Washington — Claiming no victory, President Barack Obama formally ended the U.S. combat role in Iraq after seven long years of bloodshed, declaring firmly Tuesday night: "It's time to turn the page." Now, he said, the nation's most urgent priority is fixing its own sickly economy.
From the Oval Office, where George W. Bush first announced the invasion that would come to define his presidency, Obama addressed millions who were divided over the war in his country and around the world. Fiercely opposed to the war from the start, he said the United States "has paid a huge price" to give Iraqis the chance to shape their future — a cost that now includes more than 4,400 troops dead, tens of thousands more wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars spent.
In a telling sign of the domestic troubles weighing on the United States and his own presidency, Obama turned much of the emphasis in a major war address to the dire state of U.S. joblessness. He said the Iraq war had stripped America of money needed for its own prosperity, and he called for an economic commitment at home to rival the grit and purpose of a military campaign.
In his remarks of slightly less than 20 minutes, only his second address from the Oval Office, Obama looked directly into the TV camera, hands clasped in front of him on his desk, family photos and the U.S. and presidential flags behind him. His tone was somber.
Even as he turns control of the war over to the Iraqis — and tries to cap one of the most divisive chapters in recent American history — Obama is escalating the conflict in Afghanistan. He said that winding down Iraq would allow the United States "to apply the resources necessary to go on offense" in Afghanistan, now the nation's longest war since Vietnam.
As for Iraq, for all the finality of Obama's remarks, the war is not over. More Americans are likely to die. The country is plagued by violence and political instability, and Iraqis struggle with constant shortages of electricity and water.
Obama is keeping up to 50,000 troops in Iraq for support and counterterrorism training, and the last forces are not due to leave until the end of 2011 at the latest.
As the commander in chief over a war he opposed, Obama took pains to thank troops for their sacrifice but made clear he saw the day as more the marking of a mistake ended than a mission accomplished.
He spoke of strained relations with allies, anger at home and the heaviest of wartime tolls.
"We have met our responsibility," Obama said. "Now it is time to turn the page."
To underscore his point, Obama said he had telephoned called Bush, whom he had taunted so often in the 2008 campaign, and praised the former Republican president in the heart of his speech.
"It's well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset," Obama said. "Yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security."
In a post-Sept. 11, 2001, world, the Iraq war began with bipartisan congressional backing — based on what turned out to be flawed intelligence — over what Bush called a "grave danger" to the world posed by Saddam Hussein. Hussein is gone and Iraqis live in greater freedom.
Yet Iraq's leaders are unable to form a new government long after March elections that left no clear winner. The uncertainty has left an opening for insurgents to pound Iraqi security forces, hardly the conditions the U.S. envisioned when Obama set the Aug. 31 transition deadline last year.
Obama pressed Iraq's leaders, saying it was time to show urgency and be accountable.
He also sought both to assure his own nation that the war was finally winding down and yet also promise Iraq and those watching across the Middle East that the U.S. was not simply walking away.
"Our combat mission is ending," he said, "but our commitment to Iraq's future is not."
The American public has largely moved on from the Iraq war. Almost forgotten is the intensity that defined the debate for much of the decade and drove people into streets in protest.
Yet what grew out of the war was something broader, Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive force against perceived threats. Running for office, Obama said the war inflamed anti-American sentiments and undermined U.S. standing in the world in addition to stealing a focus from Afghanistan.
He made mention of it again on Tuesday: "Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone."
The president, though, also was presented with a tricky moment — standing firm in his position without disparaging the sacrifice and courage of those who fought.
Earlier in the day, at Fort Bliss, Texas, a post that has endured losses during the war, Obama tried to tell the stretched military that all the work and bloodshed in Iraq was not in vain. He asserted that because of the U.S. efforts in the Iraq war, "America is more secure."
Not everyone was ready to embrace the White House view of the day.
"Over the past several months, we've often heard about ending the war in Iraq but not much about winning the war in Iraq," said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.
Boehner said that congressional leaders who opposed the troop surge that led to advances in Iraq are now taking credit for it.
"Today we mark not the defeat those voices anticipated — but progress," Boehner said in an address to the American Legion's national convention in Milwaukee.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Neomarxist123 (anonymous) says…
What a buffoon.
Does anyone still believe anything Obama says?
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
.....Not when his big nicotine stained mouth is open.
tange (anonymous) replies…
I see that the little clique has begun to coalesce.
Do you feel better when you huddle together like that?
( hmm... three-thirds... still less than zero )
tange (anonymous) replies…
[ keyword: little ]
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
You seem obsessed with "little" lately, tange, ol' bud. Got a 'small' problem you want to get off your chest?
bartstop (anonymous) says…
He did as he said he would do. Why would I not believe what he has to say? It's the people that told us there were WMD's (read GOP) that I don't believe.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
What he said during his campaign is that we'd already be out of there by now...this is six months late. He was pretty strong about that point; in ONE year, no more.
Is gitmo closed down? Does he have a 'transparent' administration? The vast majority of his promises are still unfulfilled and will most likely remain so. He's just a different label politician than George W; just same 'ol same 'ol. (George W. v.2.0)
As Nancy Pelosi once quipped "yeah, well he promised a lot of things...."
