Not only does the mission of the war in Iraq keep changing, so does the definition of progress. It was President Bush who proposed that Congress set benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq. But now that the Governmental Accountability Office says Iraq is failing to meet most of those benchmarks, Bush wants to change the focus, the New York Times reported.
He is emphasizing the new alliances that U.S. troops have with the tribes and local groups in Iraq, not the failure of the central government to make any political progress. That’s why, the Times reported, Bush didn’t visit Baghdad on a trip to Iraq this week, stopping instead in Anbar province, where Sunni insurgents are now fighting al-Qaida in Iraq.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
129 Comments
“Bush redefining progress in Iraq.”
Yeah.
Failure is now “progress.”
Orwell’s warning has come true: even our language has been perverted to serve the lies of the government.
War is peace.Freedom is slavery.Ignorance is strength.
Democrats:
Surrender is Victory
Peace is Oppression
Cowardace is Rightousness
Let’s have a GAO report on the Democratic Congress and see if they’ve met any of their benchmarks? :)
Because every month the Democrats in Congress can’t override a Republican filibuster, more troops die, is that right Kansas?
I can see how you think the two situations are the same.
Pretty funny to see George on the verge of getting away with moving the goalposts yet again. And this after Daddy’s pals sought to take him to the woodshed with the ISG report.
Three out of eighteen benchmarks? Guess that counts as passing when you’re a Republican.
Also pretty funny to watch Bush bravely venture out in a model Iraqi market defended by U.S. troops, where the businesses were paid by General Petraeus to remain open for Presidential and Congressional visits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090402338_2.html?hpid=topnews
The Surge is a failure and a fake. Bush is a liar who kills American troops to buy time until he leaves office. And now, with Petraeus’ Potemkin Village, he’s taken a further step into the farcical and ludicrous.
The real news is that the GAO is calling Bush a liar. Bush looked at the same data and told the nation that sectarian violence is down. The GAO report says that violence against civilians is the same and the number of people fleeing their homes is up.
So all you surge supporters, instead of throwing insults, tell me your way forward? Do we keep 160,000 troops in Iraq even if violence never decreases and political progress among Iraqis never happens? Or what?
No leftcoaster, that’s how you see it and phrased it.
I call it like I see it.
The Democrats have failed more than 90 percent of their benchmarks and are just pointing fingers at Republicans.
They call that whining. Democratic Party is in majority and they are not leading.
They are waffling and playing hide the plan.
What NEEDS to be reported is that bush has no intention whatsoever of the US ever getting out of Iraq. He admits that in his book.
Ya know Nathan? I would THINK you more than anyone would be appalled by bush. NEVER has the military been so callously misused and lied too as in this misadventure.
Except in the Korean War when Truman was in Charge or perhaps the Vietnam War where JFK and LBJ presided.
Kansas, I would suggest Mr. Nixon’s name especially be added to the Vietnam War indictment.
Nixon inherited the escalating war from Johnson and Nixon ran for President on a Peace Plan which he followed through on.
Nixon actually had a plan, unlike the Democrats of today.
Bush trying to lower the bench mark.
Kansas – what benchmarks did the Democrats not meet. They stated they would pass bills through the House of Representatives; they did. They never promised the Republics would sign on or would cooperate.
They ran on the “end the war” platform and haven’t met any of their benchmarks to
- impeach Bush- de-fund the war- bring home troops by end of the year- have new legislation passed for illegal aliens and border security- deal with foreign trade issues- provide election reform- improve ethics in Congress by re-doing the ethics rules and committee
and the list goes on…
…failures on almost all of their benchmarks…they have little room to talk.
There are several hundred thousand trained ARI troops. There are only a handful of ‘dead-enders in their last throes.’ Let the ARI take over the fight.
Nixon actually had a plan, unlike the Democrats of today.
Posted by: Kansas | September 05, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Yeah–it was called “expanding the war into Cambodia and Laos.”
