theme in Vietnam." He added: "It may be a far-fetched proposal, but nothing else has worked."[1]

    While we're at it, let's give that ridiculous state dept asset to the Iraquis for a university/museum with our apologies...