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
This is six months late, and that has your panties in a wad? How many years from "Mission Accomplished" are we now? Spare us your party first nonsense already.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
Is gitmo closed?
How many bills has he put online before he signs them? (He said he would put every singe one online!!)
Beatrice; I'd trust a promise you've made on here, under the cover of anonimity; more than a face to face & handshake from bury ow-baw-ma. (Even if invited to the WH for a beer.)
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
It doesn't matter what he does, you will critisize his every move. At least we (Dems) are getting results. Your GOP did nothing but drag us in to war, spend us in to deficits (tax cuts for the rich) and collapse our economy. It sure is funny how the things that are the most near and dear to conservatives never got touched. We still have gun regulations, abortion is still legal, illegal immigrants are still here, gays are still getting married. So why do you support the GOP? What have they done for you lately other than go on Faux News and flap their gums about those issues? They don't give a crap about you. They use the issues to get donations and votes. It's not in their interest to take them off the table once and for all. You are lied to every election cycle and yet you believe them every time. That, my friend is why the Tea Party is gaining so much traction.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
"At least we (Dems) are getting results."... Like double digit unemployment? Double dip recession or worse? Yep you dems are really getting er done.
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
How is that Obama's fault. The crash happened on Bush's watch and after 8 years of his failed policies. The GOP screws things up and then tries to blame the other side. That's not a very Christian thing to do now is it?
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
Oh yeah you are...!
Do me a favor....go do a search of the word "dhimmitude" then go online at look at page 107 of the obamacare bill.
Then just keep on braggin my friend!!
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
"He did as he said he would do."
Really?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100901/a...
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
He promised to end the combat in 19 months during his campaign and he's done it. Another promise fulfilled.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"By popular demand, a comprehensive list of expired Obama statements . . ."
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaig...
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
WOW.....
Excellent link.
Gets an "A++" from MRW!!
Truth...
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Yes, he hasn't yet been able to fix everything Bush broke. How terrible.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
Yes the very tired excuse the current administration uses for everything...
CNN, (not Fox) did a story recently on how blaming bush (quite litterally) for everything may very well come back to hurt barrywarrycontrary in the rear come the next election. I did say that was from CNN, not Fox right?
Of course we don't get into the inconvenient fact that George W. did all this in the end with a democratically controlled Congress....shhhhhhh!!
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Blame? I'm just pointing out the obvious.
liggyon (David Lignell) replies…
OMG, Beatrice! I actually agree with you whole heartedly. Am I dreaming?
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) replies…
Here's another good one:
http://www.slate.com/id/76886/
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
The best time to get out of Iraq was before we got in. This was a phony situation brought on by 3 main reasons:
1. A payback by 43 to 41 after 41 screwed up during first Iraq war, not getting Saddam then.
2. A profit making by Dubya and Darth and big business friends .
3. Need to keep senior Pentagon officials satisfied by having something for them to do.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Mission Re-Accomplished!
Break out the package-hugging flight suit and banner! We need us a photo op!
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
haters sure paint points to validate their statements don't they... if he left early you would gripe...
when we left at this point you gripe.. if I was him I would totally ignore you because
you all naven't been happy since November 4, 2008.... oh well... the preivous administration
advanced on bs anyway at the expense of over 4000 military deaths in two countries
and deaths of probably a couple hundred thousand Iraqis and the total distruction of their
infrastructure so that HaliCheneyburton could profit from war. America always profits
from war... why was the Lusitania sunk? because it had guns the profiteers in the US
has tried to sneak by the U-boats in World War One. Why did Ford Motor Company
get a plant bombed in World War Two? because they chose to operate a plant in Nazi
Germany after the war started and America entered the war in December 1941 because
Henry Ford was a closet admirer of Adolf Hitler in the 1930's and wasn't about to let a war
affect their bottom line in spite of the fact that all of the countries on this side of the pond
worked 24/7 for the American war effort. Michelin Rubber Comoany made sure Vietnam
stayed under French rule until the Vietminh beat the French and the US intervened into
a fifteen year quagmire that I saw the end of on TV as a five year old in Elyria, Ohio,
when the embassy was evacuated in Saigon. There was no evacuation this time..
there was a serious calculated departure with the reality of the long road ahead
in full discussion. Mr. Obama would never stoop to the patriotic fascist stuff
that occured on that aircraft carrier some time ago. He doesn't have to create
a false sense of completion as Bush did. We've actually left under realistic circumstances.
In the future the wingers will probably do another Red Dawn to create their own imagined
ending to sell to their unrealistic constituency the mythology. Isn't that what's happening
now with all of this disconnected nostalgia?
tange (anonymous) replies…
And the little pack of little dogs just keeps growing... smaller.
polo66606 (anonymous) says…
"Troops in Iraq - Total 49,700 U.S. troops as of August 23, 2010. All other nations have withdrawn their troops."
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homela...
This sight may not be the most reliable, but if what it says is true, that is no reduction.
polo66606 (anonymous) says…
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/...
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) says…
As early as October 2002, half a year before the fighting started, Obama declared Iraq a "dumb war." The president's chief advisers on Iraq policy, including Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are also former critics of the war and the surge that was credited with getting Iraq to the secure place it is today.
