Betrayal, Pressure & Dissension: Things Get Harder For Bush

[Booker Floyd]

Bush rarely speaks to father, 'family is split'

President Bush feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office, administration sources say. The president's reclusiveness in the face of relentless public scrutiny of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and White House leaks regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame has become so extreme that Mr. Bush has also reduced contact with his father, former President George H.W. Bush, administration sources said on the condition of anonymity.

Matt Dudge (yeah, take it for what its worth) adds:

The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions.

Senate Urges Bush to Outline Iraq Plan
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
49 minutes ago
 

WASHINGTON - The GOP-controlled Senate rejected a Democratic call Tuesday for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from     Iraq but urged     President Bush to outline his plan for "the successful completion of the mission" in a bill reflecting a growing bipartisan unease with his Iraq policies.
 
The overall measure, adopted 98-0, shows a willingness to defy the president in several ways despite a threatened veto. It would restrict the techniques used to interrogate terrorism suspects, ban their inhuman treatment and call for the administration to provide lawmakers with quarterly reports on the status of operations in Iraq.

Bush, traveling in Japan, said he is happy to keep Congress informed of his plan to bring democracy to Iraq.

"It is important that we succeed in Iraq ... and we're going to," Bush said during a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. "The only way that we won't succeed is if we lose our nerve and the terrorists are able to drive us out of Iraq by killing innocent lives."

The bill was not without victories for the president, including support for the military tribunals Bush has set up to try detainees at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Yet even that was tempered, with language letting the inmates appeal to a federal court their designation as enemy combatants and their sentences.

The Senate's votes on Iraq showed a willingness even by Republicans to question the White House on a war that's growing increasingly unpopular with Americans.

Polls show Bush's popularity has tumbled in part because of public frustration over Iraq, a war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,000 American troops.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the outcome was "a vote of no confidence on the president's policies in Iraq." Republicans "acknowledged that there need to be changes made," he said.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., trumpeted the chamber's rejection of the Democratic call for a withdrawal timetable.

"It is an absolute repudiation of the cut-and-run strategy put forward by the Democrats," Frist said.

Bush also highlighted the rejection of the withdrawal amendment, calling it a "positive step."

"The Senate did ask that we report on progress being made in Iraq, which we're more than willing to do," Bush said. "That's to be expected. That's what the Congress expects. They expect us to keep them abreast of a plan that is going to work."

The fate of the legislation is uncertain. The House version of the bill, which sets     Pentagon policy and authorizes spending, doesn't include the Iraq language or any of the provisions on the detention, interrogation or prosecution of terrorism suspects.

The measure faces a veto threat from the administration over a provision that imposes a blanket prohibition on the use of "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody.

Even so, the Senate's political statement was clear ? and made even more stinging when the vote was held with Bush abroad, in Asia, an embarrassing step Congress often tries to avoid. With Democrats pressing their amendment calling for a calendar for withdrawal, Republicans worked to fend off a frontal attack by Democrats by calling on the White House to do more.

On a 58-40 vote, Senate Republicans killed the measure Democratic leaders had offered to force GOP lawmakers to take a stand on the war.

The Senate then voted 79-19 in favor of a Republican alternative stating that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces.

Like the Democratic proposal, the GOP measure is purely advisory, a statement of the Senate's thinking. It does not require the administration to do anything.

Rather, it simply calls for the Bush administration to "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq" and to provide reports on U.S. foreign policy and military operations in Iraq every three months until all U.S. combat brigades have been withdrawn.

Underscoring the political stakes of Tuesday's votes, four of the five Democrats who opposed establishing a timetable are up for re-election next fall, three of them ? Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida and Kent Conrad of North Dakota ? in states that Bush won in 2004.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record), the one Republican who voted for a timetable, faces a tough re-election race in Rhode Island, which Democratic presidential candidate     John Kerry won a year ago.

The overall bill includes provisions that, taken together, mark an effort by Congress to rein in some of the wide authority lawmakers gave the president following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In a mixed bag for the president, the Senate also voted to endorse the Bush administration's military procedures for detaining and prosecuting foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. But the provision approved on a 84-14 vote also would allow the detainees to appeal their detention status and punishments to a federal appeals court in Washington.

