Archive for Wednesday, July 2, 2008
New Iraq report calls progress satisfactory
July 2, 2008
Advertisement
Washington — No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.
Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.
The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" - almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks - enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues - are unsatisfactory.
In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq's military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.
They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein's political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1.
But for every small step forward, Iraq has several more giant steps to take before victory can be declared on any one issue.
Amnesty requests are backlogged, and in question is whether the new law will speed the release of those in U.S. custody. It also remains unclear just how many former Baath members will be able to return to their jobs. And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn't been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks.
Likewise, militias and sectarian interests among Iraq's leaders still play a central role in the conflict. And U.S. military officials say they are unsure violence levels will stay down as troop levels return to 142,000 after a major buildup last year.
In the May progress report, one benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results. The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation's police force remains plagued by sectarianism, according to the administration assessment.
Overall, militia control has declined and Baghdad's security forces have "demonstrated its willingness and effectiveness to use these authorities to pursue extremists in all provinces, regardless of population or extremist demographics," as illustrated by recent operations, the White House concludes.
2 July 2008
at 1:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kropotkin (Anonymous) says…
“The White House concludes?”
Is this the same White House that concluded that Saddam had WMDs and had something to do with 9/11?
2 July 2008
at 7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…
As did the vast majority of those serving in the U.S. Congress at the time.
2 July 2008
at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
I think what we're seeing is the corrupt liberal media, which is actively campaigning for an Obama whitehouse and is the policy and agenda arm of the Democratic Party, setting the stage in the event of an Obama win, to be able to say, “See, this young smart president successfully ended a war bungled by GWB”.
My other carefully prepared theory is that the situation is actually becoming so stable that the corrupt liberal media is doing enough positive reporting to just be able to keep the papers on the folks front porches–to not be seen as ridiculously far-left in other words.
Keep in mind that the far-left blogosphere is like an IV for the extremist left and extremist centrists, and outlets like the nyt/lat/cnn/msnbc and the rest of the corrupt traditional media are trying to stay distinctly corrupt by not being terribly blatant about it's liberal bias. The traditional corrupt liberal media wants their own distinct business plan; unlike the extremists way to the left. They are trying to hide it so to speak, unlike the cesspool of the far-left blogo, which is the biggest scourge since feminism.
2 July 2008
at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
What's truly scary is that BushCo and their sycophants actually believe their BS. They crushed Humpty with the arrogance, incompetence and outright stupidity of invading and occupying in the first place. And now they want us to believe that because they can imagine some sort of egg-like shape being formed out of the wreckage that there is actually some sort of “progress.”
Go away, neocons. You screwed up, now go climb into a cave somewhere and let the rest of us try to figure how to clean up your mess.
2 July 2008
at 9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
repaste (Anonymous) says…
Liberal media that kept the Dixie Chicks off the air for 2 years? There some liberal media, but at the top they are largely very conservative. Wanna gues how most people with post-graduate degrees vote? ” Far left extremists” to Dem's are like Timothy McViegh to Repubs. Lets get real.
2 July 2008
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
I'm better off than I was 7 years ago. What happend to you bozo? Put all your money into Flemming Foods?
2 July 2008
at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Repaste, I'll agree with you to a point. The Democratic Party is now the party of the elite rich, and if you associate that with education, that's your folly–not mine.
The Democratic Party is now the party of the rich elite. Remember that.
And if Obama (and Bill and Hillary) are in the whitehouse, unlike what Obama is telling you all who are lovestruck, every extremist left lobbyist in the nation (with Al Gore at the head of the line) will be drawn to DC like flies to a fresh pile of doggie poo. You can bet on it and the rest of us–-whip out the checkbook.
2 July 2008
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
repaste (Anonymous) says…
Post - graduate does not = elite rich. I would venture most non-hollywood “elite rich” are conservatives. I think both parties are controlled by people outside of values held by most here. I am sometimes struck by how much the “conservative farmer” and the “dirty hippie” have in common. I would guess most folk on here have more in common with each other than any true shapers of our policy, we would think they all were nuts.
2 July 2008
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Don't tell that to Nancy, repaste.
She is firmly entrenched in a mindset that pits Good vs. Evil, Conservatives vs. Liberals, America-lovers vs. America-haters.
She has not the time to consider that the similarities between us at the grassroots level have far more in common than we have separating us.