-- Barack Obama, January 14, 2007 - "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."
-- Joe Biden, May 1, 2006 - " "It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor."
June 3, 2007 - "Start to draw down troops immediately and all out by '08. No one has fought harder to change Bush's policy (than I have). Matter of fact, the very language that was vetoed in the bill was language that I and, along with Senator (Carl) Levin, put in, and I suggested over a year ago in a proposal I laid forward, that is, start to draw down troops immediately, have them all out by '08."
Sept. 26, 2007 - "Everyone says there's no military solution, only a political solution. We offered a political solution today, the Biden plan, and it got 75 votes. It rejected fundamentally the president's position that there's a possibility of establishing a strong central government in Iraq and said we're going to have a federal system. That is the thing that will allow us to come home without leaving chaos behind."
-- Hillary Clinton, Sept. 11, 2007 - "You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy: Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."
Jan. 31, 2008 - "We have to send several messages at once. We are withdrawing, and I believe that is the best message to send to the Iraqis. That they need to know that they have to get serious, because so far they have been under the illusion that the Bush administration and the Republicans who have more of the same will be there indefinitely."
Apr 20, 2007 ... washington — Senate majority leader Harry Reid said yesterday that the war in Iraq is ''lost,'' .
Looks like Bush was right and Obama, Biden, Clinton and Reid were all wrong. I'm sure that's what Obama told Bush today on the phone.
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
- George W. Bush, May 1, 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
"- George W. Bush, May 1, 2003 - "Mission Accomplished""
Which is exactly what Obama said today as he leaves 50 thousand troops in Iraq in a shooting war.
grammaddy (anonymous) replies…
I'd say Biden was right in his statement on May1,2006. No plan, just leave the mess for the next guy.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
I must be saying something right to have denial, racist comments, and the other half baked efforts
at rebuttals that you all bring to the table said to me. Keep trying someday you'll get it.. someday...
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
Since you don't know American History...France help the Thirteen Colonies defeat Great Britain
in the the Revolution of 1774-1783 and officially recognized them after that war. France
also sold you all most of the middle of this country in 1803 including some of my tribe's land.
I'd think that since all of you tea party types claim ownership of that period of American
history, you might actually know something... oh well. I was wrong.. never underestimate
the stupidity of the American people.. thanks Mr. Mencken, 80 years later and you're still
right about middle america... wow.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Then how come your daily rants about how the white man scr*wed your people doesn't include the French?
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
you all have no political platforms whatsoever. The only things you're good at are finding dirt
to try and cover up for the lack of a political platform. Let me get this right... presidents
who try to get health care for more people are impeachable but people who torture
make up stuff as they go, look the other way during Katrina, and allow laissez faire
part II to happen to the economy are not... man you're sad....
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
"try to get health care for more people"... He's trying to socialize the entire system!
"look the other way during Katrina"... Just like Obama and the BP oil spill disaster?
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
I still don't understand how the oil spill was Obama's fault. Sure seems to me like it was a private company the screwed the pooch on that one.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
In your mind Obama can do nothing wrong.
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
Well he didn't cause the oil spill if that's what you mean.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
"I still don't understand how the oil spill was Obama's fault."
And yet somehow Bush was responsible for a hurricane.
terrapin2 (anonymous) replies…
No one is implying that Bush can control the weather anymore than Obama caused an explosion on an offshore oil rig. The two cannot be compared. The oil spill is a disaster without question both economically and environmentally as well as the loss of life on the rig itself. It is the response to the disasters that is in question. Do you see American citizens floating in the ocean with signs saying "please help us" with no food, water, medical supplies etc... Our own citizens? What kind of country are we if we can't take care of our own people during an immediately life threatening disaster?
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
"Do you see American citizens floating in the ocean with signs saying "please help us" with no food, water, medical supplies etc... Our own citizens? What kind of country are we if we can't take care of our own people during an immediately life threatening disaster?"
Well, there weren't exactly a few hundred thousand of them floating around out there when it happened, were there?
The city of New Orleans was built on the coast of the Gulf in a hurricane-prone location with a good part of it being below sea level. It was a disaster waiting to happen. The people were warned to leave. Yes, many of them couldn't - but that was almost entirely the fault of the ones with the primary responsibility for watching out for those people, the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana, both of whose governments, incidentally, were run by Democrats. It simply is not feasible to have the massive resources to address a disaster of that magnitude on hand at a moment's notice every time a hurricane, or a tornado, is expected. If the city of San Francisco were leveled by another massive earthquake tomorrow, I assume the criticism for an insufficient response would be similar - not because there wouldn't be any, but because it is impossible to do everything fast enough. (Although I'd bet dollars to donuts that SF's disaster planning and emergency preparedness for such an event would be a quantum leap above NO's.) The biggest failure of the Bush administration in Katrina was the gross underestimation of the complete and total incompetence of the local authorities in planning for what, to them, shouldn't have come as such a surprise.