Oddly enough, I agree with Kansas in spirit on one thing: It’s time for the Dems to assert their authority, cut of the funds, and be done with it.
They never made those claims Kansas. In fact, they specifically ruled out impeachment. As for the others all they said they would do is pass them through the House. They did. They cannot control what the Republics do.
Paris Treaty or have you forgotten when Kerry went there personally to negotiate with the North Vietnamese? :)
Could someone answer leftcoaster’s question posted at 2:27 please?
TDT – the answer is YES – at least until April now.
Kansas is either confused or dissembling.
Democrats never promised to impeach Bush. Pelosi specifically said that was off the table. So that’s one lie for Kansas.
De-funding the war was never part of their platform, however since Bush has escalated the war and caused more senseless deaths, I’ll give you that one. Bringing troops home just a different wording of the same thing, so you don’t get another point for that one.
Border security was actually a Republican benchmark, so that’s one failed benchmark on the Republican side, if you’re counting.
Dealing with trade issues is so vague I don’t know how you judge that one. Same with election and ethics reform.
But, and here’s the point, this thread is about IRAQI benchmarks, and Kansas desperately wants to avoid that topic, for good reason.
“Kansas, I would suggest Mr. Nixon’s name especially be added to the Vietnam War indictment.”
And, don’t forget Ike.
On second thought, since there hasn’t been another Abramoff-type scandal since November, and corrupt Republicans are going to jail, you can say ethics have improved.
Sorry for aiding the Khan’s digression…
So getting back to the topic, will the surge supporters please step forward and answer this simple question:
Since civilian deaths have not decreased, and civilians displaced by violence is accelerating, what is our next move? Do we increase troop levels until the violence stops? Or do we keep troops at the same level even if violence doesn’t decrease? What is the plan in the event (now a reality) that Iraqis don’t reconcile their differences?
Let’s see from The Dems Party HQ
In 2006, the Democratic Party promised to address six important issues in Congress. Now that Democrats are back in charge in the U.S. House and Senate, you can keep up with the Democrats as they follow through on their promise for a new direction.
1. Honest leadership and Open Government – FAILED2. Energy independence FAILED3. A healthcare system that works for everyone FAILED4. Real Security FAILED5. Economic Prospertiy and Educational Excellence FAILED6. Retirement security FAILED
Looks like the Dems are worse off than I thought. They have not only failed to have a more open Congress, they have shut down debate and closed votes early before Republicans could issue amendments.
All that other stuff? Well, it hasn’t even been put to paper and introduced.
It’s just water soup with no substance.
Thanks Ben. Not the answer I wanted to hear, but I appreciate the reply nonetheless.
Of course, the best part is that the benchmarks Bush now wants to walk away from are the very ones agreed upon by Republicans in order to secure Democratic support for the funding bill that kept the Iraq War going.
Only TWO Republicans voted against the bill and the benchmarks which it included: Paul and Duncan. EVERY OTHER REPUBICAN IN THE HOUSE was on board with the benchmarks.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml
In other words, by now rejecting the benchmarks, Bush is telling House Republicans to go f*ck themselves.
Leftcoaster,
I fear you have opened the door for a chorus of “Clinton, Clinton, Clinton!!!”
Counting down now… 3…2…1…
okay…Senator Hillary “Her Royal Thighness” Clinton.
We have a new Clinton to kick around. :)
Report which criticizes harshly in the case of the Iraq National Police, and the Interior Ministry, has some optimistic findings on the state of the Iraqi military, although it estimates it will be 18 months before the Iraqi Army is ready to go it alone, as I read it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/05/iraq.jones.report/index.html
“”Her Royal Thighness”"
I am pleased to be stealing that one!
Response From Senator John Kerry
And the Democrats control both houses now and they are waiting on?????
“Q. What’s the Democrats’ endgame on Iraq with this confrontation with the President over the funding bill?
A. Our purpose is obviously to change the policy, to get us to a position where we can be successful. We don’t believe the current policy can be successful, in fact we think it creates more terrorists, puts our troops at greater risk, worsens our position in the Middle and we want to change that.”