Liberals are evil. Don't you ever say otherwise.
2 July 2008
at 9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Logic, you too are correct. I'd bet anything you and I could get along very well. I have very liberal friends…several.
2 July 2008
at 10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…
“And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn't been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks.”
Delayed to, let's say…the first week of Nov.? Or the last week in Oct.? That would be “convenient” now, wouldn't it?
2 July 2008
at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Iraq is doing better, page A7. Iraq is doing bad, front page material!
2 July 2008
at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound04…
I think it is interesting when the libs are making vicious and ridiculous comments about republicans, you remain silent, but when someone speaks negatively of liberals, you makes statements referring to their narrow-mindedness: “Good vs. Evil, Conservatives vs. Liberals, America-lovers vs. America-haters.”
2 July 2008
at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
repaste (Anonymous) says…
Irac war not front page, no dead marines in front 6 pages.
2 July 2008
at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo's objective logic, if things in Iraq are going bad, it is absolutely true and probably worse; if things are getting better, it is completely made-up and propoganda by the President.
2 July 2008
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
repaste…
“Irac war not front page, no dead marines in front 6 pages.”
What???
2 July 2008
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“satisfactory”? That's a teachers code word for a “C” grade card. The Bush White house gave itself a “C”? Jesus, imagine if they did anything “above average”…
2 July 2008
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
It is hillarious to read all the liberals who refuse to come to grips with the reality that Iraq is improving and will one-day soon have a stable government. Rather than be grateful fewer Americans are dying and progress is being made they just continue to spew their partisan hatred of Bush.
2 July 2008
at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Did you click your heels three times while posting that, satirical?
2 July 2008
at 11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo…
Please be more specific
2 July 2008
at 11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
It's Hilarious to read all the conservatives who refuse to acknowledge that Bush is a war criminal that has broken numerous international laws. Bush goes to Iraq, (where we will be greeted as liberators), and 5 years later they still haven't got control of the country! Hey “Satirical”; “Mission Accomplished”, “Good Job Brownie”, Alberto Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, “every child left behind”…I ask this question to all you conservatives out there, “If this president hasn't exuded incompetence, at what point would you admit that one has?” I would love to know what a republican would have to do for you to consider him incompetent. I won't hold my breath…
2 July 2008
at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Anxiousathiest..
Again, rather than be grateful fewer Americans are dying and progress is being made in Iraq you just continue to spew your partisan hatred of Bush.
I am not Bush's advocate, nor do I pretend to be, however the same lies are perpetually repeated until all the liberals believe them. He is not a war criminal, please state the precise (“Geneva Convention” is too broad) non-binding international law you believe he broke? Americans were largely viewed as liberators by the Majority population and the Kurds in Iraq. However, enemy combatants, terrorist, and a minority that didn't want to lose power, didn't like us interfering and are now attacking us.
In every war there are thousands of missions. The phrase “Mission Accomplished” was not referring to the entire effort to rebuild Iraq, it was referring to the mission of ousting Saddam Hussein.
I think Bush has done a poor job in several areas, but that does not mean he is a war criminal. If you are worried about incompetence you should be worried about our next potential President, Obama, who even Hillary knows is too inexperienced. However, I think you are so entrenched into your partisan beliefs no amount of logic or verifiable facts will awake you from your liberal-media induced coma.
2 July 2008
at 12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…
Anxious, one thing for certain that President Bush could do that would make him incompetent would be for him to agree with you on any issue of substance.
2 July 2008
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
You want precision? Preemptive war - “There is some question as to the legality of this doctrine under international law. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens, or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat.”, And if you remember “Satirical”, Bush lied, (oops i mean didn't have enough info), to justify self-defense. Now that I've provided the EXACT location of the international laws the Bush has broken, what do you say?
2 July 2008
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chet_larock (Anonymous) says…
“If you are worried about incompetence you should be worried about our next potential President, Obama, who even Hillary knows is too inexperienced.”
It will be quite difficult for Obama to equal or surpass the incompetence of the current president/administration. I wouldn't hold your breath.
2 July 2008
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“I think it is interesting when the libs are making vicious and ridiculous comments about republicans, you remain silent, but when someone speaks negatively of liberals, you makes statements referring to their narrow-mindedness: “Good vs. Evil, Conservatives vs. Liberals, America-lovers vs. America-haters.”“
––––––-
Why is that interesting?