You're right about the issue being the responsiveness, not who or what caused the event. Obama's response to the oil spill wasn't even late - it was nonexistent, with the responsibility for stopping the leak and cleaning up the mess left in the hands of the same people that put the oil there.
scott3460 (anonymous) replies…
bush was responsible for the incompetence of his administration's response.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
And Obama gets a pass for his lack of response, scottie? Oh, forgot, the desperate whine of the liberals:
But ...
but ...
but ...
but that's *different*!
scott3460 (anonymous) replies…
You asserted bush was held responsible for the existence of a hurricane. I simply pointed out that he was held accountable not for the hurricane's occurence, but for the shoddy and disgraceful response of his adminstration. I never mentioned anything about President Obama.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
No kiddin'. Wonder why that is. It couldn't possibly be because you hold Obama to a different set of standards (if any) than you do his predecessor.
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
........and gays are still getting married, abortion is still legal, guns are still regulated and there is a person of color in the White House (OMFG!). Sure would suck to be a Republican right now, hun?
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
In 63 days it will "suck" even worse to be a democrat.
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
We will still have the White House and we will still have at least one side of congress. How does that suck?
blue73harley (anonymous) replies…
I think it is kind of sad that you don't include yourself as an American...or else you think you are also stupid.
And, BTW, I think Obama is taking too much flack here, too. The Bush Derangement Syndrome applied equally to all I suppose.
riverdrifter (anonymous) says…
The President is pretty much doing what he said he'd do in the '08 campaign and that's one of the reasons I voted for him. Time to bring home the troops, build highways, rebuild bridges and secure our border with Mexico. Iraq is a rat hole that we've poured enough sand (money) down and there are far better ways to fight terrorism than this dump.
Timing is also excellent. Now the Republicans can try to sell staying in Iraq another 2-4 years to the American voter. Good luck with that.
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
Wait until they (GOP) try to get the pivotal hispanic vote in 2012. Because of Arizona, it aint gonna happen. Too bad soo sad.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
You know what they say folks , if you don't love it leave it , and soon.
Obama ended it when GW flatly stated I won't get us out it will be up to the next president. George had 7 years to prosecute this debacle and could not get the job done. That is a loser in my book.
The ignorant spew you type on a daily basis here gets real old. Maybe you should find a country that meets your religious and political needs. Seems an Islamic one might fit pretty well with all the hate you generate on a daily basis.
It's a documented fact that your kind drove the car in the ditch on virtually every measure point during the 8 years of Bushdom. To expect that a new president , inheriting a financial collapse and two wars , can solve these issues in a couple years is absolutely ignorant of any historical cycles.
The_Big_B (anonymous) says…
If we keep saying the "Combat Troops" are out, then there is no war ... even if we have over 50,000 troops in their country .... How many countries even have 50,000 troops? ... and even if Iraq doesn't even have a government to take over from us, if we were really leaving.
If we keep saying "The Recovery" then there is no depression ... even if real unemployment is in double digits and we keep taking step after step to kill even more jobs.
It's Obama's Own Personal Fantasyland.
If you keep saying it, it becomes true.
Bring 'em home, don't just call them something different.
Orwell just keeps being right.
bartstop (anonymous) says…
How many troops did we have in Germany for decades and yet there was no war? You can point your finger at Obama all you want when it comes to employment. Just look at the Non-Farm Payroll data and you'll see that we are in much, much better shape now than when Bush left office. (-533,000 in December 2008 as compared to +431,000 in July of 2010). We are moving forward whether you like it or not.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid pal. Hope & change. Yes we can!
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
The numbers I posted are the facts pal. Look for yourself.
The day Obama was sworn in, the Dow closed at 9014 and continued to fall for weeks. Even as bad as the market has been doing as of late, it closed at 10,002 today.
Maybe you're the one drinking the Kool-Aid. Turn Faux News off and you might start seeing the truth.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
And what exactly would the mavericky / winkie-winkie team have done?
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
Why do I get the feeling that if Saddam Hussein (and his two lovely boys) were still in power the libs would be pointing fingers over that one too.
You guys do realize George W. put the algae in our drinking water, right? He's our modern day genius super-villain! Why have we not signaled Batman to stop him?!
bartstop (anonymous) says…
What's worth more? 4000+ US soldiers or Sadam Hussein? I'll take the US soldiers any day buddy. Too bad Bush didn't see it that way.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
We'd need to consider how many these three would have gleefully tortured and killed from then to now. (Women and children included) At worst it would probably be even. Sadam probably would have pulled ahead by now though.
I personally feel better in a world without him, and "thanks" can't even begin to convey the debt owed those who gave their lives to rid this planet of that family. I refuse to belittle them as you do.
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
How does putting a higher value on the US troops belittle them? You're trying to spin this around on me. Bush is the one you should be pissed at. He lied. They died. A sad sad story.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
...as you continue to belittle them!! "A sad, sad story." These men and women gave their lives to save others from this sadistic man and his twisted offspring. You make it sound like they (troops) died for nothing; that is disrespectful and belittling. I say they died with cause and honor and have saved unnumbered lives since. But...it's a free country; bash our troops a little more for all the meaningless, empty and vain things they do. Go ahead, spit on them a little more.... (I am through with this conversation that only shows disdain for brave fellow Americans willing to lay down their lives for even YOU!)
Good day 'sir'...
jonas_opines (anonymous) replies…
Jury will take decades to give a verdict as to whether those men fought and died for nothing.
tange (anonymous) replies…
They died for less than nothing.
tange (anonymous) replies…
They are not disrespected and belittled by informed commentary. They were disrespected and *compromised* in an unjustified and unjustifiable war.
bartstop (anonymous) replies…
I love the way Republicans twist things so they can perpetuate their hatred. I have never bashed our troops. I have never spit on anyone. I have family serving as we speak.
So let me ask you Mr Right wing. Before the invasion, how many Americans and our allies had Sadam killed? How was he a threat?
bartstop (anonymous) says…
This is funny.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
blue73harley, I'll put this as historical as I always do... until Amerigo Vespucci sailed past the Algonquian people on Long Island almost five hundred years ago.. there was no America...
to me the term America is like Argentina or Uruguay or Paraguay, a place in the Western
Hemisphere that Europeans invaded and gave a new name and pretty much white washed.
You take the triangle trade of rum, sugar and slave labor in the 17th century that occured after the
explorers enlsaved the Carib and Taino people and these peope died from European diseases
and free labor had to come from somewhere.. and voila here's a country that doesnt like to admit
how it got it's land or who picked it's crops prior to the 20th century. America is the figment
of Pilgrim imagination. Something like twenty three states are named from tribal words.
I don't buy into a 234 year old nationalistic ploy. I don't speak for it or against it. I just don't
historically acknowledge it just like southerners didn't acknowledge the 4th of July in 1976
when I lived in Jonesville La near Vicksburg, Ms. Vicksburg was under seige on the 4th of July
in 1863 during the U.S. Civl War. I drive through most of Kansas and I can tell you whose land
it was until the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Does patriotism really value authentic
history? no. authentic history goes against jingoism and slogans. oh well.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Unfortunately I doubt if Hillary Clinton or Bob Gates have brought this matter up with Pres. Obama:
Electricity Production in Iraq Remains Below Pre-War Levels
by Dahr Jamail
Contrary to Bush Administration reports, Iraqi officials say the country's electricity problems remain endemic, and fear that despite Coalition promises, Iraq's plants will remain inadequate for the foreseeable future.
Baghdad; May 14, 2004 – Contrary to US President George Bush’s recent statement that electricity in Iraq "is now more widely available than before the war," Iraqi officials say the power supply in their country has not yet been repaired to pre-war levels. Bush made the claim in his May 1, 2004 speech commemorating the one-year anniversary of the "mission accomplished" address he delivered from aboard the USS Lincoln.
===================================================================
The following statement was issued from a person connected to the State Department. The State Department would not allow news interviews.
"Nothing would stabilise Iraq more than reliable electricity, which would allow business growth and employment of those who might otherwise join militias to support their families.
Electricity would attract investment and make it possible for the oil and gas sectors to expand, increase refrigeration of vaccines and fresh food, benefit schools, and even have allowed more people to watch World Cup games; it is no coincidence that major protests prompting the Electricity Minister to resign occurred in June during the football tournament."
This person went on to say that keeping bases and USA military in this region will only prolong the war.
theworldtoday.org aug-sept 2010
The withdrawal of United States combat troops on August 31 falls during
Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting and prayer; a timetable better suited to
the American political cycle than to conditions in Iraq. Ramadan usually sees a
spike in violence as religious fervour combines with heat and hunger.
But delaying the withdrawal another year would mean the Iraq war surpassing the
Vietnam war in length. The timing could have been better for Iraq, but
withdrawal is overdue for the US. Having never been justified in the first place –
legally, strategically, or defensively – it is time to end military engagement in Iraq.
the views in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the us government or state department.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Of course the surge worked. Putting in more money and troops gave better results? Shocking!
Too bad Bush did not listen to others in his own party (e.g. John McCain) at the start of the war that more troops and resources would be necessary.
We must remember that this was a a war of choice justified by Bush et al. by lies and mistruths and manipulations about WMD and biological/chemical weapons.
This was a war of Bush's choice, not a war of necessity. Iraq very well might turn into a semi-stable democracy. It will have cost the USA trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
Will it have been worth it? Should we spend trillions in nation-building wars in every country with a dictator who rattles his sabre.
The Iraq war was an exercise in extreme irresponsibility in the use of the American military.
Obama must feel like a parent cleaning up after a drunken party held by their son.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Slate’s stopped drinking the Flavor-Aid
“President Barack Obama's speech from the Oval Office Tuesday night was a strange muddle—a televised prime-time address that lacked a bottom line, a consistent theme, a clear road to the future…”
http://www.slate.com/id/2265656/
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) says…
That must have been a tough speech to write. Obama was against the war and the surge but somehow he wanted to take credit for the outcome and check it off his list. Then, instead of talking about foreign policy, he changes gears and talks about the economy. That speech was a train wreck and many in the media are scratching their collective heads this morning.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Tom: Your erotic fascination of your Anointed One continues be revealed. Your posts on this story at 8:52, 8:55, 8:56, 9:00 and 9:03 P.M. on 8/31/10 and at 6:51, and 6:59 on 9/1/10 proves this; how can you put a rational thought together when posting every minute or so? Looks like you tucked in around 9:00 P.M. and awoke around 6:00 A.M. Did sugar plum dreams of Barack float through your head during your REM Sleep. Some psychological explanation needed
Liked your comment about Biden and Dubya speech mis-steps; Biden acknowledges when he commits a gaffe and is self-deprecating enough to laugh it off. Dubya on the other hand never realizes his mis-speaks, is too daft and because of a ego and insecurity problems gets his back-up and defensive when revealed. What a bozo; I suggest you look at one of the many Bush mis-speak compilations out on the internet.
The only credit Condaleeza deserves with regard to Middle East issues is for teaching Dubya geography and selling the idea of WMD in Iraq to get us in the mess to begin with. Her worst screw-up along with Tenet was throwing Colin Powell under the bus
Agnostick (anonymous) replies…
Clearly anyone who types "up America's backside and breaking it off" is getting some sort of self-help therapy out of the imagery that evokes...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/aug...
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Would things be any different if more Americans had an actual personal and/or financial stake in the war(s)?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/opi...
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
The war in Afghanistan and the war of choice in Iraq have, at minimum, cost around $2 trillion dollars so far.
This means that every man, woman, and child in America has borrowed ~$3000 to have these wars fought for them.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
So we are removing the combat troops -- excellent! About time for us to get the hell out of Iraq. Never should have gone in the first place, but glad we are finally leaving. Thank you Mr. President.
I'm sure if the mavericky / winkie-winkie team had won the election, not only would we still be going full throttle in Iraq, but we would be seriously talking about the mavericky plan to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
Agnostick (anonymous) replies…
Speaking of winkie-winkie...
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/fe...
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) says…
Tange says: "Never should have gone in the first place".
Tange it is unfortunate that Saddam Hussein ignored all those UN sanctions, used chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds, tortured Olympic athletes who didn’t measure up, invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, funded terrorist groups and even paid families of suicide bombers. Yep what a great guy Saddam was.
If there are NO consequences for breaking UN sanctions, let’s just disband the UN and save our money.
tange (anonymous) replies…
(Actually, bea said it first.)
Bait-and-switch of mass destruction, eh o'ckc?
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
RC, who ever said Saddam was up for leader of the year honors? Claiming we shouldn't have gone in is not the same as saying he was a good person. We know he was a bad, bad man. However, we went in to find WMDs, and there were none -- hence, we shouldn't have gone in! We went in saying that the war would pay for itself through oil profits, and we have seen nothing but huge expenses. We shouldn't have gone in. We attacked a nation that didn't attack us. We shouldn't have gone in.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed. The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets,".
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
I read a book once that said space aliens visited earth and built the pyramids. It was in a book, so it must be true!
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Tange: If 41 would have finished the job in the first place; dummy 43 would not have ended up with one of the predicaments he had. Of course 43 was trying to prove to 41 that he had the where-with-all to save Daddy's face about Saddam. What is funny about the whole Dubya Daddy and Dubya Dummy combo is that they gutted the CIA which Daddy was once the director. By doing so the 43 and Darth along with Tenet, Connie Baby, Neocons and a bunch of Military coyboys relied on phony, cooked-up information about WMD and yellowcake uranium from Niger.
No big deal; only cost us 4,500 young lives, trillions of dollars, lost respect throughout the rest of the world, screwed up the economy, etc, etc. Now many conservatives want to rant about increased taxes; what they fail to realize is that much of the war expenditures are not part of the budget but a separate appropriation process. Of course, they claimed no budget increase, but a huge hit on the National Debt is what we got.
tange (anonymous) replies…
Yep.
And yep yep.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Oh, forgot to ad, while 43 was making a mess in Iraq, he let the Afghanistan situation go to hell.
purplesage (anonymous) says…
b - oooo - gus, as they say on Car Talk. What a house of cards, game of words. Interesting he noted the Sadaam-less world is a safer place. I would love to have hear the phone call between President's Obama and Bush.
I hope some of you listened to KPR this morning. Nothing has changed, despite the pomp and circustance. Our nation's military will be doing on Sept 1 what they were doing on Aug 31.
There has never been such a bogus presidency as this one. At least Jimmy Carter meant well. Barak Obama cares about Barak Obama. End of post.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
bartstop (anonymous) says…
"How many troops did we have in Germany for decades and yet there was no war?"
Last time I checked, Iraq wasn't in Germany.
Oh, lookie, here's something:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100901/a...
"US forces still in fight at end of combat mission"
>>> "Even as President Barack Obama was announcing the end of combat in Iraq, American soldiers were sealing off a northern village early Wednesday as their Iraqi partners raided houses and arrested dozens of suspected insurgents."
>>> "While the Obama administration has dramatically reduced the number of troops and rebranded the mission, the operation in Hawija was a reminder that U.S. forces are still engaged in hunting down and killing al-Qaida militants — and could still have to defend themselves against attacks."
>>> ""Every soldier I have knows that fighting is not over because there are groups here that still want to hurt us," Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq's volatile north, told The Associated Press recently."
***********************
"Tange: If 41 would have finished the job in the first place; dummy 43 would not have ended up with one of the predicaments he had."
By finish the job, wabbit, you mean what: He should have invaded Iraq, removed Saddam Hussein from power, and stationed over a hundred thousand troops to mop up the insurgents, rebuild the country, and establish a government?
What are you using for logic that suggests if we'd done it sooner it somehow would have been easier, lest costly, or over in less time?
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
If my memory serves me right, we did invade Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War and knocked off the Republican Guard and proceeded on the Baghdad while liberating Kuwait. Also, I think 41 was president at the time but chickened-out when he had a chance to eliminate Saddam. He (41) in retrospect realized he had missed a "golden opportunity". As it turned out, 41 raised taxes, lost the 1992 election and the thought of Saddam escaping became a albatross around his neck. It became 43's passion to remove this stain from his father.
As far as 100,000 troops, it has long been agreed that if Saddam had been removed in 1991 and the Iraq military had been retained under new leadership; the country would not have fallen into the morass it later became. It was Reagan and 41st's problem that Iraq had slipped from being our "ally" in the Iraq-Iran war, to the situation that happened in 1991.
Might want to check the facts!
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
If my memory serves me right, we did invade Iraq in the1991 Gulf War and knocked off the Republican Guard and proceeded on the Baghdad while liberating Kuwait. Also, I think 41 was president at the time but chickened-out when he had a chance to eliminate Saddam. He (41) in retrospect realized he had missed a "golden opportunity". As it turned out, 41 raised taxes, lost the 1992 election and the thought of Saddam escaping became a albatross around his neck. It became 43's passion to remove this stain from his father.
As far as 100,000 troops, it has long been agreed that if Saddam had been removed in 1881 and the Iraq military had been retained under new leadership; the country would not have fallen into the morass it later became. It was Reagan and 41st's problem that Iraq had slipped from being our "ally" in the Iraq-Iran war, tom the situation that happened in 1991.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…
Most Americans are armchair quarterbacks who really don't really even care about the wars outside of scoring some points in these little debates.
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/this-...
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
I meant 1991 not 1881 in 2nd paragraph of my 11:27 post.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
Phew... close one! I was about to send a Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101 back in time to 1881 to assassinate him.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
"If my memory serves me right ..."
Your memory's not even in the same solar system.
For the most part, the "invasion" of Iraq you recall was a flanking maneuver to cut off the Iraqi troops in Kuwait, and some pursuit of retreating units after they were pushed out of Kuwait. They never got close to Baghdad and withdrew almost immediately. They did not capture or hold any major Iraqi city or occupy any Iraqi territory for any length of time. And the reasons they didn't push on into Baghdad and remove Hussein were 1) that wasn't why they were there, they were there to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait and to protect Saudi Arabia, and 2) (and probably more importantly) with the exception of Great Britain, most of the rest of the forces allied with the United States in '91 were from countries that vocally objected to the second Gulf war and the overthrow of the Iraqi government, and they wouldn't have stood for it back then, either.
If you're not old enough to remember fairly recent history, at least try to read a little of it before trying to discuss it.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
"They never got close to Baghdad..."
I guess that depends on your definition of close. We came within 150 miles of Baghdad. To those sitting on their couch in Larryville 150 miles might as well be the next solar system. To those in a coffee shop in downtown Baghdad that might seem like we're just outside the front door.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
In terms of distance, those people in the coffee shop weren't likely to be diving under tables to avoid stray rifle rounds. The Saudi border is only 200 miles from Baghdad, give or take, meaning the coalition forces were only about 1/4 of the way closer than they were before entering Iraq.
In relative terms, it wasn't quite as close as they got in the second round.
In terms of defense, one just might think that on the last 150 miles of the approach to a country's capital city (and its dictator), one just might meet a little more resistance than they did on the 50 miles of open desert before that.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
True... but if the Chinese army was in the U.S. and 150 miles away from your house you may start to get a bit nervous.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Considering that would mean the Chinese army was 99% of the way to my house, probably. If we were being attacked by Nebraska, Oklahoma, or the University of Missouri, the 150 miles would still seem like a long way to go. The point is that those Iraqis in the coffee shop didn't have any reason to be significantly more worried than when the coalition forces were still sitting in Saudi Arabia.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
Great response statement here.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/h...
Actually, I think the most important statement is the last sentence by Scahill. It's always been known that AlQaeda despised Saddam Hussein and that Hussein kept AlQaeda out of Iraq with a firm and bloody hand. When Bush invaded and destabilized Iraq he created a petrie dish for AlQaeda to grow in that country. Bush's lies about Iraq and AlQaeda rank up there with the whole "WMD" scam. By the time of the 2004 Republican National convention it had already been determined that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and never had been, yet those three words were repeated a total of 184 times during the convention, even by Laura Bush. We paid for those lies with the lives of over 4900 US troops; real men and women who had families that loved them and grieved for their loss.
I'm not anti-military. On the contrary, I firmly believe a standing military is necessary for a country's defense. But squandering the lives of nearly 5k troops and plunging his own country into economic disarray and another country into civil war for the sake of personal gain is unconscionable. Say what you like about Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Biden, but what Bush, Cheney and Rove did amounted to war crimes and treason.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Were those words used by Hillary Clinton in her impassioned speech to the senate when she supported the use of force "with conviction"?