The Republican silence on the real issue of Iraqi benchmarks is deafening…
Kansas – can you give a link to where the Democrats said they would get those past the Republics?
Kansas, I would suggest that a simple majority does not control make, at least in the Senate, where supermajorities are needed. E.G., 60 votes for cloture, 67 votes to override a veto. If party discipline holds, the Republicans have sufficient numbers to be a very efficient blocking minority there.
But Vaughn, they hold the power.
If holding the power in Congress means nothing, why were the Democrats all in a tizzy when the Republicans had it? :)
Ben, it’s right off the Democratic party Website as part of their platform.
It is part of their platform if and when they actually attain control.
Ben, they haven’t even introduce the preliminary drafts to even start it?
What the heck are they waiting on?
2 years in Congress isn’t very long, do they want to give up their seats again and lose the opportunity?
More water soup, no substance.
Seems to me, Kansas, that the Dems also used blocking strategy from time to time when the GOP was a majority. Remember the discussion of the “nuclear option”? :-)
Here you go Ben.
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
The Democratic Party Agenda
Well Vaughn, I don’t think the nuclear option was very good myself.
And besides, it has little to do with the day to day business that the Democrats just can’t get done.
Unless it’s earmarks of course, then there is plenty of time for that. :)
Any Dem plan that doesn’t meet with Rep approval will go down in flames, period.
The only other option is to cut off funding. Which they should do.
No more six-month extensions.
Gosh, what a shock. The President sets “benchmarks” earlier in the year, doesn’t meet them, and redefines them. Who saw THIS one coming???
Oh wait.
Nevermind.
The Dems can’t seem to get past their political cryptorchidism to do anything.
Troll,
I’ve been nice to you since you started playing nice with me. But accusing me of being “nutless” just for having an opinion different from yours does nothing to improve my opinion of you.
I tried, I really did.
::sigh::
I said Dems as in Congress not Tom.
You’re just looking for an excuse aren’t ya Tom. :)
Failure of one or both of the testicles to descend into the scrotum??
Even as a metaphor, that’s lame.
No, I’m not looking for an excuse. I’m a Democrat, you know it, it’s no secret. Your “chryptorchidism” comment was in response to my post, correct? If not, fine.
Well Rage, I could have said in more colloquial terms, that the Democratic Congress doesn’t have a set.
How’s that? :)
Kansas, I don’t blame you for not wanting to discuss the Iraqi benchmarks. If I was proven as wrong as you have been, I wouldn’t want to talk about it either.
You can talk about Congress, or Clinton’s thighs, doesn’t change the fact that Bush and everyone who voted for him put our country in a big mess.
So, Bush was finally forced to provide a way to measure success, and failed to meet those measurements.
The Democrats had a remarkably productive first six months. Every single item on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 100 Hours Agenda passed the House, often by considerable margins.
The Senate and the President, however, stopped progress. The President vetoed the bill that would end the occupation of Iraq. Republicans continually threaten to filibuster, requiring 60 votes for cloture (a limit on debate) to proceed on a wide variety of measures. The first session of the 110th Congress saw 41 cloture votes in seven months, far above historical norms. Republicans are on pace to bring the number of filibuster threats and cloture votes to a level nearly half again as high as the 108th and 109th Congress put together.
This is a deliberate strategy. Republican whip Trent Lott told Roll Call, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail… and so far, it’s working for us.http://thebridge.typepad.com/thebridge/2007/08/mcconnells-reco.html
And how long ago was it that republicans were screeching about “up or down votes”?
What a pack of lying hypocrites.
At least the Democratic Congress did force Bush to provide benchmarks, so that his supporters can stop creating disaster while claiming to be making “progress” and maybe, just maybe, they can take responsibility for their actions.
I’m just sorry it took so much effort to get these ideological bozos to see reality.
So, now that we see the Bush policy is failing, what is our next move? Can any of you armchair foreign policy experts answer that?