I am liberal and respond to generalized attacks on what I see as my ideology.
I don't condone or endorse when other liberally-minded posters make overly generalized attacks on conservatives. That is their business, and I wouldn't fault you or anyone else from correcting them.
Plus, there's the fact that to me it seems far more close-minded and ignorant to demonize a philosophy (liberalism) than a political party (Republicans). You may have noticed that I am far less enthusiastic to defend Democrats from attacks, nor do I demonize true Conservatism, which has many good aspects.
2 July 2008
at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
repaste (Anonymous) says…
Satire, where is the bad news on front page? Yesterday? How many Marines died yesterday/
2 July 2008
at 12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
repaste (Anonymous) says…
Are we not now allowing our buds, the kurds to be bombed? How did they do after the first gulf war? Think they love us?
2 July 2008
at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“It is hillarious to read all the liberals who refuse to come to grips with the reality that Iraq is improving ”
The country is still mostly utterly destroyed with millions of internal and external refugees, and the relative calm you all want to claim as “progress” is a result of near total ethnic cleansing, Sunni insurgents bought of (for now) with $millions of US tax dollars, and Shiite militias beholden to no one but themselves who are merely biding their time to flex their muscle. The government is totally dysfunctional, and Iraqi security forces are incapable of doing anything without major US support— and even if they could, there really isn't anything they can do without just making things worse.
Your so-called progress is merely a settling in of failed statehood— a quagmire that is more likely to get worse than better, especially with BushCo salivating over spreading the war into Iran and likely the entire region.
2 July 2008
at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Liberals, I guess think that the people in Iraq are incapable of governing themselves? What happend to your love for mankind? You all call americans racists if money is not spent in the deepest darkest parts of Africa. Whats wrong with showing the same compassion in Iraq? Kill the bad guys then help the sane citizens to build the kind of government that gets along with the rest of the world.
Why are liberals against that?
2 July 2008
at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Anxiousathiest:.
First, you forget that violation of, and enforcing UN mandates was one of the original justifications for going to war. Congress was convinced Iraq was “an acute and imminent actually threat” so did the American people, so apparently everyone is guilty of war crimes. Second, UN law is non-binding so the entire point is moot.
2 July 2008
at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Chet_larock:.
“It will be quite difficult for Obama to equal or surpass the incompetence of the current president/administration.”
So you do admit Obama is incompetent to be Commander and Chief, and President of the United States.
2 July 2008
at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound:.
I think it is interesting because you feign to be a peacekeeper and oppose close minded thinking, when in fact you are just engaging in a partisan tactic. You pretend to take the high ground to defend liberals and stand by as they make equally if not greater close-minded attacks. You must have taken cues from Obama who uses people like Gen. Clark to be his attack dogs, but then says he really wants to be non-partisan.
Also, you were criticizing conservatives, not just republicans, “Conservatives vs. Liberals”
2 July 2008
at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Repaste:
You clearly didn't understand my first post. I didn't state there was any bad news on the front page of this edition. I was pointing out the liberals bias of the LJWorld, because bad news in Iraq is either on the front page or shortly thereafter, whereas progress in Iraq is either obfuscated or hidden in A7.
2 July 2008
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
I love it when when republicans turn the Iraq war into a “humanitarian” mission whenever they feel like it. Ol' “barrypenders” spinning anything he can get his hands on, because if he had to admit his party has been a failure, he couldn't live with himself. By the way “Barry” I've never seen a “humanitarian” mission that started with an unprovoked bombing. Care to spin some more?…
2 July 2008
at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Congress was convinced Iraq was “an acute and imminent actually threat” - Satirical
of course they where! george bush used false evidence to get his way! he lied! what don't you understand!
2 July 2008
at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo:
I get the feeling you are going to be really upset when Iraq is a self-sustaining democracy. When there was evidence of the Surge working, first it was denied, then it was accepted but the libs pointed to these 18 factors that had yet to be met, now that most of them have been met you claim that it won't last. As I stated earlier, you embrace bad news and refuse to accept an AP report of progress. Of course things could start going worse, but that is reasons to stay in the country and help the people, rather than flee as you have previously suggested.
2 July 2008
at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Anxoiusatheist:
Bush did not lie. Cato and others have proven this time and time again.