That avenue would take the place of the one tool the Supreme Court gave detainees in 2004 to fight the legality of their detentions ? the right to file habeas corpus petitions in any federal court.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., acknowledged possible political reasons for the wide support of his measure. "I think it speaks to a bit of nervousness about the public perception of how the war is going with respect to 2006," Graham said.

The bill also contains White House-opposed language limiting interrogation tactics and banning the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreigners in U.S. custody. The Bush administration has threatened to veto any bill that includes language about the treatment of detainees, arguing it would limit the president's ability to prevent terrorist attacks.

Reflecting senators' anger over recent leaks of classified information, the bill also contains provisions that would require details of purportedly secret     CIA prisons overseas and strip security clearances of federal government officials who knowingly disclose national security secrets.

[Booker Floyd]

GOP senator hits Bush for attacking war critics; Hints Congress endorsing another Vietnam by staying silent

RAW STORY


Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran and critic of Bush policy on Iraq, excoriated the Administration Tuesday in a speech to Council on Foreign Relations Tuesday, RAW STORY has learned.

Hagel blasted the Administration for going after Iraq war critics and turning the war into a political cause.

"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform," the Nebraska senator remarked. "This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration?s policies."

He also suggested the members of Congress who failed to question the war could be responsible for another Vietnam.

"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late," he added. "Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic ? to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

Hagel emphasized the role of international cooperation.

"The international community must now recognize the changed circumstances of a constitutionally-based Iraqi government and join Iraq?s neighbors by investing in Iraq?s future success," he said.

"The role for international institutions will grow in importance as Iraq becomes more self-assured and able to govern. The World Bank, the United Nations and NATO all need to be more actively engaged in Iraq. The Oil-for-Food debacle is a stain on the UN?s reputation in Iraq. But that is not the UN?s role in Iraq today. The United Nations can help provide Iraq both a broader political umbrella, and greater support and expertise to help build and coordinate government institutions, programs and structures. Last weekend?s visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Iraq ? his first visit since the war ? should help lead to this expanded role for the UN."

His full speech is available here.

[RichardNixon]

I've heard that Bush 41 was against going into Iraq. But I'm surprised to hear that jr. isn't talking to his dad.

[SLCPUNK]

I've heard that Bush 41 was against going into Iraq. But I'm surprised to hear that jr. isn't talking to his dad.

"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".  In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, he said, "whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power ? America in an Arab land ? with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

LOL, sound familiar?

Even more ironic was Dick Cheney saying that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

Sound familiar ?

[Charity Case]

blah, blah, blah, same shit over and over again.  You liberals have posted hundreds of threads with the same topic.  I have seen slc post that quote on a number of occasions.  Do you guys have anything new to add?  If so, go for it.  If not, why keep starting posts about how we shouldn't be in Iraq or shouldn't have gone into Iraq?  What is the point when we have a 100 threads on the same topic?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

blah, blah, blah, same shit over and over again.  You liberals have posted hundreds of threads with the same topic.  I have seen slc post that quote on a number of occasions.  Do you guys have anything new to add?  If so, go for it.  If not, why keep starting posts about how we shouldn't be in Iraq or shouldn't have gone into Iraq?  What is the point when we have a 100 threads on the same topic?

i agree.
let's talk about citizen kane instead

[Surfrider]

I can't believe Hagel is criticizing the President for making the war political and fighting back.  There have been conspiracy theories and allegations for the past two years that Bush has not publicly responded to.  Finally he gets the balls to fight back a little and Hagel criticizes him for it?  Who on the left or the right doesn't want to see Bush try to explain these things?

[RichardNixon]

blah, blah, blah, same shit over and over again.? You liberals have posted hundreds of threads with the same topic.? I have seen slc post that quote on a number of occasions.? Do you guys have anything new to add?? If so, go for it.? If not, why keep starting posts about how we shouldn't be in Iraq or shouldn't have gone into Iraq?? What is the point when we have a 100 threads on the same topic?

Over half the US now believes it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Are you calling over half the US liberal?

[gilld1]

Not that HW left the Bush name in great shape after his term but W has taken the Bush name to an all-time low.  I did not care for HW but I respected him, as for W I have absolutely zero respect for him.  The only thing I like him for is being able to tell all my friends who voted for him, "I told you so!"

[SLCPUNK]

Over half the US now believes it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Are you calling over half the US liberal?