Sure leftcoaster, list the benchmarks and let’s discuss them.I’ll wait.
Try nice, Kansas.
YOUR prez. YOUR policy (it was MOSTLY Reps who voted for it).
YOUR failed benchmarks.
Or would you rather your guy just keep twisting in the wind?
How about some benchmarks for the US Congress?
Time to vote em all out in 2008!
Actually it was more than a nice try Rage, it was an excellent try.
You know why?
Because the benchmarks haven’t been made public.
But you want me to discuss something that hasn’t been made public.
Well, there it is then. :)
Kans,Sorry, but you publicans haven’t got the balls to admit that your ill conceived Iraqi adventure has been an abyssmal failure from the beginning. Your only excuse for staying in Iraq is that you’re already there and you can’t bear to confess the lies that got you there. How about you nuts showing some balls?
Sorry Jed, but my use of the term is copyrighted, you can’t plagiarize it for your own use. :D
“In 2006, the Democratic Party promised to address six important issues in Congress”
They HAVE addressed them. They HAVE passed them through the chamber that they control.
I’ve addressed losing weight this year too Ben, but 8 months have passed and many scoops of ice cream and extra helpings have come and gone. :)
Still avoiding the subject, I see. . .
However, Kansas, that is something you control. The Democrats do not control the Senate (filibuster) and White House.
But getting back to the subject–BENCHMARKS:
“But earlier this month, the president admitted “it makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward.” These benchmarks include national reconciliation in Iraq, a reversal of a de-Baathification plan, and the passage of an oil law that equitably distributes revenues among the country’s warring factions.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19263696/site/newsweek/
What’s next?
Are you serious, Kansas? You posted all that tripe and you don’t even know what the benchmarks are? All that hot air and you didn’t even read the article or notice a link to the benchmarks?
Wow. You have all the intellectual curiosity of a U.S. President who doesn’t remember why he disbanded the Iraqi army.
What’s next? What’s next is Republicans continue their name-calling and distracting and dissembling while our troops die.
They don’t have a plan, and they don’t have the courage to admit they were wrong.
Too bad Pakistan is off limits to the U.S., as terrorist are training there.Germany says it foiled massive attacks on U.S. sites By Noah Barkin and Sabine Siebold
Wed Sep 5, 1:35 PM ET
BERLIN (Reuters) – German security services foiled a plan by Islamist militants to carry out “massive bomb attacks” against U.S. installations in Germany and arrested three suspects, officials said on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENTFederal prosecutor Monika Harms said the men, two German nationals and one Turk, had been on the verge of launching their attacks after acquiring enough material to make a bomb with explosive power equal to 550 kilograms of TNT.
The men were arrested on Tuesday, the same day Danish police seized eight young Muslims they suspect of plotting a bomb attack and a week before the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 hijacked plane attacks on targets in the United States.
“Thanks to the cooperation of federal and local police over several months, we were able to … prevent massive bomb attacks,” Harms told a news conference in Karlsruhe.
German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung said the suspects posed an “imminent” security threat, while Chancellor Angela Merkel said a “horrible event” had been averted.
“It shows that the terrorist threat here isn’t abstract. It’s real,” she said at a news conference in Berlin with visiting Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Officials could not confirm reports the suspects had been targeting Frankfurt international airport and a U.S. military base in Ramstein, but said they had scouted out sites frequented by Americans including discos, bars and airports.
Prosecutors identified the three men as 28-year-olds Fritz G. and Adem Y., and 21-year-old Daniel S.
“The apparent motive is hatred of Americans,” said Joerg Ziercke, head of the federal police. He added that the explosives could have caused more damage than the bombings in Madrid and London which killed 191 and 52 people.
AL QAEDA
The men belonged to a little-known al Qaeda-affiliated Sunni Muslim group with roots in Uzbekistan called “Islamic Jihad Union,” officials said. All three are believed to have trained in Pakistan militant camps.
It was unclear whether there was any link between the alleged German and Danish plots, official said.