“By the way “Barry” I've never seen a “humanitarian” mission that started with an unprovoked bombing”
How about WWII, or Operation Desert Storm, etc…
2 July 2008
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Feign to be a peacekeeper? Really?
I don't think so. Like I said—I am taking exception to what I view as attacks on my ideology. I've never claimed to defend against such attacks for any particular reason. You are assiging the role of “peacekeeper” to me to make your point.
I hardly think taking exception to someone categorizing my ideology in a patently false way means that I should have to denounce anyone who ever makes a similar comment.
=============================
“Also, you were criticizing conservatives, not just republicans, “Conservatives vs. Liberals”“
––––
No. my “conservatives vs. liberals” comment was not a critique of either ideology. I was mocking Nancy_Boy's mindset—that the world is divided into clear-cut divisions of ideology and political party.
I personally don't think the world is a simple as conservatives vs. liberals. This can be seen in politicians like Dennis Moore or Joe Lieberman.
2 July 2008
at 1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“Satirical” are you saying that our bombing in WWII was unprovoked? That's an absurd statement that may get you ignored…Oh yeah, desert storm, where we quickly signed oil contracts after running Sadam out of Kuwait, that was unprovoked. you aren't even reading whole posts anymore “satirical”, your arguments are losing cogency…
2 July 2008
at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Throughout history the Muslims always conquerd first then enlightend.
Read your history books anxious.
2 July 2008
at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“Throughout history the Muslims always conquerd first then enlightend.” - Barrypenders (accredited, published historian)
So because that's what they did, that's what we have to do? We have to conquer them? I guess if that's what history says we have to do…Not much of an argument “barry”, “They did it first, so we have to do the same “, the rationalization of children…
2 July 2008
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I get the feeling you are going to be really upset when Iraq is a self-sustaining democracy.”
Most likely I'll be dead by then.
2 July 2008
at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound:
“I was mocking Nancy_Boy's mindset-that the world is divided into clear-cut divisions of ideology and political party.”
Which is exactly my point, you are a hypocrite. You challenge this mindset only when it serves your ideology. When someone from your ideology has this mindset you are silent. What you should say is: you oppose people who's mindset is “that the world is divided into clear cut division of ideology and political party” only when they oppose your ideology. However, if they have the same mindset and support your party you have no disagreement. Therefore one must conclude you are motivation for distinguishing when you have a disagreement is due to your ideology and political politics. This makes you a hypocrite.
2 July 2008
at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Anxiousatheist:
WWII was provoked, just like Iraq provoked the U.S. by violating U.N. agreement to allow weapon inspectors into his country, along with harboring terrorist, which after 9/11 we stated we wouldn't distinguish the countries that harbored terrorist would from the terrorist themselves. That was my point, we were provoked in both instances. We were also provoked when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, as one of our allies. We were defending a weaker nation, against a dictator and tyrant. Is there anything wrong with that? Sometimes military force is necessary to secure peace and “humanitarianism”, that is what you fail to understand. War is bad, but it is sometimes necessary to secure liberty (see the American Revolution).
2 July 2008
at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
I like it when people like bozo and anxious ignore most of my argument and instead make a (mistakenly) humorous or fallacious response. Maybe it is because they can't counter those arguments so they just try to change the topic.
2 July 2008
at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
logicsound04 may often be wrong, but at least s/he knows how to make an argument and a non-fallicous counter-argument.
2 July 2008
at 3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
'Iraq provoked the U.S. by violating U.N. agreement to allow weapon inspectors into his country” - satirical
Wrong again, have you ever heard of Hans Blix? There were weapons inspectors in iraq! They didn't find anything! George went in anyway! Where are your facts? Simply ignorant! Did you just compare the invasion of Kuwait to the American revolution? Wow, where are the straws? I think you need some more to grasp onto…
2 July 2008
at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
Buy the way satirical, I give plenty of evidence in my arguments, see preceding post…
2 July 2008
at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Anxiousatheist:
I never said you didn't give evidence in your comments, I said you often fail to counter many of my arguments, ex: the fact that any U.N. provisions violated by Bush is a moot point since it is not binding.
The U.N. agreed on numerous occasions that Saddam Hussein was not fully cooperating and thereby violating U.N. mandates. Please check your facts.