Right, people like him are forgetting that it is his base that is leaving Bush.

He's going down in flames, and with the recent leak gate fiasco people have had it. They are sick of the lies and bullshit; I'm very proud of my fellow Americans for finally saying "enough is enough."

[SLCPUNK]

Another Set of Scare Tactics

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Mr. President, it won't work this time.

With a Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll finding 57 percent of Americans agreeing that George W. Bush "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq," the president clearly needs to tend to his credibility problems. But his partisan attacks on the administration's critics, in a Veterans Day speech last week and in Alaska yesterday, will only add to his troubles.

Bush was not subtle. He said that anyone accusing his administration of having "manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people" was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush declared last week. "As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them."

You wonder: Did Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy by daring to seek the indictment of Scooter Libby on a charge of perjury and obstruction of justice? Must Americans who support our troops desist from any criticism of the use of intelligence by the administration?

There is a great missing element in the argument over whether the administration manipulated the facts. Neither side wants to talk about the context in which Bush won a blank check from Congress to invade Iraq. He doesn't want us to remember that he injected the war debate into the 2002 midterm election campaign for partisan purposes, and he doesn't want to acknowledge that he used the post-Sept. 11 mood to do all he could to intimidate Democrats from raising questions more of them should have raised.

The big difference between our current president and his father is that the first President Bush put off the debate over the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm elections. The result was one of most substantive and honest foreign policy debates Congress has ever seen, and a unified nation. The first President Bush was scrupulous about keeping petty partisanship out of the discussion.

The current President Bush did the opposite. He pressured Congress for a vote before the 2002 election, and the war resolution passed in October.

Sen. Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat who is no dove, warned of rushing "pell-mell" into an endorsement of broad war powers for the president. The Los Angeles Times reported that Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, protested in September: "We're being asked to go to war, and vote on it in a matter of days. We need an intelligence estimate before we can seriously vote." And Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, put it plainly: "This will be one of the most important decisions Congress makes in a number of years; I do not believe it should be made in the frenzy of an election year." But it was.

Grand talk about liberating Iraq gave way to cheap partisan attacks. In New Mexico, Republican Steve Pearce ran an advertisement against Democrat John Arthur Smith declaring: "While Smith 'reflects' on the situation, the possibility of a mushroom cloud hovering over a U.S. city still remains." Note that Smith wasn't being attacked for opposing the war, only for reflecting on it. God forbid that any Democrat dare even think before going to war.

Marc Racicot, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, said about the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's opposition to the war resolution: "He has set about to diminish the capacity of this nation to defend itself. That is a legitimate issue." Wellstone, who died in a plane crash a few days before the election, was not intimidated. But other Democrats were.

The bad faith of Bush's current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate" who "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power" thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein.

By linking the war on terrorism to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started.

[Surfrider]

blah, blah, blah, same shit over and over again.? You liberals have posted hundreds of threads with the same topic.? I have seen slc post that quote on a number of occasions.? Do you guys have anything new to add?? If so, go for it.? If not, why keep starting posts about how we shouldn't be in Iraq or shouldn't have gone into Iraq?? What is the point when we have a 100 threads on the same topic?

Over half the US now believes it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Are you calling over half the US liberal?

Sure that is the case.  However, I'll bet no more than 10% share the opinions you have that the US went to war for oil so that Halliburton could make money.  No one is countering that support for the war is declining or that it was a mistake in hindsight to have gone there.

[RichardNixon]

blah, blah, blah, same shit over and over again.? You liberals have posted hundreds of threads with the same topic.? I have seen slc post that quote on a number of occasions.? Do you guys have anything new to add?? If so, go for it.? If not, why keep starting posts about how we shouldn't be in Iraq or shouldn't have gone into Iraq?? What is the point when we have a 100 threads on the same topic?

Over half the US now believes it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Are you calling over half the US liberal?

Sure that is the case.? However, I'll bet no more than 10% share the opinions you have that the US went to war for oil so that Halliburton could make money.? No one is countering that support for the war is declining or that it was a mistake in hindsight to have gone there.

You're putting words in my mouth. Not once did I say anything about going in for Oil. While that's part of it, there's more to it than that.

I think in part it's oil, but really, the Neo-Cons have wanted to go in for years, since the mid 90s. I honestly think they believed their own hype that if the US took out Sadam and replaced him with a Western Style Democracy, democracy would spread, in a sort of domino-effect all throughout the middle-east. When Bush became the president, the Neo-Cons hijacked the White House and all dissenters were given the pink slip. You were either on board or you weren't. Bush and his cronies used the terrible tragedy of 911 to manipulate public fear, and put their plans into action.

I think Bush has a Christlike complex going on. He and his base really believe he is chosen by the almighty, and somehow going into Iraq and set up democracy was part of a grand plan.

[Charity Case]

I think Bush has a Christlike complex going on. He and his base really believe he is chosen by the almighty, and somehow going into Iraq and set up democracy was part of a grand plan.

I hope this is just you kidding around, because it is absurd to say the least.

As for the support for the war....polls are meaningless.  The problem with polls is that it takes into account the opinions of both the intelligent and the stupid.  Far too many times the polls are biased because the amount of stupid people participating outweighs the number of intelligent participants.  I mean just look at the baseball all star votes.  i think cal ripkin still gets voted in as a starter.   :0

I love to see people quote polls when they favor their position, but ignore them when they don't.  I would just ignore them completely and go from there. 

[Walk]

People are upset at Bush because gas has gotten a little cheaper lately and they don't remember why Iraq is important in the first place. Dumb people have bad memories. When another hurricane hits or China gets another growth spurt, the opinion of the war will become much more favorable. We need oil to enjoy our quality of life.

[Axls Locomotive]

I'm very proud of my fellow Americans for finally saying "enough is enough."

profits must be down!

[RichardNixon]

I think Bush has a Christlike complex going on. He and his base really believe he is chosen by the almighty, and somehow going into Iraq and set up democracy was part of a grand plan.

I hope this is just you kidding around, because it is absurd to say the least.

As for the support for the war....polls are meaningless.? The problem with polls is that it takes into account the opinions of both the intelligent and the stupid.? Far too many times the polls are biased because the amount of stupid people participating outweighs the number of intelligent participants.? I mean just look at the baseball all star votes.? i think cal ripkin still gets voted in as a starter.? ?:0

I love to see people quote polls when they favor their position, but ignore them when they don't.? I would just ignore them completely and go from there.?

Well that logic made sense when Bush's numbers were in the 90s...

[Charity Case]

I didn't care about polls when they showed Kerry was gonna win, and I didn't care about polls when they showed support for the war, and I didn't care about polls when they showed Bush with a favorable rating.  And I don't care about polls now.  If there was 90% support for the war, I could care less.  Furthermore, I'd have no respect for a man who governed by poll numbers.  I think you have to admire the man for not listening to the uninformed morons like Sheehan and standing ground (which is the right thing to do).  Imagine leaving Iraq now...what a nightmare that would be. 

[SLCPUNK]

I didn't care about polls when they showed Bush with a favorable rating.

There you go lying again. When things showed Bush's way (polls and other), you were the first to post it. As Tyrod of course.

  Imagine leaving Iraq now...what a nightmare that would be. 

Imagine if we never went in....the nightmare we could have avoided.

Look at all the armchair admirals still rooting for the loser in the white house. (shakes head)

[RichardNixon]

I didn't care about polls when they showed Bush with a favorable rating.

There you go lying again. When things showed Bush's way (polls and other), you were the first to post it. As Tyrod of course.

? Imagine leaving Iraq now...what a nightmare that would be.?

Imagine if we never went in....the nightmare we could have avoided.

Look at all the armchair admirals still rooting for the loser in the white house. (shakes head)

SLC PUNK:

You make me sick! How dare you question the war. What you don't support the troops? Love it or leave it you commie pinko.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I'm just honored SLC put me in his signature.? I guess I do kind of support war crimes, I mean I am the one who is advocating that we withdrawl all chance and hope Iraq can be a secure and free state.? I'm the one that wants to let a fascist regime return back to power so that they can cleanse their country and purge the weak and disagreeable.? I guess that kind of makes me a murderer too because I condone and even support the people/organizations that carry out this genocide.? Finally, I am a liar because I repeatedly change topics and attack people when they shoot my argument to shit and pigeon hole it to death.? Oh wait a second, I'm not SLC Punk.....


Again SLC, I was against the war from day one.? However, my reason for opposition was the belief that even if Sadam did have WMDs, he has a right to possess them as a soverign nation.? Furthermore, I was damned if I was gonna sacrifice one American for the life of an Iraqi or any other person of a culture that performs and supports the systematic extermination and discrimination against its own people.? Taking nude pictures of POWs is nothing compared to the horror Sadam put his people through and the horror all those captured by the terrorist have had to endure.? If it were personally up to me, i would seize all the oil fields and put them under military control and guard.? I don't care what happens to Iraq, let them and every other country in that region destroy itself.? The US and other Western nations have offered support and they choose to remain ignorant and in the stone age.? How any of you can defend a culture that discriminates against women and numerous other abysmal human rights is mind boggling.? My comments aren't racist as the color of a person's skin has nothing to do with this.? It's the belief system of their society, that is what I'm attacking.? Bush had intel that suggested there were WMDs in Iraq.? The American people and international community wanted to remove the weapons, but our "old European" allies lacked the cojones to back the UN resolution (ecspecially with their hands in Sadam's pockets).? I haveb;t heard this argument in a while, but the delay and time the US gave weapons inspectors to get their shit together was more than enough time to move the WMDs and there's been two years afterwards for the old guard to move or destroy what remained of them.? Afterall, we have found every component of a WMD. just not an assembeled piece.? You can call Bush a liar, and you can call me or anyone else a supporter of murder.? But regardless of how many times you say it, it isn't going to come true.? In the real world, forums covered under infowars.com and conspiracytheory.com aren't valid.? This entire attack and claims of lies is nothing more than a political attempt to recover from the ass whooping liberals in America have received for the past 5 years.

[pilferk]

As for the support for the war....polls are meaningless.? The problem with polls is that it takes into account the opinions of both the intelligent and the stupid.? Far too many times the polls are biased because the amount of stupid people participating outweighs the number of intelligent participants.? I mean just look at the baseball all star votes.? i think cal ripkin still gets voted in as a starter.? ?:0

I'd like to see some proof of that assertion on sampling.  That somehow there is some basis for an assertion the poll has "more stupid people" in it's makeup.

 Seriously.  That's the point of random polls.  And you do realize that DIFFERENT people are polled each week, right?  But the numbers still hover around the same points?

I agree: Polls aren't the end all, be all.  But they're compelling information, all the same.  Especially when continued (every week) polling, using completely different sample sets, shows the same sorts of numbers and trending.

And remember something else:  Your assertion that there are more "stupid people" than intelligent people works both ways.  The guy in the white house was elected, remember, by at least a good portion of the people you're now calling "stupid".  Saying that the reason the poll numbers are innacurate is because the respondants are "stupid" might not actually do much for your point.

[pilferk]

Bush had intel that suggested there were WMDs in Iraq.? The American people and international community wanted to remove the weapons, but our "old European" allies lacked the cojones to back the UN resolution (ecspecially with their hands in Sadam's pockets).? I haveb;t heard this argument in a while, but the delay and time the US gave weapons inspectors to get their shit together was more than enough time to move the WMDs and there's been two years afterwards for the old guard to move or destroy what remained of them.? Afterall, we have found every component of a WMD. just not an assembeled piece.?

Bush also had intel that suggested otherwise.

Most of the UN, and much of the Security Council, wanted to continue to use diplomatic measures, especially after the UN weapons inspectors reported findings, and Iraq submitted the required "list".  Citing the "oil for food" scandal, or saying that anyone was in Saddam's "pocket" on the issue is blantant, rampant, and unfounded speculation.  In addition, as I said elsewhere, it's a convenient excuse to use when, in hindsight, those countries were right.

There were no WMD's. Period.? You can argue your conspiracy theory that they were moved, but, the fact it, it has been proven untrue.? We have the Iraqi's OWN INFORMATION on the subject, post-invasion.? There were no WMD's.

You can call Bush a liar, and you can call me or anyone else a supporter of murder.? But regardless of how many times you say it, it isn't going to come true.? In the real world, forums covered under infowars.com and conspiracytheory.com aren't valid.? This entire attack and claims of lies is nothing more than a political attempt to recover from the ass whooping liberals in America have received for the past 5 years.

Sorta like what the Repubs did back in the mid-90's in order to oust the Dem majority?

The fact is that the continued polls were showing the population was almost as unhappy with the Dems as they were with the Repubs and this administration.? The reason they cited was because the Dems were not putting up enough of a fight to oppose the Repubs and the administration.? So I would agree, somewhat, with your point (which is overly dramatic), that this is a political response, at least in part.? But why it should surprise or shock you or get your undies in a bunch is beyond me.?

[Surfrider]

Regardless of what the intentions were or whether someone lied, we are there.? I often hear people on here claim that American lives are more important than other people's lives.? These statements are often countered with swift attack by those from other countries that denounce such statements.? Which leads me to the following questions: Why should we leave Iraq if it is likely that the many that supported the current government will get slaughtered?? Why should we leave if a civil war will occur and thousands, if not millions, will die?? Why should we leave and let Iraq turn into exactly what Bush claimed it was before the war (which the left now seeks to disprove), a haven for terrorism?? If those were legit arguments for Afghanistan, and if they were true, would also have been legit arguments for going into Iraq, then why leave once it is inevitable that such a haven will materialize?? Whether or not Iraq was a haven for terrorism before the war, it is now.? So should we leave because it wasn't before we entered, but all of the sudden is now?? That doesn't sound very logical to me.? Finally, the oil issue.? Many claim that we went there for oil.? I see SLC posting articles that oil is running out.? Should we leave Iraq and let the second largest oil supply in the world be taken over by terrorists??

I understand troops are dying there, and I sympathize with them as much as anyone.? However, looking at it based on the numbers of lives, Iraqi or American, we will lose if we stay there versus the number of lives we will lose if we leave, I am just not sure how we can advocate leaving there right now.? Certainly, people that argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified because of the number of civilian deaths, even though we saved American solider lives, can not make the argument that we should leave Iraq because of the number of American lives we will save with out accounting for the Iraqis that will die.

Finally, leaving Iraq will cause more instability in the middle east than we currently have.? Arguing that this is America's fault does not get us anywhere.? Regardless of whether Iraq was equal to Afghanistan when we entered the war or whether it was a haven for terrorism that could possibly lead to attacks on the US, Israel, or Western Europe, it most certainly will be should we leave there now.? I think the true discussion we should be having is whether we should have went into Afghanistan in the first place, not Iraq, because if we leave Iraq will turn into what Afghanistan was.? If that was a justifed military venture to protect against terrorism, why should we leave Iraq now?

[Charity Case]

Regardless of what the intentions were or whether someone lied, we are there.? I often hear people on here claim that American lives are more important than other people's lives.? These statements are often countered with swift attack by those from other countries that denounce such statements.? Which leads me to the following questions: Why should we leave Iraq if it is likely that the many that supported the current government will get slaughtered?? Why should we leave if a civil war will occur and thousands, if not millions, will die?? Why should we leave and let Iraq turn into exactly what Bush claimed it was before the war (which the left now seeks to disprove), a haven for terrorism?? If those were legit arguments for Afghanistan, and if they were true, would also have been legit arguments for going into Iraq, then why leave once it is inevitable that such a haven will materialize?? Whether or not Iraq was a haven for terrorism before the war, it is now.? So should we leave because it wasn't before we entered, but all of the sudden is now?? That doesn't sound very logical to me.? Finally, the oil issue.? Many claim that we went there for oil.? I see SLC posting articles that oil is running out.? Should we leave Iraq and let the second largest oil supply in the world be taken over by terrorists??

I understand troops are dying there, and I sympathize with them as much as anyone.? However, looking at it based on the numbers of lives, Iraqi or American, we will lose if we stay there versus the number of lives we will lose if we leave, I am just not sure how we can advocate leaving there right now.? Certainly, people that argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified because of sure number of civilian deaths even though we saved American solider lives can not make the argument that we should leave Iraq because of the number of American lives we will save with out accounting for the Iraqis that will die.

Finally, leaving Iraq will cause more instability in the middle east than we currently have.? Arguing that this is America's fault does not get us anywhere.? Regardless of whether Iraq was equal to Afghanistan when we entered the war or whether it was a haven for terrorism that could possibly lead to attacks on the US, Israel, or Western Europe, it most certainly will be should we leave there now.? I think the true discussion we should be having is whether we should have went into Afghanistan in the first place, not Iraq, because if we leave Iraq will turn into what Afghanistan was.? If that was a justifed military venture to protect against terrorism, why should we leave Iraq now?

Good post.  Pointing fingers is good for nothing.  You can argue all day long about whether or not we should have gone.  But its a dead issue.  We are there now.  What we need to do is look forward and decide what is the best course of action now.  It looks like the course we have chosen is to train Iraq police/military to a point (and to the number) capable of handling security in their own country while a constitution is put into place and a free government, elected by their people, is established.  Once we are satisfied that this all has been accomplished, we will start to withdraw troops.  Make sense, right?

I fail to see where this course of action is flawed (or better yet what a better course of action might be).  Certainly leaving at this moment is preposterous and only a close minded individual with an agenda would suggest such a thing.

[Markus Asraelius]

You republicans are too funny. You constantly just brush things aside as if they're all lies. A 37% approval rating? The worst rating ever since they had been taking these polls. You're going to question that 

And, I'm sure if it was a 67 % approval rating, you republicans would be the first to post it.

And by the way, to the Cal Ripken Jr. Thing, Cal Ripken is not voted in. The use of the internet allows people to look the statistics for all the listed all-stars and so All-Star Games are much more accurate now because of that.

[pilferk]

Regardless of what the intentions were or whether someone lied, we are there.? I often hear people on here claim that American lives are more important than other people's lives.? These statements are often countered with swift attack by those from other countries that denounce such statements.? Which leads me to the following questions: Why should we leave Iraq if it is likely that the many that supported the current government will get slaughtered?? Why should we leave if a civil war will occur and thousands, if not millions, will die?? Why should we leave and let Iraq turn into exactly what Bush claimed it was before the war (which the left now seeks to disprove), a haven for terrorism?? If those were legit arguments for Afghanistan, and if they were true, would also have been legit arguments for going into Iraq, then why leave once it is inevitable that such a haven will materialize?? Whether or not Iraq was a haven for terrorism before the war, it is now.? So should we leave because it wasn't before we entered, but all of the sudden is now?? That doesn't sound very logical to me.? Finally, the oil issue.? Many claim that we went there for oil.? I see SLC posting articles that oil is running out.? Should we leave Iraq and let the second largest oil supply in the world be taken over by terrorists??

I understand troops are dying there, and I sympathize with them as much as anyone.? However, looking at it based on the numbers of lives, Iraqi or American, we will lose if we stay there versus the number of lives we will lose if we leave, I am just not sure how we can advocate leaving there right now.? Certainly, people that argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified because of the number of civilian deaths, even though we saved American solider lives, can not make the argument that we should leave Iraq because of the number of American lives we will save with out accounting for the Iraqis that will die.

Finally, leaving Iraq will cause more instability in the middle east than we currently have.? Arguing that this is America's fault does not get us anywhere.? Regardless of whether Iraq was equal to Afghanistan when we entered the war or whether it was a haven for terrorism that could possibly lead to attacks on the US, Israel, or Western Europe, it most certainly will be should we leave there now.? I think the true discussion we should be having is whether we should have went into Afghanistan in the first place, not Iraq, because if we leave Iraq will turn into what Afghanistan was.? If that was a justifed military venture to protect against terrorism, why should we leave Iraq now?

In other words...lets change the subject.   

I'll bite:

Not if we leave the right way.

And I've outlined, previously, what I think could be a "right way".

What would help is if this administration could actually outline our current exit plan.? Of course, former members of this administration have said there really isn't one....

[pilferk]

Good post.? Pointing fingers is good for nothing.? You can argue all day long about whether or not we should have gone.? But its a dead issue.? We are there now.? What we need to do is look forward and decide what is the best course of action now.? It looks like the course we have chosen is to train Iraq police/military to a point (and to the number) capable of handling security in their own country while a constitution is put into place and a free government, elected by their people, is established.? Once we are satisfied that this all has been accomplished, we will start to withdraw troops.? Make sense, right?

I fail to see where this course of action is flawed (or better yet what a better course of action might be).? Certainly leaving at this moment is preposterous and only a close minded individual with an agenda would suggest such a thing.

Considering, to date, we've been utter failures at training the Iraqis to handle their own security...

And we've been unable to negotiate a reasonable constitution for both sides....

And we've been unable to facilitate the installation of that government....

And our nation building has bascially sucked....

I'd think there might be better options that take advantage of ALL the resources at the disposal of the world.

You guys keep portraying the options as "stay or go".  It's not that simple, nor are the options that narrow.  Of course, opening it up to ALL of the different options destroys your ability to defend the current one as being "the best one"...  And who's being close minded?

And what would make sense is a clearly defined, objective based exit strategy made public to the American People (who are, after all, footing the bill for all this), with clearly detailed events/counter events.  But, as has been made painfully obvious, this administration doesn't have one of those...by the admission of thier own former members.

[Surfrider]

In other words...lets change the subject.? ?

I actually meant to post this in the other thread.  My mistake.  Nevertheless, my viewpoint on this whole thing is pretty close to yours.  I believe Bush heard what he wanted to hear.  I believe there was evidence to the contrary, but because of the prevailing thoughts about Suddam and his WMD program they weren't really acknowledged.  I definately don't think Bush lied.  I believe 100% that he thought WMDs existed and that he went in for the right reasons.  However, I think they misjudged the war and thought it would much easier than it has been.  Thus, in hindsight it was obviously a mistake.  Because it was a pretty obvious mistake I don't think arguing over whether we should have went in goes very far.  We shouldn't have.  OK, but what now?  Leave because we shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Not too logical in my opinion without considering what might happen.

I'll bite:

Not if we leave the right way.

And I've outlined, previously, what I think could be a "right way".

I apologize that I missed your post.  I am curious to what you think is the right way.  You seem like a pretty logical guy.

What would help is if this administration could actually outline our current exit plan.? Of course, former members of this administration have said there really isn't one....

I have stated before, I think Bush is a no win situation.  I think they honestly believe, and they have a strong argument, that outlining a specific plan would be a mistake.  However, in not oulining a specific timeframe they open themselves up to attack.  They could say that they are pulling out a year from now iif they want to gain short-term political points.  In doing so, however, I think in their minds they would be sacrificing Iraq for short-term political gain.  If that is the case then they deserve some respect for not going for the quick political points.  I do believe that the pressure will eventually hit, and you will see troops being pulled out before the 06 elections.  Hopefully this won't kill all of our efforts over there.

[pilferk]

In other words...lets change the subject.? ?

I actually meant to post this in the other thread.? My mistake.? Nevertheless, my viewpoint on this whole thing is pretty close to yours.? I believe Bush heard what he wanted to hear.? I believe there was evidence to the contrary, but because of the prevailing thoughts about Suddam and his WMD program they weren't really acknowledged.? I definately don't think Bush lied.? I believe 100% that he thought WMDs existed and that he went in for the right reasons.? However, I think they misjudged the war and thought it would much easier than it has been.? Thus, in hindsight it was obviously a mistake.? Because it was a pretty obvious mistake I don't think arguing over whether we should have went in goes very far.? We shouldn't have.? OK, but what now?? Leave because we shouldn't have been there in the first place?? Not too logical in my opinion without considering what might happen.

I'll bite:

Not if we leave the right way.

And I've outlined, previously, what I think could be a "right way".

I apologize that I missed your post.? I am curious to what you think is the right way.? You seem like a pretty logical guy.

What would help is if this administration could actually outline our current exit plan.? Of course, former members of this administration have said there really isn't one....

I have stated before, I think Bush is a no win situation.? I think they honestly believe, and they have a strong argument, that outlining a specific plan would be a mistake.? However, in not oulining a specific timeframe they open themselves up to attack.? They could say that they are pulling out a year from now iif they want to gain short-term political points.? In doing so, however, I think in their minds they would be sacrificing Iraq for short-term political gain.? If that is the case then they deserve some respect for not going for the quick political points.? I do believe that the pressure will eventually hit, and you will see troops being pulled out before the 06 elections.? Hopefully this won't kill all of our efforts over there.

They don't have to give a time table.  Goal based objectives would be fine (ie: after we get 20000 Iraqi troops trained, 20000 of our troops come home....after the constitution is ratified, 50000 of our troops come home...and those are off the cuff examples, not hard numbers).

I'll hunt down my post on "the right way" when I get a chance.  It was relatively long so I don't really wanna retype it, but the gist was that we needed to get other resources (the UN in the nation building and possible assistance in security and training, and the world's business community in the rebuilding process) involved AND put together a solid exit strategy.