Yeah, Olberman is really someone I'd look to for an objective view of history, especially the parts of his tirade that's cited by a website called "Crooks and Liars". I'm sure there's no bias there at all.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
I'm trying to figure out what has the conservatives here so upset. Is it because Obama didn't just keep going down the same, endless path in Iraq of the previous administration? What exactly was Obama suppose to do in Iraq that would have made you "happy"? The answer, of course, is nothing. You just want to continue the same whine of the past year.
Q: How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. They would rather sit in the dark and complain that the liberals would even consider making any changes.
Agnostick (anonymous) replies…
Light bulb joke is very telling, bea.
As to why conservatives are upset...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/aug...
jonas_opines (anonymous) replies…
Ha, I'll have to remember that one.
I wonder what the converse would be? Maybe:
Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. 1 complains about obstructionists, 1 takes money for a study on other light bulbs, how they were changed, and how that change worked out, 1 attempts to paint the room a lighter color to let in more natural light, and 1 rails against the electric company. None, however, are able to enable the change to happen.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Q: How many liberals?
A: None. They are more interested in first making sure the light wants to change.
A: One, but it had better be a "green" bulb that wasn't purchased at Wal-Mart.
A: None, because they are still checking with every possible ethnic and gender group to make sure they haven't overlooked giving someone the opportunity of changing the lightbulb.
A: None. They hire that kind of work out. I mean, liberals are elitists that way.
A: None. Bush broke the damn light, so he should fix it.
These light bulb jokes can go on and on .. both sides.
jonas_opines (anonymous) replies…
Also:
Q: How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb.
A: None. They all wait for the invisible hand to do it for them, and when nothing happens they say it's the fault of the government.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
For Libertarians, I thought the market would dictate whether or not the light got changed.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) replies…
Good one.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
"I'm trying to figure out what has the conservatives here so upset."
"Upset" wouldn't be the correct word, bea. "Amused" is much closer. It's always good for a laugh to watch the obeisance of the liberals to their Messiah for yet another 'historic' act that was no different than what you continue to excoriate his predecessor for. That and seeing one more time the sputtering 'But, but, but that's *different*'.
Bush runs up the deficit and he's an idiot who ruined the country. Obama makes that deficit much, much worse, and he's a brilliant man who's saving us. Bush is ridiculed for saying 'Mission Accomplished' at a time when, in actuality, the conflict *was* in transition from an all out war against an organized, uniformed army with tanks and aircraft, into a counter-insurgency operation. And then all the Dems fawn all over their dear leader when he gives a pretty speech saying the combat mission is over while at the exact same moment US troops are participating in such a mission in Iraq.
You're always good for a laugh, bea.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
But, but ... Bush!
Still dreaming of your past hero I see.
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
What, no bitching from the "Right" about some apparent progress in Israeli-Palestinian Peace talks. Sure do not want to give Obama-H.Clinton-Mitchell any credit; would fly in the face of the GOP/Tea's "Party of No".
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Why yes! Why, there hasn't been THIS much progress towards a Middle East peace since - well, maybe even since Camp David!!!
Given your utter lack of memory of events as recent as the first Gulf war, I'm hardly surprised to see you know nothing about how many times the Democrats have patted each other on the back for brokering a Middle East peace accord.
How'd those work out, wabbit?
Maybe if instead of having yet another pompous Democratic president concerned more with another 'historic' accomplishment, we had one who tried talking to - oh, I don't know, maybe the true representatives of the Palestinians instead of the ones the Israelis are willing to shake hands with in front of a camera?
Are you seriously so young that you think anything that got accomplished today - which is to say nothing except to agree to meet again - has a better chance of working out than the one they gave the peanut farmer the Nobel Prize for?
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Every man, woman and child in America has borrowed from China ~$3000 to fight Bush's war of choice in Iraq.
Despite the outcome in Iraq, we must remember that it has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.
As an exercise in nation building, was it worth it?
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Yes
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Q: How many tea-partiers does it take to screw in a light bulb.
A: Tea-partiers wouldn't screw in a light bulb, they would take a hike on the Appalachian trail.
jonas_opines (anonymous) replies…
A: Just one dammit!! Any more than that would be Socialism!
blindrabbit (anonymous) says…
Or head for Argentina
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) says…
Q: How many tea-partiers does it take to win the House and Senate?
A: We will find out in November.
tange (anonymous) says…
Q: How many conservatives does it take to screw... the pooch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCt1mU...
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
The current regime has driven NPR to stop drinking the Kool-Aid:
"You could be forgiven if you thought there were no more U.S. combat brigades in Iraq since there was so much news media coverage earlier in the week about the "last combat brigade" exiting the Arab nation.
But as it turns out, there actually are still combat brigades there. They've just been renamed.
As journalists at NPR and elsewhere have repeatedly noted, there still are thousands of U.S. combat troops in Iraq.
Not only combat troops, however, but combat brigades. They've just gone under something of an Orwellian name change.
Kate Brannen of Army Times explains:
Soldiers from the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division are deployed in Iraq as members of an Advise and Assist Brigade, the Army’s designation for brigades selected to conduct security force assistance.
So while the “last full U.S. combat brigade” have left Iraq, just under 50,000 soldiers from specially trained heavy, infantry and Stryker brigades will stay, as well as two combat aviation brigades."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2...