You accuse me of not reading your posts but you somehow interpret my comments as comparing the invasion of Kuwait to the American Revolution??? If you continue to twist what I write for your own maniacal purpose I will be forced to equate you with duplenty. English must be your second language because here is what I said. “Sometimes military force is necessary to secure peace and “humanitarianism”, that is what you fail to understand. War is bad, but it is sometimes necessary to secure liberty (see the American Revolution).”
2 July 2008
at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“However, if they have the same mindset and support your party you have no disagreement.”
––––—
No. As I said, I disagree with that mindset from anyone.
I only make the effort to respond to those who attack my ideology and leave others to defend their own ideologies.
At any rate, I see far more posters of conservative disposition (at least on these forums) that make blanket statements about liberals than the other way around.
I should also add that a great deal of my motivation comes from the fact that after 9/11, political disagreement became cause to call people “terrorists” and “america haters”. In case you forgot—those kind of accusations did not originate from the left.
2 July 2008
at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anxiousatheist (Clint Gentry) says…
“Sometimes military force is necessary to secure peace”
I agree with that statement, but if you actually think that's what BuschCo.'s reasoning for Iraq, you're delusional.
“The U.N. agreed on numerous occasions that Saddam Hussein was not fully cooperating and thereby violating U.N. mandates”
Then why didn't the U.N. send in military forces? If it was agreed by everybody that there was a threat, why where we the only significant force there? Hans Blix worked for the UN! He made sure that Iraq was complying! Iraq was complying! Bush went in anyway!
You can ignore facts, forget information, spin reality, but in the end, was invading a non-threatening country really worth the ten-of-thousands of lives? Who is free now? you? How about the people with their arms blown off, do they care that the “U.N. resolution was non-binding” crap you people hide behind? You can justify all you want, but W. and his lackeys will never live down the shame that they have brought, (needlessly), into this world.
2 July 2008
at 4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
max1 (Anonymous) says…
July 1, 2008
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g…
The Iraqi foreign minister said on Tuesday that Washington has agreed to scrap immunity for foreign security guards in Iraq, moving the two countries closer to signing a long-term security pact.
“The immunity for private security guards has been removed. The US has agreed on it,” Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told AFP after briefing Iraqi MPs on the controversial US-Iraq security pact which is being negotiated.
The US embassy spokeswoman in Baghdad, Mirembe Nantongo, declined to comment. “We do not comment on the contents of ongoing negotiations,” she said.
Without immunity foreign security contractors can be prosecuted for crimes under Iraqi law.
2 July 2008
at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Sorry for ignoring your “argument,” satirical, but it's patently absurd. If the surge were actually successful, Iraq might not be the most dangerous place in the world. But it is the most dangerous place in the world (with the possible exception of Afghanistan,) with no real prospects for that to change any time soon. Is it as dangerous as a year ago? Not quite, but the prospects for even greater carnage are much greater than anything remotely resembling the peaceful, self-sustaining democracy of your dreams.
As I said before, Humpty has been obliterated, and no amount of patching together a few of the remaining shards will change that. I don't envy the next president, who will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't in cleaning up after BushCo.
2 July 2008
at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
max1 (Anonymous) says…
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fa…
3 July 2008
at 2:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Satirical…Actually the term “Mission Accomplished” as was used that day on that carrier, was actually only referring that one cruise. That they successfully accomplished their goals on that cruise. Anybody who does not realize that has never been in the Navy, or refuses to hear the trutth.
3 July 2008
at 7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
You're wrong, topjayhawk—
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/0…
“It was the “Mission Accomplished” banner streaming atop the aircraft carrier while Mr. Bush spoke that has received the greatest criticism, making it
possibly the largest public relations flub of this administration. In a rare public admission, key administration officials have questioned the move
themselves.
“I wish the banner was not up there,” said White House top political adviser Karl Rove in April, while speaking with the editorial board of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch. “I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols.”
But for the president's spokesman at the time, Ari Fleischer, there are no regrets. “I continue to think that it was entirely appropriate,” said Fleischer from his home in Washington, as he helped care for his wife, who is expecting a child within weeks.
For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea.
“We put it up. We made the sign,” Fleischer said. “But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished… the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein. ”
3 July 2008
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Logicsound:
You disagree with the mindset buy you only disagree in writing with those you politically oppose, which means you discriminate based on political ideologies, just like they do, and makes you a hypocrite for condemning them for making the same distinction you make.