Germany refused to take part in the U.S.-led Iraq war but it has some 3,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan and has been on high alert for attacks.
The country has feared a re-emergence of militant Islamist groups since 2001, when the northern city of Hamburg was used as a base for planning the September 11 attacks.
In April the U.S. embassy in Berlin announced it was strengthening security at diplomatic and military facilities in Germany in response to an increased threat of terrorism.
Ziercke said the men had been seized at a rented holiday house in the Sauerland region of western Germany.
Between February and August 2007, he said, the suspects had filled 12 large vats with 730 kg (1,600 lb) of a solution containing hydrogen peroxide — the explosive chemical used in the 2005 suicide bombings in London.
“This amount would have been enough to cause damage on a greater scale than in London and Madrid,” Ziercke said, adding that the suspects had probably been planning simultaneous car bomb attacks in several locations across Germany.
SHOT FIRED
Some 300 police had tracked the suspects since December, when one of them was observed scouting out U.S. military barracks in the German city of Hanau, near Frankfurt.
The police swooped on Tuesday, raiding the house and some 40 other sites across Germany after local police unwittingly stopped the suspects for a routine traffic violation several days ago and they grew nervous, Ziercke said.
One suspect escaped out of a bathroom window but was detained after a scuffle with police in which a shot was fired.
Police said additional arrests were possible. The interior ministry of the southwestern state of Saarland said five further suspects were being investigated.
A White House spokesman said U.S. President George W. Bush, in Sydney, Australia, had been briefed on the arrests.
“He’s pleased a potential attack was thwarted and appreciates the work of the German authorities and the cooperation by international law enforcement,” he said.
Germany has not seen a major attack for several years. But two men of Lebanese origin tried to detonate crude bombs hidden in suitcases on trains last year.
“We are under threat,” Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told a news conference in Berlin. “We have to remain vigilant.”
(Additional reporting by Hendrik Sackmann in Karlsruhe and Erik Kirschbaum, Louis Charbonneau, Catherine Bosley and Sylvia Westall in Berlin)
Interesting, Phantom, that there are al Qaeda training camps that Bush is refusing to shut down.
And Republicans thought he was some kind of genius? Hard to believe 51% of voters trusted this guy to make national security decisions.
More rhetoric from leftcoaster and not a clue of a plan what the Democrats might do.
Not surprising is it?
All talk, no walk.
Dick Cheney: “Let’s invade Iraq.”
Bush: “Cool.”
Rove: “We can call anybody who disagrees with our decision cut and run terrorist lovers.”
Bush: “Cool.”
Cheney: “After Iraq, we can invade Iran.”
Bush: “Cool.”
Rove: “It’ll be a cakewalk . . . over in a week.”
Bush: “Cool.”
Cheney: “We won’t even need an exit strategy.”
Bush: “Cool . . . you gonna do that last line?”
The above is the republican war strategy.
Hmm, Mr. Bremer seems, by his actions, to suggest that Mr. Bush may have had a slight memory lapse.
http://tinyurl.com/2rpyvo
ah, the Hussy ink ton post. bleh
So Kansas, what about those IRAQI benchmarks that the Republican Congress agreed upon?
Can we get back on topic?
“More rhetoric from leftcoaster and not a clue of a plan what the Democrats might do.”
(Shrug) Take your choice–there are numerous Democratic plans out there, none of which has a scream in Hell of passing while Bush is in the White House.
List them WSClark, I’d be glad to discuss them.
What plans would those be Rage?
Raise both hands with a white flag sticking out of their back pocket?
OK, Kansas, another link to the story:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003634299
That’s a “So what.” story Vaughn.
I watched the post war invasion news coverage as I’m sure you did.
What was frequently commented about?
That Iraqi Army troops had disgarded their uniforms and were no where to be found.
So tell me Vaughn, how can one keep an Army together that was already largely dispersed?
It’s not a “so what” story. Bush lied. It’s in writing. The End.
Good point, Kansas, one which makes me wonder why it was American policy to keep the Iraqi army intact (per the President’s statement to the author of “Dead Certain” and cited in the piece).
“Raise both hands with a white flag sticking out of their back pocket?”
Whatever. Take your choice of target. Biden-Levin seems the most Repub-friendly at present.
Another lie from Kansas. the Iraqi army was ready to muster. In fact, they were protesting the fact that they were being fired. Don’t take my word for it, see the movie “No End In Sight” and listen to Bush’s own people tell the story.
You can stop avoiding the topic now. Bush has failed the benchmarks (have you found them yet?). So what is the next move? Since you think we liberals are too stupid, you tell us. What’s the plan?
Bremer, I believe Vaughn, has eaten one too many sour grapes and is suffering from political indigestion.
List the benchmarks leftcoaster, I’ll be glad to discuss them.
Oh wait, you can’t can you?
Because the benchmarks haven’t been made public. :)
“Oh wait, you can’t can you?
Because the benchmarks haven’t been made public. :)”
Translation: I concede defeat.
Read the reports, Kansas, and TRY to discuss the issue without bringing in ad hominem attacks on the Democratic Congress.
http://www.thebluestate.com/2007/09/gao-report-only.html
The US Congress is not in the middle of a war zone.
Rage,
How can I discuss something I haven’t read because there are no copies available to the public?
Provide me a copy Rage and I’ll be glad to discuss them.
Defeat? Heck, the game hasn’t even begun. :)
Thanks Clarkie, I’ll read these over while making supper.
Let me know what questions you have about the independent nation of Iraq that is less than two years old , their fledgling government and the external benchmarks set by the U.S. in August 2006, about one year ago.
24 month old government – 12 month benchmarks…
Can we let the roast cook a little longer while I fix supper? :)
As i read the blog today, i see the blind continue to see things that aren’t there. The obvious results are presented, but, need to be spun to keep their fantasy world going. Kansas kinda reminds me of a kid who is told don’t put your hand in a fire, but, after getting burned many times, still believes the obvious heat isn’t the problem, rather it’s the ones who told him who are at fault. Oh well, just and observation of watching his fishing expedition with those that can see “clearly” what is going on.
LMFGAO @ “independent nation of Iraq”
That’s a good one.
Tom, that also amused me.
Their fledgling govt., is nothing but a turkey.
“24 month old government – 12 month benchmarks…”
And how many American dead and wounded and how much American treasure?
Independence:28 June 2004 the Coalition Provisional Authority transferred sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government
source: the CIA World Fact Book
Sovereignty is the exclusive right to complete political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over an area of governance, people, or oneself. Wikipedia
…in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of INDEPENDENCE and democracy.
Encyclopedia Britannica
Oops I forgot to laugh Tom and Vaughn and also add this, the first Article of the Iraqi Constitution.
“Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic.”
Perhaps some should re-read the Declaration of Independence, when it was signed and when the final draft of the U.S. Constitution was signed.
Was it two years? One year? Longer? :)
How long did it take us to gain our independence?
Or do Dems find that a laughing matter as well?
We did all the fighting and dieing during the revolution we didn’t have other countries fight for our indepence for US. And yes I know France helped but we still did all the fighting.
Kansas, if you don’t know what the benchmarks are, why are you even involved in the discussion? Did you see the list in the article? The benchmarks are there if you click on the link. They are also in the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President.
So when you say they are not available to the public, what exactly do you mean?
If your position is that benchmarks are invalid then say so. By your reference to 1776 I assume you mean we will have a large troop presence in Iraq for a long time. How long? 20 years? Is that the plan? It would help if we could get Republicans to say this repeatedly before November 2008.
According to Fox news the other day, the US would like to replace Iraq’s Prime Minister Jawad al-Maliki.
That’s one of the reasons for the laughter, Iraq is hardly an independent, democratic, or representative republic.
According to the GAO report, of which I cannot discuss with full and intelligent terms because I do not have all the documents the GAO had access to as outlined below.
=====================”Our analyses were enhanced by approximately 100 Iraq-related reports and testimonies that we have completed since May 2003.3 ”
I haven’t seen these documents.===============================”We provided drafts of the report to the relevant U.S. agencies for review and comment. We received formal written comments from State and Defense and technical comments from the Central Intelligence Agency and National Intelligence Council which we incorporated as appropriate.”
I haven’t seen these reviews and comments by the various agencies.========================
leftcoaster, show me where I said the benchmarks were invalid?
Actually, Condaleeza Rice said they were to strict and confining because the Iraqi government has just formed. She objected to the benchmarks and is on the record saying so.
So Tom Paine, we made the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution was finally ratified by all states by 1790.
But, it took until 1791 to get a majority of the states to Ratify the Bill of Rights, which became part of our Constitution.
15 years Tom Paine? Those guys were certainly slow back then and they didn’t have mortars being lobbed at them for at least 7 of those years. What the heck were our forefathers doing back then? :)
Kansas, are you saying we will keep 160,000 troops in Iraq under fire for 15 years?
How do you think we will keep up current troop levels for 15 years, and how much will it cost?
Kansas, why don’t you go do whatever homework you think is necessary to speak on this issue and get back to us?
Kansas, are you saying we will keep 160,000 troops in Iraq under fire for 15 years? Posted by: leftcoaster | September 05, 2007 at 06:25 PM
Nope, I didn’t say that, you said that.
Kansas, why don’t you go do whatever homework you think is necessary to speak on this issue and get back to us?
Posted by: leftcoaster | September 05, 2007 at 06:28 PM
I’m ready, ask away. I speed read.
How do you think we will keep up current troop levels for 15 years, and how much will it cost?
Posted by: leftcoaster | September 05, 2007 at 06:25 PM
All things being equal and it would be nice to wait on the Petraeus Report, but I expect by Summer of 08, that if situation have not improved, there will be a mass pull out of Iraq, if not before. Logistics, not withstanding.
If the situations improve and benchmarks are rapidly met or exceeded, and the Iraqi Army along with the Police have things under their purview and control, I see a gradual pullout over the next two years with a stabilization force of U.S. and U.N. soldiers of about 15,000 troops in advisory and peace keeping status.
Oh, and I smell another conflict brewing for the U.S., but am keeping my mouth shut as I don’t wish it to happens. No, it’s not Iran.
“The report also offers a scathing assessment of Iraq’s Interior Ministry and recommends scrapping Iraq’s national police force, which it describes as dysfunctional and infiltrated by militias.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070905/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq
Anybody want to make a bet that the war will be won and over with just before election?Why do I get the feelings that this is highly convenient?
Kansas, I forget, did we have ethnic fighting for control of the govt. after the revolutionary war? How long do you think it might have taken if we were busy killing one another, to get ratification?
Forget any comparison between Iraq and 1776, only a fool would try to compare the two.
Then again, only a fool would go into Iraq with such a lack of planning and lofty goals and then insist progress is being made.
But it takes a special kind of fool who, when confronted with the facts, resorts to attacks against domestic political opponents instead of addressing the very real and deadly issue at hand.
and more Americans die for an egotistical sob
How Bush first described victory in Iraq:
“Iraq is a free and peaceful nation, its people no longer live in fear, an ally in the war on terror, and a shining example of democracy for other mideast nations to follow.”
Kansas, I forget, did we have ethnic fighting for control of the govt. after the revolutionary war? How long do you think it might have taken if we were busy killing one another, to get ratification?
Posted by: The Phantom | September 05, 2007 at 07:36 PM
You mean the loyalists? Yes, we had to fight loyalists too. Believe it or not, there were some who wanted to remain British Subjects.
There were many cases of loyalists “ratting” out the Colonial Troops, refusing to help them and even fighting against them.
The most famous “rat” was Benedict Arnold. Most of the Governors of the various colonies were appointed by the Crown of England and loyal followers. They had their own garrisons and etc.
It wasn’t all cut and dried as people think.
I Believe these are the benchmarks, courtesy of the white house:
Benchmark
Satisfactory results
Form a committee to review the constitution
Establish a process to form and implement semi-autonomous regions
Establish political, media, economic and service committees to support security plan
Provide three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support operations in Baghdad
Protect the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature
Allocate and spend $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects
Ensure that the Baghdad security plan will not provide safe haven for outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation
Establish joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad
Mixed results
Establish an electoral commission, set up provincial councils and their authorities, and set a date for elections
Reduce the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminate militia control of local security
Unsatisfactory results
Divide oil revenues among Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions
Reintegrate former Baath Party members into Iraq society; exclude democracy opponents
Give Iraqi commanders authority to execute the security plan and make tactical and operational decisions
Ensure that Iraqi security forces provide even-handed law enforcement.
Increase the number of Iraqi security force units capable of operating independently
Ensure that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi security forces
Too early to assess
Pass law giving amnesty to former members of the ruling Baath Party
Enact and implement law on militia disarmament so security forces are loyal and accountable
“I’m ready, ask away. I speed read.
Posted by whatever.
However, your comprehension level is seriously in question.
Jeez, can we just get a discussion of the topic at hand – Iraq apparently has not met nearly any of the benchmarks as required – what is the US going to do about it?
It has been four and a half years, 3,800 dead Americans, countless wounded and moving towards a trillion dollars.
What do we do if Iraq fails to meet the required benchmarks?
Four more years?
(Shades of Nixon in 1972.)
When one brings up the fact we were lied to by Bush, thus ensuring his quest to invade Iraq, the whole argument of “benchmarks”, a “democratic” government, free Iraqi’s, etc., becomes useless.
People are going to die when we pull out. Hell, they’re dying now. They’re killing each other and have been for over 2000 years.
We need to defend against terrorism in a smart way. Iraq is not the smart way.
My bottom line opinion is: Damn Bush for putting American soldiers in harms way in Iraq for his overloaded ego.
What do we do if Iraq fails to meet the required benchmarks?
Stay the course until God tells Bush otherwise.
Sigh. . .I think Walker nailed the essence of it. There IS no good alternative, only the least awful.
“All things being equal and it would be nice to wait on the Petraeus Report, but I expect by Summer of 08, that if situation have not improved, there will be a mass pull out of Iraq, if not before. Logistics, not withstanding.
“If the situations improve and benchmarks are rapidly met or exceeded, and the Iraqi Army along with the Police have things under their purview and control, I see a gradual pullout over the next two years with a stabilization force of U.S. and U.N. soldiers of about 15,000 troops in advisory and peace keeping status.”
Proof positive, that unreasonable people, can have reasonable ideas. I think most Americans would support the above contingencies. This is much more substantive than anything I have heard on the Republican Debate tonight.
Let me tell you that Huckabee is a sleeper candidate – the man looks and sounds presidential. I am surprised that Outlander (where ever he is these days) would not be a Huckabee backer.
If I had to vote republican, it would be for Ron Paul.
Walker,
As I have said before, Ron Paul can afford to tell the truth, because he has zero chance of winning.
I do enjoy his contributions to the Republican debates.
Even though Fox News wasn’t, I was impressed by Huckabee. I wonder who was right?
Steven Davis,
Huckabee reminds me of a lot of Baptist Ministers I know. My uncle was very similar with his speech and mannerisms like Huckabee. My Uncle was a Southern Baptist Minister for almost six decades.
Jeez, the topic of this thread was dropped in a hurry by the Right Wingers.
A few minutes ago, my granddaughter’s cat, who was asleep on top of the TV, slipped and fell very ungracefully to the floor (and NOT landing on his feet). He instantly looked at me to see if I’d noticed, and then gave me a look as if to say “I meant to do that!” That’s exactly what Bush is doing regarding policy in Iraq.
Bush is redefining failure in Iraq!