Conservatives are the minority in Lawrence, so while I don't condone their actions, as a liberal in Kansas you (and many liberals on this blog especially when referring to Bush) seem to understand the need to raise your voice when you are the minority. I have noticed far more liberals on the LJWorld blog than the other way around who make ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims. You must realize that now that the Dems have control in Congress, (and unfortunately) probably have control of the White House, all the vicious hatred the liberals have spewed the last 8 years will come back to bite them. You reap what you sow.
I have never met or talked to anyone who has called someone a “terrorist” or an “America hater” simply because they are a liberal (although there are some liberals, and a few conservatives for that matter, that do hate America). I think that is another liberal fiction that was probably based on a half-truth of a statement made by a single conservative, and then repeated until most liberals believed it. You have every right to defend your ideology, but remember not all conservatives are evil either.
3 July 2008
at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Anxiousatheist:
The U.N. didn't send in military forces, because the U.N. is a worthless organization that never enforces its own mandates. Dozens of countries went into Iraq with the U.S. including the U.K. and Australia. Hans Blix was not allowed the freedom to search everywhere he wanted for WMD's and the U.N. stated several times and warned Iraq several times it was not complying with the mandate. Lastly, America does not require a U.N. mandate to engage in military operations, we are a sovereign nation, so if we believe a threat exists we have the ability to act upon that threat.
Time will tell if overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a the right thing for America. If progress continues to be made and Iraq becomes a self-sustaining democracy and a U.S. ally, then I would say that the U.S. casualties, as tragic as they are were worth it; and the endless generations of free Iraqis will agree and be forever grateful. Freedom comes at a cost.
3 July 2008
at 8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo:
The surge was and is successful, and there is still violence, but all the media reports indicate that Iraq has improved dramatically since the surge started. So again, my question to you is why should we withdraw after we have made so much success militarily, and continue to make success politically?
If Iraq was not improving I would agree with you that we have been there long enough and it would be time to go, but those are not the facts. As long as Iraq continues to make progress then our reasons for staying remain the same.
You want to leave immediately because you THINK the situation will get worse. I want to wait and see if things actually get worse, or if they continue to get better, since so much is at stake and we have sacrificed so much to get here. If Iraq reverts to where we were a year ago, with no hope for the future, then I will be in agreement with you that the U.S. should leave.
3 July 2008
at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Hans Blix was not allowed the freedom to search everywhere he wanted for WMD's”
Blix disagrees with you, satirical—
http://bostonreview.net/BRwebonly/bli…
“My job was mainly to make sure that our inspectors had all their rights to do what they needed to do, that they were not stopped. Remember that in the '90s, Iraq frequently stopped inspectors and we suspected that they had something to hide. But in 2002-2003, we were never stopped for any inspection, not even the so-called palaces of Saddam Hussein. I thought that in the '90s sometimes the inspectors from New York had been a bit too Rambo-like, and of course inspectors from the teams often had people from the intelligence side, both from the U.S. and the U.K. We were determined to be completely independent. And I think we were. We were in nobody's pocket.
There were moments which were thrilling. At one point our inspectors found some munitions which had been for chemical weapons. There was no chemical in them, but they had not been declared. For a moment we thought maybe this is the tip of an iceberg, but gradually came to the conclusion that it was floes from an iceberg that had been there.
From the beginning, like most people, our gut feelings were that there were weapons of mass destruction, although when we were asked about it we said, we are not here to tell you gut feelings, but to inspect. But as we inspected more and more cases, and did not find any weapons of mass destruction, the gut feeling changed, naturally.”
3 July 2008
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“but all the media reports indicate that Iraq has improved dramatically since the surge started.”
No, the media reports, if you care to read them, state that life in Iraq is a hellhole, and it's not improving. Violence is down somewhat from the near-total civil war it had been, but it's still an incredibly dangerous place, and even the “postive” reports you allude to say that the extreme violence of last year could easily return, regardless of how many troops we have there.
Fixing the mess in Iraq will require the input and cooperation of its neighboring countries, including Iran, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, and BushCo has zero credibility. Unfortunately, whoever is the next president will inherit that lack of credibility.
Sure, US withdrawal will have its own downside, but nowhere near the downside of staying.
3 July 2008
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo:
My mistake, I have not heard that weapon inspectors were allowed everywhere. However the point is moot for two reasons (1) The violated several other U.N. resolutions http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ira… and (2) the U.S. does not need the authority of the U.N. to use military force.
You contradict yourself by stating “:state that life in Iraq is a hellhole, and it's not improving. Violence is down somewhat:” Either violence is down or it violence levels aren't improving, can't have it both ways. You seem to be afraid to answer my question. I could cite dozens of articles from several sources indicating that Iraq has improved dramatically (of course with the caveat that it still has room for improvement) “So again, my question to you is why should we withdraw after we have made so much success militarily, and continue to make success politically?” “You want to leave immediately because you THINK the situation will get worse. I want to wait and see if things actually get worse, or if they continue to get better, since so much is at stake and we have sacrificed so much to get here.”
Too many liberals have the point of view that the U.S. is there because we are evil, when in fact we continue to stay there to help the Iraqis and as a result help the U.S. by having a more stable Middle East and a new democracy in the region.
3 July 2008
at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…
I'm curious as to why it's taking so long for the Iraqi government to reap the benefits of the first phase (military) of the surge?
The media certainly isn't helping the American people out on this one — all that is talked about is the election (which of course is very important), but war coverage is abysmal. I'd rather hear about what is happening in the Iraqi government every day than about Cindy McCain's cookie recipes.
3 July 2008
at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
What can I say, satirical. You like war, and you'll defend it to the hilt, facts be damned.
Hope you like the blood on your hands— it'll never wash off.
3 July 2008
at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
It's interesting that the White House gives such a positive report, when there was a recent report by a government agency that was much less positive.
Satirical, you say both that you would support our staying if it gets worse, and that you would support leaving if it gets worse. Which is true?
The ideal of removing a brutal dictator and helping a country forge a stable democracy is a good one, but seems far from the reality of what's happening.
Also, again, the war was sold as an anti-terrorist move and a pre-emptive self defense one, both of which seem to be quite false. Why aren't conservatives more upset about this?
And, why aren't we “getting” Bin Laden, and working on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with clear ties to terrorism?
3 July 2008
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo…
“What can I say, satirical. You like war, and you'll defend it to the hilt, facts be damned. Hope you like the blood on your hands- it'll never wash off.”
I really thought you were above comments such as those, but it appears you are just another crazy left-wing nut. If your statements continue to conform to this insane delusion I will be forced to ingore you like I do to 'duplenty'.
You can't answer my question because you know I am right. You are the one ignoring the facts of progress in Iraq, not me. I hate war, but I do know history, and lest you forget as we celebrate the 4th of July, our founding fathers understood as I have been taught, that freedom isn't free, and sometimes war is necessary.
3 July 2008
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Satirical,
The American Revolution was fought by us in order to win our freedom from England.
That's a somewhat different situation than our invading another country, don't you think?
Our founding fathers actually believed in a “non-interventionist” foreign policy and urged us to stay clear of “entangling alliances” around the world.
I'm not sure that would work, but if you're going back to the FF as the basis of your argument, you might want to re-think that.
3 July 2008
at 9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chet_larock (Anonymous) says…
“So you do admit Obama is incompetent to be Commander and Chief, and President of the United States.”
No, not necessarily. I think he's very competent - much more than Bush is or ever was - and he'll be a far, far better president. However, even an incompetent Obama administration will leave us in a better place than the one we have now.
3 July 2008
at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“You can't answer my question because you know I am right. You are the one ignoring the facts of progress in Iraq, not me.”
There are no facts of progress— only a reduction of extreme and total violence to a likely temporary lull of merely a hellhole of violence. The economy is still non-existent, basic services the same, no healthcare, no education, poor food supplies, more than 50% unemployment, and no prospects for improvement.
You can continue your denial of that situation if you want, but that don't make it so.
3 July 2008
at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“all the vicious hatred the liberals have spewed the last 8 years will come back to bite them.”
––––––-
This is what I'm talking about. Critical of the war or President Bush, then we're “spewing hate”.
Whatever pal.
==========================================
“I have never met or talked to anyone who has called someone a “terrorist” or an “America hater” simply because they are a liberal ”
–––––-
I have been called both, not specifically for being a liberal, but for having certain stances on political issues like the war on terror or the Iraq war.
3 July 2008
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal