Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

After Petraeus, a Growing Divide

Two days of hearings on the progress of the Iraq war did nothing to bring President Bush and congressional Democrats any closer to a consensus on future action, as both sides have laid down increasingly combative markers today.

This morning, Bush announced that tours in Iraq and Afganistan for Army soldiers would be reduced from 15 months to 12 months, and that he would heed the advice of Gen. David Petraeus to halt further troop withdrawals. Bush also pointedly warned Congress against sending him an Iraq spending bill that exceeds his $108 billion request or includes any troop withdrawal language.

"If the bill meets all the requirements it will be a strong show of support for our troops," Bush said. "If it doesn't I will veto it."

Not long after Bush's statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made it clear what they thought of Bush's statements, using a press conference with Iraq veterans to lambast the president.

Reid said that the last two days of hearings with Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had given the administration the chance to answer two questions: "Has the war made us any safer? Are the troops any closer to coming home?" The answer to both, Reid said, was no.

Reid painted Bush's latest tack as "one step forward, two back." And while he welcomed the announcement that troops' tours of duty would be shortened, Reid said that policy change should be codified into law and that the Senate would soon vote to do exactly that.

Pelosi echoed that point, saying "we need better answers from the president" on what conditions would be necessary in order to bring more troops home. And she emphasized -- as Democrats repeatedly have in recent weeks -- the connection between America's economic woes and the financial drain of Iraq. The "failed war ... has taken us deeply into debt, and that debt is taking us into recession," Pelosi said.

No one on either side of the debate believed that the Petraeus/Crocker hearings would bring everyone together for a round of "Kumbaya." But it is striking that Bush and Democratic leaders are growing further and further apart. Pelosi today said she feared Bush was "leaving all the tough decisions" to the next president. It may well be up to that next president to bridge the gap on Iraq, since the current breach shows no signs of narrowing anytime soon.

By Ben Pershing  |  April 10, 2008; 1:21 PM ET
Categories:  Branch vs. Branch , Iraq  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Meet the House's Newest Member
Next: Keeping Score on the Colombia Trade Pact

Comments

It seems way too obvious that everyone except Bush agrees we must nail down the criteria for withdrawal/reduction of troops in Iraq.

Under questioning, Patraeus agreed that ridding Iraq of ALL Iranian influence and/or ALL alQaida fighters/supporters was impossible and irrational.

So the first step for both Republicans and Democrats is for the Congress to agree on a realistic level of accomplishment - as the trigger for our departure. Achieving that level will require simultaneously, a diplomatic/political surge and an increase in Iraqi capacity to keep the lid on alQaida violence and Iranian influence.

It is for us to set these marks. Not the Iraqis. Once set, we have the measure by which we judge progress, we smoothly draw down/reposition our forces -- and then pause - with our guys out of harms way.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 10, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Question everything.

Posted by: Jim | April 10, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Get rid of Bush and the Republicans and get some competent people in charge. Screw "narrowing the gap," Bush and the Republicans are just wrong about everything, so screw them.

Posted by: grytpype | April 10, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

How about a compromise on funding the war? No earmarks, etc, which should make Pres. Bush happy. But, include tax increases so that the cost of the war is in fact borne by Americans alive today, rather than mortgaging the future of the country. Such an approach would force all sides to decide whether the truly believe the "cost in blood and treasure" rhetoric they have been spouting.

Posted by: realist | April 10, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It's time to end this charade of making Halliburton the wealthiest company in U.S. history. Who's making more money off the stupidity of Americans? Cheney's Halliburton or Bush's friends in the oil business? It's time to cut the funding on this monstrous bilking of America! Bush wants another $108 billion for Iraq? I hope the Congress tells him where he stick Iraq, Halliburton and his lying VP Cheney. Not one more dime for this blatant fleecing of America!! Its time to let those idiots in the White House know that we're not all totally stupid!

Posted by: Game Over | April 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

War? good God, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, say it again.

McCain, the warmonger president, who can't wait to bomb Iran. (If he can find it on a map.)

Posted by: jeffp | April 10, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Terrorism is a tactic.
To say we are 'at war with terrorism' is a play of words with no meaning.
You cannot wage war on a tactic, thus there is no definition of victory under such pretense. Its completely open-ended, much as the other political wars on poverty, hunger, drugs, or whatever.
Congress did not declare war, because there is nothing upon which to declare war on.
Terrorism is criminal activity, like the illicit drug trade. Likewise, its best to confront terrorism along law enforcement and border security lines, something this country has failed miserably at.
We will not 'win' in Iraq, because there is no 'winning' where there cannot be a definition of the word.
As for Petraeus, he knows its either the party line or 'early retirement'.

Posted by: theantibush | April 10, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Why are we even waiting for the General to tell us when it's time to leave? As Obama said, there are finite resources. In my opinion, this is no longer a military decision. If I ran a company like this, I'd be fired. If I ran my household like this, I'd be fired. So stop funding the war, plain and simple. Congress needs to stop waiting for a military man or Bush to tell us it's ok. The resources to fund this war need to go in to America, not Iraq. Petraeous said there are 100,000 Iraqis on the American payroll that are doing good, well 80,000 American's lost their jobs last month. Let Iraqs oil pay for Iraqi salaries and I want my tax dollars to pay for jobs right here in America. Enough is Enough!

Posted by: Beth | April 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

It's not just Democrats that are grilling General Petreaus. Listen to what Republican presidential candidate Dr. Paul is saying:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jWr5Wl-mev0

Posted by: Jake | April 10, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

It is sad that we have a president so
stupid. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and the radical Republicans have ruined this Country. I was so proud of this country when I was discharged from WWII that I could not imagine it would become the mess it is in. The next president will not be able to even start to correct this mess. God help our children.

Posted by: Westexacan | April 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

impeach now, an earlier impeach proceeding would have nullified the crazy non-debate going on now.

Posted by: kennytal | April 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

This war is all about money.

Filling the coffers of defense industry contractors is what this war was and is all about and to that end, the military commanders "in the field" have dutifully hoodwinked the American populace.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Bush has lost all credibility anyway. It's clear the the majority of the country wants some sort of timetable set for troop withdraw and I think Barack has the best plan in regards to Iraq. Check out his comments made to General Petraeus on monday.

http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=9035

Posted by: kberly7568 | April 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

This article speculates that the next president will have to resolve Iraq. That IS bush's iraq strategy. It is his ONLY Iraq strategy. Con enough congressional republicons into stonewalling any effort for a sane and swift resolution to bush's botched (and illegal/lie based-but that is another issue) war in order to toss into the lap of the Democratic president.

And since no one in the vaunted press corps will dare say it - the reason for stoppping the withdrawl in mid summer is so Iraq does not decend into chaos in the middle of the campaign, thereby costing republicons even more seats in congres and taking away the tiniest glimmer of hope mcsame might have.

Posted by: Brandon | April 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

If the Iraqis want to settle down to forming a constitutionally framed democracy that resolves its conflicts without violence, fine, then we'll leave. Until then, we stay. McCain's estimate is about right: Anywhere from a hundred to a million years. I don't see what's so hard about this.

Posted by: Archer | April 10, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

A war for corporate profits like Iraq will never end till the corruption in Washington is dealt with.


How much money is Halliburton making off of the oil profits from Iraq?


Why is the Government spending money on a war of choice, while our country is falling apart?

Posted by: Brad | April 10, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

War on Poverty
War on Racism
War on Drugs
War on Terror
Exxon Valdez
Three Mile Island
Love Canal
Waco, TX
Oklahoma City
Unibomber
Anthrax
911

Citizen Kane says: We need
more testimonies from the Talking Heads,
distractions by "White Men in Red Ties,
discussing Missile Size."

Oh, the Chinese are messing with Tibet...

All distractions! Divide and Conquer!
I must be crazy!

Posted by: NM remote | April 10, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Remember what happened in Viet Nam after the Tet Offensive? Only the continuous bombardment ordered by Nixon on North Vietnam ports and infraestructure brought the communist in Hanoi back to the negotiating table in Paris. The bombing allowed us to proceed with the "vietnamization" of the war and the withdrawal of most American troops from the South. What incentives does Iran have today to negotiate with us? Maybe bomb, bomb, bomb is not a bad idea to create the conditions for withdrawal.

Posted by: Real Realist | April 10, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

By race baiting and instigating class warfare, the GOP was able to get the feeble minded "cult of personality" working class folks to join in and vote GOP. They basically voted against the interests of the working class. Most of the politically and financially stranded citizens have fallen on their own swords! We do not deserve the right to vote if what we have is the result!

Posted by: Gdubya | April 10, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

It's no surprise Petreus recommends postponing troop withdrawals and that Bush agrees because stalling until he gets out of office has been Bush's Iraq strategy since his invasion turned sour, which was before it began since the rationale for the invasion was and continues to be based on lies--an Iraqi connection to 9/11, WMD, our heartfelt desire to bestow democracy on our Iraqi brethren, etc.--and Petreus seems to be as willing to lie for his boss as his boss is willing to lie to America. Anything to avoid owning up while he's still in office. But events in Iraq may force a reckoning before January. Al-Sadr's repulse of Maliki's offensive a week ago showed Maliki's army to be a figment of Bush's imagination. The personnel in the Green Zone are confined to bunkers because the Iraqi's not bought by America are doing a surge of their own. All Al-Sadr has to do to force Bush to maintain his multi-trillion dollar illegal occupation is to continue his low-cost resistance--a few IED and mortars here and there. At this rate, American coffers will run dry, the choppers will haul away the Green Zoners, and the debacle will be over, ending so like the Vietnam war that Bush, the flag lapel pin patriot, avoided.

Posted by: aguy7 | April 10, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The need to suspend the troop withdrawl is a somewhat negative development for Bush. But there was never any possibility of a consensus on Iraq before the election. Barack Obama appears determined to base his candicy on a fixed timetable for withdrawl and a reliance on Achmedinajad. Obama has pulled Hillary Clinton to the left. Even if she somehow yet managed to win the nomination, it would be hard for her to move back toward the center. That leaves everyone who does not trust Achmedinajad with no choice but John McCain. National polls show that Obama's lead has already disappeared. That result is likely just the first step.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

What we need is a little box on every American's paycheck stub, like the one that says FICA. It would be labeled "Iraq Occupation Deduction". Could you imagine the reaction of people if they received their paychecks and the "Iraq Occupation Deduction" every two weeks was "$267.18"? Or ""119.05". Or "$332.44".

How long you think the war would last then? How likely is it that Congress would mandate this?

However, in reality, that is exactly what is happening. With every single paycheck you receive, a portion of that is going to fund this endless, counterproductive occupation.

But it's actually worse than that. You're paying for this war with every paycheck, but with interest. A credit card that you never authorized, in the name of you and your kids, is being used to charge the costs of the Iraq occupation.

You're still paying the bill. But you're going to pay a whole lot more, for decades to come, on the debt and all of that interest.

If people could see this deduction, happening every time they get paid, things might change very quickly in Iraq.

Posted by: Steve Nesich | April 10, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

My goodness. You liberals are all foaming at the mounth. Regretfully your comments reflect a distinct absence of understanding of realpolitik and geopolitics. One commenter stated idealistically that "a diplomatic/political surge" is all that's needed!
All the liberals should sing together now (quoting the Beatles): "We can work it out. We can work it out. Life is very short and there's no timeeeee for fussing and fighting my friend." Let's all hold hands and together we can "create a dialogue". All together now you liberals: "Can't all those nasty neocons see that if we could only talk this out that everything would be just fine?" Liberal foreign policy: "We just held hands with those dictators and looked deeply into their eyes then they'd begin to like us. Their hate would just melt away when they see how sincere we are. But that nasty Bush is standing in the way of all this world peace."
Perhaps a "liberal" course of therapy might help you all.

Posted by: Jeff | April 10, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

it seems that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are finally going to try to stop bush from ruining america...in the last year and a half all i have seen from either of them is a one week fight, then they surrender to our president. i hope they dont give in this time

Posted by: Dude | April 10, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Having turned Al Quada from a rag-tag disorganised rabble into a major cohesive force by our "War On Terror", we are now trying to do the same with Iran. Our preemptive kiss-ass policies are creating enemies we dont need, and getting us into unwanted problems we cant extricate ourselves from.
This puppet-meister Cheney sabre-rattling has GOT to stop. The 'WAR' on Terror is not a legitimate war....it is over, and we should be supporting a UN Peacekeeping role to make it so.

Posted by: Photty | April 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I've gotta hand it to "Jeff" whose post simply flamed 'liberals' without offering any alternative at all to spending more money, blood and reputation -- and apparently assuming an unending stream of the first two.

Posted by: Jeff Hardy | April 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Even in the middle of a prolonged unconventional war, most of the DoD budget is spent on the wars DoD would prefer to fight instead of the kind smart opponents will ensure we fight. That's why Marine leadership didn't order enough MRAPs until forced to do so.
"Supporting the troops" does not equal uncritical support of every overpriced, bloated, ,money sucking "defense" program.
Americans have a civic duty to learn about war so they can ensure their politicians make the right program and policy decisions.

Posted by: sfv | April 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

You're a freakin' numbskull if you think the Democrats will ever come to a consensus with Chimpy and the Repukes.

Stop drinking the Repuke Koolaid and stop popping Limbaugh pills, moron.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

McCain a warmonger? He wants to bomb Iran?

Yeah, and he has no good reason for that at all. Iranians have only been chanting "Death to America" since 1979 when they took Americans hostage for a full year.

Now, they are on the verge of having the capability to make nuclear weapons.

So, you're right, we should just pull our troops back and protect our own country. After all, we did such a wonderful job protecting the World Trade Center.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

We need to all AGREE that Iraq is a big mess and stop spin doctoring and talking about how well things are going in Iraq. They aren't. Even at the top of the surge we went from 80 to 40 carbombs a month. That still an average of one carbomb a day!!! I don't know about you but if we had a carbomb going off daily in DC or NY or LA that would not be good.

Posted by: Timus | April 10, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

What kind of cat-mouse game is this? We go through a troop surge, then Radical Shiite Cleric al-Sadr Announces a 6 month Cease-Fire. Then the troop surge finishes. Then the Radical Shiite Cleric al-Sadr Announces Cease-Fire Extension
[ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1974425/posts ] Then the general, ambassador and president say things are going good to congress and to say progress was made. But what do you think will happen when the cease fire extension ends? More violence... So did the general truely explain why progress was made or did they just want to be able to say the surge was working when actually some one else put a timetable of a cease fire extention. I don't think we'll ever really know why the cease fire time table was arranged to begin with. But at least some military force has a time table.

Posted by: astef | April 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

If the Democrats are serious about standing up to Bush they'll need Republicans to make it happen.

Otherwise all they're doing is blowing hot air.

The gutsiest move they could make is to shelve the legistlation before them. Don't vote on it. Don't give Bush the money. And don't cower. He likes brinkmanship because they all back down. Truth is he'll back down.

Force him to lay off civil servants, stop flying operations, move money around from on pot in DoD to the other.

Posted by: sjm12561@yahoo.com | April 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Just curious: How many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have occurred since 9/11?

Posted by: Justin | April 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Jeff is what we Internet veterans call a "troll". He cannot address the issue, because as a Repuke, he has nothing to say.

So he makes the same old tired cheap shots at those eeeevil libbbrrrruls that his favorite radio idiot Junkie Rush pukes up all the time.

Jeff is a typical inbred, brain-dead, racist, idiot Repuke. They are all as stupid as he is.

The Repukes are not a political party, they are a criminal conspiracy. RICO the GOP.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I dont support the troops or this criminal government. I wont support the Democratic President elected either. This govt needs to stop robbing me and my community. This needs to stop.

Posted by: FedUp | April 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

We have no one to blame but ourselves for this government. We elected the liar Bush for a second term and the spineless Democrats have done nothing to end the funding of the war in Iraq.

Posted by: MadinStLouis | April 10, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Briliant Jeff -Liberals are certainly the problem and I love your well thought out solutions. It's the mentality of people like you that put us where we are today.You are an idiot

Posted by: Norm Erie Pa | April 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Just curious: How many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have occurred since 9/11?"
Posted by: Justin

9-11 was not a terrorist attack.

9-11 was an inside job.

New Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The Soviet Union fell primarily due to the economic burden of attempting to match the defense spending of the US. Al Qaeda's strategy could easily be to sit back and watch the US spend itself to death while we vainly struggle to rid the world of terrorist cells, while the rest of the world sits back and lets us go it alone. If the "War on Terrorism" doesn't accoplish it, we can always finish ourselves off with our on-going deficit spending on federal programs and our willingness to borrow from China and others at the expense of future generations.

Posted by: DWB | April 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Jeff,

I think, the anger at Bush is not a 'liberal' agenda. And even if it were, it would not necessarily make it false.

We all have a right to be outraged, that our President pushed us into a rather spurious situation in Iraq and ignores the economy, trying to fill us with empty promises.

However, for those who do hate Bush...
http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/04/09/historians-bush-worst-president/

was an interesting read. I don't know, if I would say, he's the worst President ever, but he's certainly campaigning very hard for the position.

Posted by: wolf | April 10, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The president's plan is simple: Leave all the hard decisions to the new Democrat president then blame the Democrats for losing Iraq and for stabbing the troops in the back.

The Republicans know that they can't win in '08, but if they can pin the rap on the new president, it will mean only a four year interregnum of Republican rule.

Such stragies have worked many times in the past but won't wash this time. They've ruined our economy and weakened and destroyed our standing in the world with their hubris and incompetence

Posted by: Bill | April 10, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Jeff,

I don't see you offering up some fair and balanced perspective on how to end this war. Or any other point. "Liberal" this and that doesn't help. Are you just an ideologue or do you know how to use your brain.

Neocons making war to provide a profit to cronies should be impeachable. If it was Dems I would feel the same. War is hell. I am a vet and have been there. What is going on now is WRONG.

Labeling others doesn't help. Ignoring the use of diplomatic engagement by smearing it as "L" is just plain stupid. War is a failure of diplomacy. What makes the Bush and Neocon approach so completely idiotic is that they won't even engage in diplomacy except through war.

How stupid is this approach? Stupid enough to jeopardize the standing of America in the world as nothing more than an imperialistic country waging war against other countries for access to their natural resources so that a few elites get rich.

Using our soldiers and national resources for the personal ambitions of wealth for and by the few is not democratic. I am tired of this idiocy. America needs to wake up from its slumbering and revolt against the status quo.

Posted by: Mike | April 10, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Justin You think the reason we have not been attacked is because we are in Iraq? You too are an idiot-

Posted by: Norm | April 10, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Lets get rid of the democrats! I believe the Sub-Prime Mortgage Market is what burst the economic bubble, not the war. History has proven that the economy is very good during a conflict. If the democrats would become part of AMERICA instead of constantly tearing it down, we might get something done.

Posted by: Realist | April 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

War is for monkeys and primitives. It reflects a backwards and regressive mindset.

Sure...let's keep giving away our country and our power to the Chinese...who are scarfing up the bonds that are financing this illegal and immoral charade. China is laughing all the way to the bank. In like manner and acting out of collective American greed, American corporations and venture capitalists outsourced our manufacturing business to China to make a lousy 20 points.

What comes around goes around...and America's stupidity and lack of consciousness is now coming back around.

Posted by: Robert | April 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

When will America wake up? When the Musslim world blows up a complete city? When will America secure the borders and vote out of office tax and spenders of both parties? Let's all vote for Barack Hussien Obama, that's comforting is it not?

Posted by: Rick | April 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Your readership is a bunch of liberal morons. President Bush is the best leader and best President this country has known. Leadership of this grade is hard to find, especially in a democracy, and particularly where the media is substantially liberal. The idiots who sound off against this administration probably will never realize how much good this President has done for America. But it doesn't matter, because they don't matter. What matters is strong leadership. Thank God for Pres Bush.

Posted by: Jeff | April 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I love Steve's idea of the "Iraq Occupation Deduction" above.

The only way to get the attention of the average American anymore, with his/her Wal-Mart mentalities, is to charge them directly for the war.

Then you'd have your hue and cry. The foamingest of the foamy-mouthed, lapel flag-wearing "troop supporter" would sound like George McGovern in 6 months.

Until then, this war is nothing more than yet one more liberal/conservative invective fest. Why wouldn't it bee ... how many of us actually know anyone over there?

Posted by: Drew in Wisconsin | April 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Jeff-
Is it better to read from Machiavelli than to listen to the Beatles? I would much rather remain an idealist than become what you are. It's why I voted for Ron Paul, the only man in this race who deserves to have 'Honorable' before his name.

Posted by: Igor | April 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Al Qaeda's strategy could easily be to sit back and watch the US spend itself to death while we vainly struggle to rid the world of terrorist cells, while the rest of the world sits back and lets us go it alone."

That IS their strategy. Bin Laden said his plan was to BANKRUPT the US. Chimpy has been his best ally in this effort. $12 Billion a MONTH on Iraq, the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.

But then, the Bushes and Bin Ladens are old family friends that go back a generation.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse


It Costs Nothing to be a Patriot

Paul Joseph Watson | October 31 2005

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
-Mark Twain

The past year has witnessed a groundswell of support for controversial truths from credible individuals across the political spectrum. We tread on fertile ground and the climate has never been more welcoming of what would otherwise be considered difficult realities. In the face of despair born of a world in constant swirling turmoil, we need to regularly remind ourselves of the fact that many hands make light work and slowly but surely we are gaining momentum and having an increasingly indelible effect.

As the Internet becomes the first source for news and as political blogs and alternative news websites are being called 'the new talk radio', so it follows that high profile political figures are more and more fearless to embrace popular trends in thinking and put their reputations on the line in the name of truth and liberty. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, criticism of the government was tantamount to treason. Over four years on and it's almost a clichéd fashion trend. Rather than jumping on the cultural bandwagon however, many individuals have simply hardened their stance on the core issue that dominates all others, state engineered terror and false flag operations.

In a target rich environment, focused demonization campaigns are worthless. Former German Defense and Technology Minister Andreas von Buelow was among the first to point the finger of blame directly at the highest levels of the US intelligence establishment for complicity in 9/11. Von Buelow stated that 9/11 was the first stage of a covert operation carried out to brainwash Americans into supporting a war on the Muslim world and eventually a conflict with China.

Former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds caused waves when he released a detailed analysis of the highly suspicious collapse of Building 7 and came to the same conclusion as this website when stating that there was no other reasonable explanation than that the building was brought down by carefully placed explosives.

Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, went on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria. Shayler elaborated by saying the evidence suggests the attack was originally meant to be much wider in scope and was an attempt at a violent coup intended to decapitate the entire government as a pretext for martial law. "So you're looking at a situation in which you almost have a coup d'état because you've got to bear in mind that there were weapons discovered on planes that didn't take off on 9/11. Now people have obviously postulated that they were going perhaps to attack the White House, Capitol Hill. That looks to me like an attempt to destroy American government and declare a state of emergency, in fact a coup d'état, a violent coup d'état."

Former United Nations weapons inspector and Marine Scott Ritter appeared on The Alex Jones Show and stated that he wouldn't rule out the possibility of the Bush administration staging a terror attack in order to jolt a wavering foreign policy agenda back on track. Ritter has extensive knowledge of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, and Europe. He served in the Office of Special Commission at the United Nations (UN), where he coordinated international efforts to implement United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions mandating the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

When Ritter's vocal pronouncements of the fact that Iraq had no WMD before the war went unheeded, Ritter became a leading critic of the Bush administration. Ritter compared the atmosphere within the administration to that during the time of Watergate, where Nixon considered utilizing America's nuclear arsenal to create a devastating diversion from domestic calamity. Asked if he thought a staged terror attack was possible, Ritter responded, "Yeah, you have people who have no regard for the rule of law; these aren't people who appreciate the Constitution, to them the Constitution is an impediment, it's an obstacle, it's something in the way, and it's something to be avoided. They are married to an ideology of global domination, of global imperialism and they're not going to deviate from this."

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi

For it costs nothing to be a patriot.


Posted by: 1776Patriot | April 10, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

lol @ all the idiots. you people are america. what a joke!

Posted by: bill in detroit | April 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

7 years and counting.
George Bush Took us into a war by telling the American people Saddam either had or was building nucular weapons none of which was true. The sad part is Bush knew Iraq was a long way from becoming a nucular power. The oil companies are making billions. American GI's are being killed and wounded every day and Sir George hasn't a clue

Posted by: John Senger | April 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Photty, you have to be kidding!

End the war on terror? Yeah, let's return to the good old days of Bill Clinton. When we were being attacked by terrorists overseas with little to no response from a weak U.S. President. 8 years of this is what emboldened them to plan the 9/11 attacks.

The truth of the matter is that it takes a Bush to clean up after a Clinton. Who will clean up after Hillary????

Sure, end the War on Terror if you don't care about innocent Americans losing their lives.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach. PUT IT BACK ON THE TABLE...Its the only way back to the Constitution and out of Iraq

Posted by: Dave | April 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the insightful and logical comment Jeff. Name calling definitely helps bolster your position in the debate. Oh, never mind, you didn't make an argument for your poistion you just threw around the word liberal like it was an insult. Which it's not.

Posted by: Paul | April 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The fact is, War is a big-business, money making machine, and Iraq is a wealthy nation. It's no surprise to me that those who have money invested in the oil fields in Iraq will vote for whoever is in favor of continuing the war if for no other reason than to continue the occupation of the world's second largest oil reserves.

That economic plan might gain some weight, if it weren't for the fact that ever since Halliburton has taken control over Iraqi Oil Fields it has been gouging the American public with record high gas prices, not to mention the fact that not one single penny of oil profits is being used to fund the War in Iraq, as was promised.

Posted by: Linda Love Jones | April 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I just finished watching "Bush's War" on PBS and highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the history unfolding in Iraq.

There was a part of the documentary that I thought was unbelievable. Bush had convened the entire war planning team to Camp David for two days of discussion on how to change the strategy, because whatever we were doing at that time, before the surge, it was not working.

Bush sneaks out of his own meeting midway through the two days and flies to Iraq to "look Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in the eye and see if we had a partner." The team assembled in the war room at Camp David got to watch the news of where their leader went on the satellite TV. If this was not so sad, it would be comical.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist John Burns described the president, who he met with during this visit to Iraq, as "euphoric," and "aglow," and in Iraq had found himself "surrounded by cheering troops....that cheered and cheered and cheered for minutes on end...."

I'm beginning to seriously believe that this guy is deranged, deluded...you know, mentally impaired. What kind of person thinks he can spend a few minutes looking into Putin's eyes to 'get a sense of his soul' or spends a few euphoric minutes with Maliki, and bases his judgments on, what to any objective person, appear to be hunches?

Bush is derelict in his duties and our Congress has an obligation to 300 million citizens in this country to do something about it.

Posted by: Mike | April 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

what great accomplishments, the usual, the joke is the dems. we voted in based on bringing a end to the insanity in the middle have joined ranks and as usual given in and are part of the oil pay offs and zion desire which is continued havic in iraq,this group has destroyed what was a wonderful country,economically we will be very humbled as has very much begun the group are as criminal as has ever been in organized crime so americans it time to speak out loudly ,for the real terrorists are they thanks joe d

Posted by: joe demarco | April 10, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

The basic question is this:

Should we spend the approximately $177 million per day that we're spending in Iraq on a failed military adventure that has served to *increase* Iran's regional influence

or

should we spend that money stimulating the American economy?

I vote for investing in America.

Posted by: concerned_American | April 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse


WHY FEAR WITHDRAWAL?

It is time to give Iraqis their nation back before too few are left to remember that most Shiite, Sunni or Kurd Iraqis described themselves as Iraqis above all else and religious or sectarian group members second.....

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-fear-withdrawal-from-iraq.html

Posted by: PacificGatePost | April 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi and Reid took Chimpeachment off the table because Cheney threatened to declare martial law and suspend Congress and the 2008 elections.

It doesn't matter, since Chimpy and Cheney still intend to do another false-flag attack on an American city so they can declare martial law and seize control of the country.

I don't want to be in Denver on the last week of August.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I vote we end the Federal income tax. Problem solved. Next?

Posted by: FedUp | April 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Let's get rid of and conquer regressive mindsets like "Realist's" above.

War boosted the economy after the depression era and WW2. This was back when we still had a powerful manufacturing base in the USA.
Under Republican "leadership" we've given away the farm to the Chinese in order to support big business and American greed. The Republicans...ruled by fear and ignorance...and clinging to a nationalist mindset in an era of Globalization...need to get with the program. War does nothing for anyone. To equate human life (70,000 Iraqis, 4000 Americans, 30,000 permanently wounded Americans) with economic gain is about as low on the morality totem pole as humans can go. Yet...this is the very mindset that "realist" espouses above. This is called stupidity and ignorance.

Posted by: Robert | April 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

80,000 thousand people lost their jobs, right?
Why don't these guys go join the army/marines, and serve there country, instead of sign up for lazy chex...err...unemployment.
That way, the break time for real Americans may be more than a few months to a year.

by a 3x veteran

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I gain great enjoyment in the excessive reactions of both sides. Democrats cry foul and blame Bush and his "cronies" for the wrongs yet failed to show up at the polls 3+ years ago to remedy the situation. Republicans respond with name calling (liberals) and fear-mongering. Yet they too fail to offer a solution that makes sense. Americans need to start using their heads and stop voting / acting / speaking with their hearts. Perhaps then we can come up with a solution to today's predicament.

By the way, the people / nations of the middle east live by tradition. When someone wrongs another, the animosity created will thrive for generations. We should have known this before invading. To think that we could overthrow a dictator and the iraqis would form a "perfect" democracy is inane. They are just going to end up with another dictator.....Sadr. And this one will hate us even more than Saddam. Oops.

Posted by: Paul | April 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

JEFF YOU ARE NOT JUST AN IDIOT YOU ARE A FOOL TO BOOT

Posted by: Norm | April 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Impeach Bush !- Get out of Iraq Now - Use the Trillions of Dollars we are wasting on the whole mess to build up Business & Jobs in this country! Americans cannot afford this continued misuse of our Tax dollars - Serving in Politics/government for our country should be a Privledge not an opportunity for the rich to pilpher ever dollar they can get their money grubbing hands on - Go to a Flat 10% tax for EVERYONE. Stop giving more government money to Immigrants than Citizens of this country.

Posted by: Tired | April 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Jeff is only doing what all Repugnants do when they have no answer for their stupid president and his co-horts in Congress--just call 'em angry "liberals who hate Bush." Bush has run this country into the ground--just like everything else he's ever been involved with in life! What really surprised me is how other Repugnants followed him right over the cliff without regard for their own political fortunes. No one in their right mind can defend the Bush/Rove/Cheney's rape of this nation, its resources, and reputation around the world. So the only thing Repugnants can do--the only answer they have is call people with a brain "liberals."

Posted by: Game Over | April 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty liberal, and I'm well aware that "solving Iraq" will require a lot, a LOT more blood - the question is how much has to be ours. It can either be slow, eg if we stay, or quick - eg if we leave. They will not become a democracy, and even if they do they will still end up descending into a civil war (maybe they'll vote for it first, who knows?).

Bush made a bad situation worse, and I say we get out of the way and let Iran go in and do their thing just like they're foaming at the mouth to do already. Then Iraq is their problem (and as we all know, it's a BIG problem).

Once again foreign hawks have won the war for a native guerilla enemy before the first shot was ever fired (just like Vietnam, and just like our own Revolution) - the key is they live there, we don't, they're staying, we're not, they don't see a choice, we do. Why prolong the inevitable at the expense of some poor American kids? War profiteering is the only real answer, and it's one only war criminals could give - which W and Cheney without a doubt are. Impeachment? Try treason proceedings for leading us into an unjustified war knowing it was a crock.

Posted by: Pete | April 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"lol @ all the idiots. you people are america. what a joke!" - Posted by: bill in detroit

Hey, how's that economy going there in MI??

I hear 10% of the population there is on food stamps. GM sales down 19%, Ford down 14% and massive layoffs.

Welcome to Chimpy's America, bill.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's call a spade a spade. A lot of very smart people have seen us to this point (much, much smarter than you), so if you don't like it, there are plenty of other weak countries out there that will take your tax dollars. Good Bye.

Posted by: Jeff | April 10, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Bush will soon be facing war crimes trials to be brought by the new UN Human Rights Council.That is why he is desperate to keep this war going and start a new war against Iran.check this link http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/100408Official.htm

Posted by: Mark | April 10, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Bush has described Iraq as the "convergence point" of alQaida and Iran. What everyone in the world but he knows is that he created it! Before his multiple excuse (1st 911, then WMD's, then depose Saddam, then nation-building, then counter-insurgency, then counter civil war, ... now counter-criminal elements . . .) war was launched, there was NO alQaida or Iranian influence in Iraq. This man is the dumbest and most dangerous President we have ever had.

Posted by: JimS | April 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Do you really think most Democrats give a rat's buttocks about the Iraqi people, the soldiers, the cost of the war, or the long-term good of the US? All they care about is pandering to whatever they think public opinion currently is, and to the media to make them shine, and to get elected. It's also funny how the libs who assume they are the most enlightened and intelligent are the most pathetically brainwashed and living in a fantasy worl--suggesting to us that the human race would be living together peacefully, without war if only we listened to them and stopped making the rest of the world angry with us (!). What hubris. What total ignorance of human nature and human history. What utter childishness... Only average intellects who believe they are intellectuals could be so badly led astray. How? by being raised with a few flawed basic mommy-supplied assumptions which they never challenged; instead they contort logic and common sense to imagine conspiracies and evil, powerful leaders bent on destroying the US (Bush, Cheney) to feed their delusions. Simultaneously comes the unconscious reaction to failing to listen to the parts of their own human nature which are trying to tell them they're overly idealistic--projecting. So, they find even greater fault in others--the standard reaction to blindness to faults within. Their rage grows. Bush has given such people an excellent screen for projecting their own unconsciousnesses on to him, and exposing their own ridiculousness. Why? Because he is the image of all they reject within themselves. Thank God.

Posted by: RJEarle | April 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Jeff: wrote- My goodness. You liberals are all foaming at the mounth. Regretfully your comments reflect a distinct absence of understanding of realpolitik and geopolitics. One commenter stated idealistically that "a diplomatic/political surge" is all that's needed!
*****************
As a thirty-year military retiree I do not think that I am a flaming liberal -- I just attended a 3-day military summit and heard John Abizaid (recently retired 4-star) tell us "we need a diplomatic/political SURGE to match the military surge" or we will NEVER achieve a point where we can safely pull out of Iraq without giving up all that we've gained.

You, "Jeff" - are mis-informed about geo-politics and American foreign policy.

Like Bush -- you seem to adhere to the Chaney policy of Ready - Fire - AIM!.

Jeff - like most ideologues your approach to problem solving seems to be to fit the problem to your one solution.

Like the neo-cons - your "square-peg" mentality is ALWAYS CERTAIN - USUALLY WRONG!

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse


What a bunch of scewballs all of you are. To bad it is not confine to limit political nut cases to political nut case websites. I wonder if any of you even read or understand the article or do you just go around posting your nut job rhetoric on any article with the name Bush in it?

How about someone post comments about the article?

Posted by: Bob | April 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I sir am an ardent supporter of the greatest administration this country has ever had. I think we should teach the bible in school, take gay's voting rights away if not put them in concentration camps, outlaw the teaching of evolution, safe sex, and liberal agendas in our today.

We should remain in iraq until every terrorist is killed, every American middle class citizen is broke, gas is $20 per gallon, and until Haliburton seeks to purchase the entire American continent and set up Cheney as our Overlord for world domination.

Oh yes I am an ardent supporter of Bush

Posted by: Flaming Conservative | April 10, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"No one in their right mind can defend the Bush/Rove/Cheney's rape of this nation, its resources, and reputation around the world"

Exactly. Repukes are not in their right mind. They live in a psychotic Bizzaro World of lies, propaganda and spin.

Repukes Can't Handle The Truth!!

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Thats the answer Jeff -shutdown and run

Posted by: Norm | April 10, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"President Bush is the best leader and best President this country has known."

Read a decent biography or two of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Truman, etc - if you still truly believe that, then well.

Read more history and think for yourself. Don't let Fox or any other media outlet do your thinking for you.

Posted by: MichaelH | April 10, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Solution: Let's divide America into two: Conservs and Libs. The libs can take whichever side they want, the conservatives will take the other. We cannot stand you and would absolutely love it if you were not part of the country. Let's just agree to disagree, and live separately. You will never convince me you're right.

Posted by: Jeff | April 10, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I sir am an ardent supporter of the greatest administration this country has ever had. I think we should teach the bible in school, take gay's voting rights away if not put them in concentration camps, outlaw the teaching of evolution, safe sex, and liberal agendas in our today.

We should remain in iraq until every terrorist is killed, every American middle class citizen is broke, gas is $20 per gallon, and until Haliburton seeks to purchase the entire American continent and set up Cheney as our Overlord for world domination.

Oh yes I am an ardent supporter of Bush

Posted by: Flaming closet gay conservative bush supporter | April 10, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Real Realist must not have served in Vietnam; he has no idea what it was really like.
More importantly, it's the Iranians that have been trying to establish communications and negotiations. In fact, they offered to aid the US in a number of issues. It's the loon Bush that has a great fear of sitting at the table.
When will Congress get some backbone and impeach that fool.

Posted by: Ricky_O | April 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

People are wiser now than to play into left/right & lib/cons. We know they are all on the same page. You simply have to struggle to cut the bloodline of tax money to the criminals, then the criminals are out of biz.

You have to shut the lights off at the source.

Posted by: FedUp | April 10, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It is sad to read the comments bashing the Bush administration and labeling McCain a warmonger. The same leve lof Bush bashing was going on before the war ever started. The man could sneeze and the left would be all over him about his substandard sneezing technique. This tired, hacneyed rhetoric is the result of Bush Derangement Syndrome. It accomplishes nothing. We are where we are in this war, and the stakes are very high. You can do like Obama, and focus on how we got here, or like McCain, and take a sober look at the situation as it now stands, and the implications of our actions in Iraq for our future - not only in Iraq, but in the world as a whole. Petraeus is right on target. It is not an easy assessment to swallow. But neither is it based on politcal expediency. Shame on the commentators who allow their Bush Derangement Syndrome to cloud all reason.

Posted by: Alan | April 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

This war is only going to be viewed as a win for America when our troops hand over security in Bagdad without being fired upon while we do it. This I think is something that can happen if we stay the course for another few years. We can win this thing. I agree with all the comments about this war being a grand lie told by the greedy. The fact is though we are there. We cannot afford to lose, and the grumbling among our political elite helps Iran, helps extremist, and is damaging to our troops. That is a plain and simple fact. All the talk of pulling our troops out now is getting them killed in the first place. Our military is strong, our enemies know this, they also know that Americans have no backbone to finish what we start. Wake up people Bin Laden has been playing us like a fiddle. He knows he cannot defeat American military might, but he also knows the American public is weak and fractured into way to many special interest groups. The evidence of this is everywhere. I say we stay the course and defeat our enemies, and we can all feel good about giving Iraq the future they deserve. Don't think I'm a "Bushie" either. I think Bush is a moron. You do the best with what you have though. Peace.

Posted by: Rick | April 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I should have added something about GW2. McCain says he would be happy to have our troops in Iraq for a hundred years or more, as long as they are not being harmed (like in Korea, etc.) What did he mean by that twisted thinking? Using that logic, we might as well occupy more scenic, pleasant places like the Canada. Then again, if we placed our troops in even this most friendly of nations, I suspect they would start shooting at us, too (as they did in 1812)!

So what is his point? It sounds like, if we're being shot at, we should LEAVE not stay.

Posted by: JimS | April 10, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Jessie is right, when you vote in November, do a write-in vote for "None of the above".

Posted by: Ricky_O | April 10, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I sir am an ardent supporter of the greatest administration this country has ever had. I think we should teach the bible in school, take gay's voting rights away if not put them in concentration camps, outlaw the teaching of evolution, safe sex, and liberal agendas in our country today.

We should remain in iraq until every terrorist is killed, every American middle class citizen is broke, gas is $20 per gallon, and until Haliburton seeks to purchase the entire American continent and set up Cheney as our Overlord for world domination.

Oh yes I am an ardent supporter of Bush

Posted by: Flaming Anti Gay Closet Homosexual Conservative Supporter of Bush | April 10, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"How about someone post comments about the article?" - Posted by: Bob

You must be a knuckle-dragging inbred Repuke because you are obviously functionally illiterate, Bob.

I can see several comments about the topic, including one by myself.

Of course there is a divide between the Repukes and the majority of the nation on Iraq. And it is the Repukes who refuse to compromise on anything. Chimpy is notorious in this regard.

Bob, you're a moron. A Chimpyloving idiot. Do us a favor and go play in traffic.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I sir am an ardent supporter of the greatest administration this country has ever had. I think we should teach the bible in school, take gay's voting rights away if not put them in concentration camps, outlaw the teaching of evolution, safe sex, and liberal agendas in our today.

We should remain in iraq until every terrorist is killed, every American middle class citizen is broke, gas is $20 per gallon, and until Haliburton seeks to purchase the entire American continent and set up Cheney as our Overlord for world domination.

Oh yes I am an ardent supporter of Bush

Posted by: Flaming Anti Gay Closet Homosexual Conservative Supporter of Bush | April 10, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

"Solution: Let's divide America into two: Conservs and Libs."

We tried that once before and it didn't go so well. Oh, they called the factions different things then, but you could put the anti-slavery "liberals" of the north up against the pro-slave "conservatives" if you are really married to such ridiculous labels.

Unfortunately it isn't geographical anymore. Its the urban vs. the suburban+rural.

And really, GW Bush has not united those views as he advertised, but done everything imaginable at every turn to carve a chasm between those two world views.

Posted by: MichaelH | April 10, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I sir am an ardent supporter of the greatest administration this country has ever had. I think we should teach the bible in school, take gay's voting rights away if not put them in concentration camps, outlaw the teaching of evolution, safe sex, and liberal agendas in our country today.

We should remain in iraq until every terrorist is killed, every American middle class citizen is broke, gas is $20 per gallon, and until Haliburton seeks to purchase the entire American continent and set up Cheney as our Overlord for world domination.

Oh yes I am an ardent supporter of Bush

Posted by: Flaming Anti Gay Closet Homosexual Conservative Supporter of Bush | April 10, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

If it's true that all we need to do is stay a few years and we win, then why not just nuke the Iraq and Iran right now? Would save a lot of money and troops, wouldn't it?

But since there's alQaida in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, and Afghanistan, we'll need to nuke those countries too, or at least occupy them to make sure there's no trouble.

The insanity never ends.

Posted by: FedUp | April 10, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I have read many comments by my fellow citizens and one thing is constant; our love of this country. Can we agree on this one issue?

I ask those who support Mr. Bush to take a good look at his actions since he has been in office, and hold him to the same standards as your friends and family. Is he trustworthy, does he have your best interest in mind? Don't be fooled into thinking that just because someone speaks about patriotism that they are a true patriot. Take a step back and look at their actions and you will see their true nature.

All my life everyone I know has held me to my world, and even when I made an honest mistake they always let me know "Being stupid is no excuse for not keeping your word and righting your wrongs."

Posted by: Kenjii | April 10, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I sir am an ardent supporter of the greatest administration this country has ever had. I think we should teach the bible in school, take gay's voting rights away if not put them in concentration camps, outlaw the teaching of evolution, safe sex, and liberal agendas in our country today.

We should remain in iraq until every terrorist is killed, every American middle class citizen is broke, gas is $20 per gallon, and until Haliburton seeks to purchase the entire American continent and set up Cheney as our Overlord for world domination.

Oh yes I am an ardent supporter of Bush

Posted by: Flaming Anti Gay Closet Homosexual Conservative Supporter of Bush | April 10, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

America just got brutally "Mugged" by the Neo-CON AGENDA America is Staggering to "Keep Going", Bleeding Profusly until we Finally Fall---And DONT GET UP AGAIN. END THE WAR !!! America NEEDS EMERGENCY POLITICAL REVOLUTION to CUT OUT the MALIGNANT TUMOR that is called the Military-Corporate CABAL. Why do i have a GUT FEELING that i'm living in a DECLINING CIVILIZATION who's best days have PAST?

Posted by: ray | April 10, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Realist sez "History has proven that the economy is very good during a conflict."

So this economy is good? Actually borrowing trillions to spend on war makes if feel as if we're wealthy, but we end up with a huge debt . . . wars are not an investment. Imagine if we were borrowing the same sums and putting them into productive investments.

I do however agree that Iran declared war on the US in 1979: paid for the Marine and embassy bombings in Lebanon, flight 103, maybe even 9-11 and were happy to let bin Laden take credit. (Read Bob Baer's books) So McCain is not so wrong about Iran-al Qaeda links. It wouldn't bother me one bit if someone took out Ahmedinajad, Rafsanjani and his terrorist nephew, Qom the home of medieval superstition etc. And the 6000 centrifuges.

Still, I don't know how anyone can believe that Iraq is the central front against terror when the Afghan-Pak border area really is. I think it was just more convenient to invade a country sitting on a huge pool of oil. And yes, the Clintons are almost as corrupt as the Repos. But Iraq is a botch and Bush has been a disaster as President. I say that as someone who doesn't care for any of the candidates and dislikes both parties. As Gore Vidal said, we have one political party with two right wings.

A plague on both houses.

Posted by: scientist1 | April 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

History has proven that we cannot afford to have closed cultures on this planet like in the middle east today. We have seen this with pre-WWII Japan and Germany. They breed hate against others and inspire militants.

By the way, George Bush was being told by every allied intelligence agency, as well as the CIA that Saddam had WMD's. American GI's are being killed defending America. Period.

The only path to real peace is by ending the closed culture of islam. The middle east has to become tolerant of other cultures and religions.

Stop blaming President Bush for the militancy of the middle east! He is the first president to step up take action instead of taking the easy road and pushing it off on the next president. How many more terrorists attacks have there been since 9/11???? NOT ONE!

Bin Laden wants Bush out of office just as bad as all the liberals here.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"By the way, George Bush was being told by every allied intelligence agency, as well as the CIA that Saddam had WMD's"

Wrong, Tim. You lying sack of crap Repuke.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

These useless wars will not stop until those who want them are required to serve 12 months in the war zone (regardless of age). (Can you imagine all the friendly fire casualties in the "Darth Cheney" platoon?)

Maybe they should also be forced to send their own sons & daughters instead of just burdening them with an unbelievable debt.

Posted by: bobalu | April 10, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"I ask those who support Mr. Bush to take a good look at his actions since he has been in office, and hold him to the same standards as your friends and family. Is he trustworthy, does he have your best interest in mind?"

Its tough. People dig into one side or another, as if politics were a sporting event.

In friendly debates with relatives I have in the family that are Republicans, the question I pose to them is "Is it truly you think in the best interest of the country to have leadership that is so clearly partisan that he or she creates hatred from the other side? You think its good for us? How would you feel if we were in the opposite situation and you reviled your president's choices?"

We really need to tone down the rhetoric and start moving towards a real uniter. This fellow hasn't been, no matter what good things you can say about him.

I know this much, as a veteran, I take the Iraq war very seriously. I never believed there were WMDs, and after years and years we are still there. If that makes me a nutty liberal, well, fine - but I wish some people on the right would try imagining how folks like me might think we need a new path without putting labels on it.

Posted by: MichaelH | April 10, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"Bin Laden wants Bush out of office just as bad as all the liberals here."

Wrong again, Timmeh. Bin Laden LOVES Chimpy. Chimpy is his best ally. Chimpy got us into the wrong war and is wrecking our economy, things that Bin Laden wants us to do.

Iraq has been a recruiting ground for Al Quaeda, thanks to Chimpy. Chimpy is the best friend Bin Laden could ever have, he is helping the terrorists.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that every idiot Iraq war supporter labels every antiwar advocate as a liberal. I live near Camp Lejune NC and I know more marines than I could mention here that don't think we should still be in Iraq, that we should never have gone to Iraq, and that Bush does not care one bit about the troops.

How many military funerals has Bush gone to. ZERO. He has sent friends of mine off to die. They come back and can't even hold a steady job because they are so injured, mentally and physically from the war. The VA checks they receive are hardly enough to pay the bills most of the time.

Before you spout off at the mouth about supporting the war talk to someone that has actually been there.

Posted by: Dave | April 10, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Alan -- You are deranged! Not enough people saw what an idiot Bush was before 911. Not even I thought Bush was this incredibly stupid or evil. There was no chorus of criticism of Bush prior to 911. You just want to cloud the issue. No, Bush managed to show us all how awful a president he is after 911 with Katrina/Brownie, outing a CIA agent, selling control of our nation's ports, giving tax breaks to rich oil companies, putting industry representatives in charge of regulatory agencies, etc., etc., etc. This list goes on in infinity. So don't excuse the horrid awful effect of the Bush presidency on this country by trying to chalk it up to only a dislike for Bush. No, he earned every bit of hatred that's expressed toward him. He's the anti-president--someone who seeks to do as much HARM to America and its people (except the filthy rich) as humanly possible!

Posted by: Game Over | April 10, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

To you liberals: Let me be very clear. You will NEVER convince us, so don't waste your time. We don't think you're very bright, so don't assume we do. Just shut up and go vote for Barack Hussein. We'll cut him the same slack you've cut for Pres. Bush.

Posted by: Jeff | April 10, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

America just got brutally "Mugged" by the Neo-CON AGENDA America is Staggering to "Keep Going", Bleeding Profusly until we Finally Fall---And DONT GET UP AGAIN. END THE WAR!!! America NEEDS EMERGENCY HELP NOW. Why do i have a "GUT FEELING" That i'm living in a DECLINING CIVILIZATION who's best days have PAST?

Posted by: ray | April 10, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Jeff...you're an idiot

Posted by: Dave | April 10, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Ray, you are living in a declining civilization! Yes, the War on Terror is costing a lot of money. Unfortunately, we have an enemy who is willing to die to hurt us. Protecting ourselves against this is expensive. Deal with it.

The bigger reason our declining civilization is because Americans like yourself go to Walmart and buy cheap Chinese made items which is fueling economic growth for a country whose population is over 1.3 billion. The cost of this war is nothing compared to how much money America sends to China every year.

Oh, and be sure to blame Bush for the expensive gas too. Not those 1.3 billion people who now can afford a car with your Walmart dollars.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Rick says "Peace" but wants us to stay in Iraq for two more years.

Get bent, Rick.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

START THE WAR CRIMES TRIAL


Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'
Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE
April 9, 2008--


In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

Contacted by ABC News today, spokesmen for Tenet, Rumsfeld and Powell declined to comment about the interrogation program or their private discussions in Principals Meetings. Powell said through an assistant there were "hundreds of [Principals] meetings" on a wide variety of topics and that he was "not at liberty to discuss private meetings."

The White House also declined comment on behalf of Rice and Cheney. Ashcroft could not be reached for comment today.

Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.

"I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us the information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks here in the United States and across the world," Bush said in a speech in September 2006.

In interview with ABC's Charles Gibson last year, Tenet said: "It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States."

But this is the first time sources have disclosed that a handful of the most senior advisers in the White House explicitly approved the details of the program. According to multiple sources, it was members of the Principals Committee that not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them.

The discussions and meetings occurred in an atmosphere of great concern that another terror attack on the nation was imminent. Sources said the extraordinary involvement of the senior advisers in the grim details of exactly how individual interrogations would be conducted showed how seriously officials took the al Qaeda threat.

It started after the CIA captured top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in spring 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan. When his safe house was raided by Pakistani security forces along with FBI and CIA agents, Zubaydah was shot three times during the gun battle.

At a time when virtually all counterterrorist professionals viewed another attack as imminent -- and with information on al Qaeda scarce -- the detention of Zubaydah was seen as a potentially critical breakthrough.

Zubaydah was taken to the local hospital, where CIA agent John Kiriakou, who helped coordinate Zubaydah's capture, was ordered to remain at the wounded captive's side at all times. "I ripped up a sheet and tied him to the bed," Kiriakou said.

But after Zubaydah recovered from his wounds at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, he was uncooperative.

"I told him I had heard he was being a jerk," Kiriakou recalled. "I said, 'These guys can make it easy on you or they can make it hard.' It was after that he became defiant."

The CIA wanted to use more aggressive -- and physical -- methods to get information.

The agency briefed high-level officials in the National Security Council's Principals Committee, led by then-National Security Advisor Rice and including then-Attorney General Ashcroft, which then signed off on the plan, sources said. It is unclear whether anyone on the committee objected to the CIA's plans for Zubaydah.

The CIA has confirmed Zubaydah was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding.

After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

Mohammad was also subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. At a hearing before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay on March 10, 2007, KSM, as he is known, said he broke under the harsh interrogation.

COURT: Were any statements you made as the result of any of the treatment that you received during that time frame from 2003 to 2006? Did you make those statements because of the treatment you receive from these people?

KSM: Statement for whom?

COURT: To any of these interrogators.

KSM: CIA peoples. Yes. At the beginning, when they transferred me...

Lawyers in the Justice Department had written a classified memo, which was extensively reviewed, that gave formal legal authority to government interrogators to use the "enhanced" questioning tactics on suspected terrorist prisoners. The August 2002 memo, signed by then head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, was referred to as the so-called "Golden Shield" for CIA agents, who worried they would be held liable if the harsh interrogations became public.

Old hands in the intelligence community remembered vividly how past covert operations, from the Vietnam War-era "Phoenix Program" of assassinations of Viet Cong to the Iran-Contra arms sales of the 1980s were painted as the work of a "rogue agency" out of control.

But even after the "Golden Shield" was in place, briefings and meetings in the White House to discuss individual interrogations continued, sources said. Tenet, seeking to protect his agents, regularly sought confirmation from the NSC principals that specific interrogation plans were legal.

According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said.

Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.

"It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time," said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. "They'd say, 'We've got so and so. This is the plan.'"

Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.

"These discussions weren't adding value," a source said. "Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it's legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it."

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.

At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Vice President Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.

A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects, leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.

But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."


Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Posted by: Spinky | April 10, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

RIGHT ON JEFF!!!!

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Dave: Can you read? I'll say it again: We do not care what you think. So shut up and go vote for Barack Hussain.

Posted by: Jeff | April 10, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Tim...you're an idiot. Bush is the one who continues the "favored nation status" with China that the idiot Clinton started. He is even trying to pass a free trade agreement with Columbia right now. Yeah...the country of cocaine production, cartels, kidnappings, ect...Go watch the news or read something

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Jeff -- No one is trying to convince YOU of anything. But there is hope for others who might read these comments. You, like Bush, are either totally stupid or totally evil. And that's not gonna change. We understand that.

Posted by: Game Over | April 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"To you liberals: Let me be very clear. You will NEVER convince us, so don't waste your time. We don't think you're very bright, so don't assume we do. Just shut up and go vote for Barack Hussein. We'll cut him the same slack you've cut for Pres. Bush."

Maybe so. I can tell you though that here in Texas just about everyone I know voted for Bush in 2000. And all those same people (mainly veterans) have converted to the Democratic party now.

Not everyone is tied to labels or to a team, it comes down to what policies are best for our military, for our country, and for our children.

But if you think being a hardliner is actually helpful, right on. There are plenty of those in this comment mess, from both sides.

Posted by: MichaelH | April 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Jeff you're an idiot

Why is it that every idiot Iraq war supporter labels every antiwar advocate as a liberal. I live near Camp Lejune NC and I know more marines than I could mention here that don't think we should still be in Iraq, that we should never have gone to Iraq, and that Bush does not care one bit about the troops.

How many military funerals has Bush gone to. ZERO. He has sent friends of mine off to die. They come back and can't even hold a steady job because they are so injured, mentally and physically from the war. The VA checks they receive are hardly enough to pay the bills most of the time.

Before you spout off at the mouth about supporting the war talk to someone that has actually been there.

Posted by: Dave | April 10, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, distract the American people with a war crimes trial.

Americans vs. Americans.. that's perfect.

Let's keep the focus on each other instead of the terrorist in the cave planning the next attack.

That's brillant. Oh, man here comes the Clinton 90's all over again! I wonder what the terrorist hit this time while Hillary or Obama give America a false sense of security.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Real Americans dont screw themselves over and become paranoid over people in caves. Children like you do.

Posted by: America | April 10, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Yeah right Hillary, it took Clinton to clean up after Bush 1.. and it took a Blue Dress and bulldozers to clean up after Bill Clinton!

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Hasn't anyone figured out yet that the Iraqis have no incentive to resolve their differences or create a functioning society, because they are all getting rich off of the $2 billion a week subsidy that they are receiving from the American taxpayer?

Posted by: Frustrated | April 10, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I think we need to choose our next president very carefully. I support Senator Clinton.

Posted by: John | April 10, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"Let's keep the focus on each other instead of the terrorist in the cave planning the next attack."

Why don't you tell Bush that! We all know where Bin Laden is. Even kids in elementary schools know where Bin Laden is. Bush claims he doesn't know. But the reason he lies about that is that he doesn't WANT to know. If our fine military ever captured or killed Bin Laden, then Bush and Cheney would have no reason to request hundreds of billions of dollars more for Halliburton, McDonnell-Douglas, Northrup Grumman, and the rest. No, its in the Bush team's best interest to allow Bin Laden his freedom to plan more attacks. As long as Bin Laden is free, more of our tax money goes to the Bush regime. This is why we are spinning our wheels, wasting time in Iraq. Bush and Cheney never want this war to end. McCain at least admitted it.

Posted by: Game Over | April 10, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

That's a real American??? I don't think so!

Real Americans go out in the world and take proactive stance to protect innocent Americans at home!

Yeah, we have no reason to be paranoid...that's it.. lull America back to sleep.. bin Laden loves morons like you.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Game over, if you had any REAL evidence to prove that, I would listen.

The fact is, you DON'T! It simply your unproven theory.

Now, let's look at what we DO KNOW.

FACT: Bill Clinton had several opportunities to kill him and FAILED because he did NOTHING.

FACT: We had embassies bombed in Africa. Clinton did NOTHING.

FACT: We had an American ship attacked. Clinton takes the easiest route and attacks with some stand-off cruise missiles which fail completely.

Bin Laden is alive today because Bill Clinton is the worst president in American history.

Now, another Clinton wants to take America back to the candy store instead of the dentist. Here is go again.. you people really need to wake up before it's too late.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

We should make Iraq the 51st state. Screw Puerto Rico....

Posted by: Dave | April 10, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Tim -- We're not in court. There will be no "evidence". I don't think they're stupid enough to provide that for us. At some point however, you have to use your brain for a change and stop listening to the lies coming out of the White House. Think! It won't hurt!

Posted by: Game Over | April 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Tim, you're an inbred drooler Repuke.

At least Clinton went after Bin Laden.

Chimpy let him get away. Twice.

And then Chimpy attacked the wrong country.

Bin Laden is alive and well and hiding out in Waziristan.

Chimpy is the worst President in US history, bar none. He thinks the Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper". He okayed torture. He allowed treason in the White House. He lied to start a war. He built a gulag. He wrecked our economy.

Tim, you're a typical braindead Repuke. You've been brainwashed by listening to idiots like Junkie Rush and PervOreilly.

Do us a favor and play in traffic.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

amen...

Posted by: Dave | April 10, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Timmeh is wrong again. He says Clinton did nothing after the USS Cole attack.

The fact is that the CIA didn't know Al Quaeda did it until AFTER Chimpy stole office.

Chimpy didn't lift a finger against Al Quaeda for 9 months. Then he ignored 50 warnings and 9-11 happened.

Tim is the poster child for why you shouldn't marry your sister and have kids.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Wasting time in Iraq???

Oh man, you gotta be kidding. A free and successful Iraqi nation is the middle east's worst nightmare. Imagine free Iraqi's with a free market system having the oil wealth spread more evenly among the whole population. This is what Bush and MOST of the American people want for the Iraqi people.

Dictatorships in Iran and Saudi Arabia would be seriously undermined when the people of these countries see Iraq begin to succeed. That is why all the foreign fighters are encouraged to go there!

Perhaps the reason you think all these bad things about your president is because that is what you would do if you were in his situation. Personally, I give the president the benefit of the doubt until you prove otherwise.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Fact: 911 occurred on George Bush's watch.

Fact: Bush knows where Bin Laden is right now.

Fact: Bush is concentrating on Iraq, not Bin Laden.

Fact: Bush, as commander in chief, has not fired one shot in the direction of Bin Laden--the man who killed 3,000 innocent Americans.

Posted by: Game Over | April 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

After John McCain's 100 years of American babysitting, the Iraqis will be no closer to resolving the tribal, ethnic, and religious differences that were built into the post-colonial Iraqi borders. Our presence will only delay the hard decisions that must be made by the native populations. If they insist on tearing each other apart, there is ultimately nothing that any American occupation will have been able to avert. Imagine what the $600 billion already spent exclusively on Iraq might have been able to purchase for a variety of our own domestic needs, especially renewable energy independence. (Yes, we're only there to protect the oil.) God, what a horrible president we've had to live with for 8 years, and McCain would make it another 4.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

test

Posted by: Karl Blauman | April 10, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Clinton may have screwed an intern, but Chimpy screwed the whole nation.

We are just beginning a recession that is going to be bad. The subprime mess will go on for another 18 months with 4 million more loans that will reset.

This recession is Chimpy's fault. He and the Repukes deregulated banking and caused this mess.

Clinton lied about a dress. Chimpy lied to start an unnecessary war. Chimpy okayed torture and lied about it. Chimpy allowed treason in the White House and lied about it. Chimpy has done far worse than Clinton ever did.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh, so Tom3, you would have the American people believe that Bush was responsible for 9/11???

So, it was the 8 MONTHS of Bush and NOT the 8 YEARS of Clinton?????

Yeah, Clinton was busy in the Oval office drawing up war plans against bin Laden... he says this in an interview.. it's on YouTube.

My question is... Does he really expect us to believe he was serious? Since we know for a FACT that he was playing with interns at the time????

Also, the terrorists entered the country and were already in flight training under BILL CLINTON!!!!!

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Dictatorships in Iran and Saudi Arabia would be seriously undermined when the people of these countries see Iraq begin to succeed."

Is this why Bush walks around happy and smiling while holding the hand of the Saudi King on his visit to America? Explain to me why Bush is kissing his ass.

Posted by: Game Over | April 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Tim really is delusional.

He thinks we are giving freedom to the Iraqis. That obviously is not the case.

Iraq has a US puppet government. Here's proof: Iraq was not consulted about the Turkish invasion. Iraq was not consulted about Blackwater getting another contract.

Iraq has no sovereignty, and that means Iraqis have no freedom.

Tim spews all the Repuke talking points but doesn't have an original thought in his empty head. Typical Repuke moron.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

911 occurred under George Bush's watch because a weak Democratic president didn't want to deal with the problem.

Bill Clinton is to blame for 911. Period.

If we want another Bill Clinton in office, we should just get a monkey. Then, we can have opinion polls sent to the monkey, can he can just always do what is popular with the American people.

Unfortunately, like JFK said, sometimes leading the people is doing the UNpopular thing.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"Bill Clinton is to blame for 911. Period."

A Repuke LIE that has been thoroughly debunked.

Chimpy was Preznit on 9-11. He ignored 50 warnings. He let 9-11 happen, at the very least.

And there's a distinct possibility that Chimpy did even worse. Tower #7 was brought down on the afternoon of 9-11 in a controlled demolition.

Was 9-11 an inside job? New Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

There have been further terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11, they involved sending anthrax through the mail and resulted in five deaths.

Those sheeple who still back this President and the most disastrous decision in US foreign-policy history don't let trifles like facts or rationality spoil their lunatic way of thinking, and since thinking for themselves is just too difficult, that's why they let others do the heavy lifting mentally.

Bush Jr's policies have raped the US taxpayers, strengthened Iran and simultaneously let Usama bin Laden stay free & clear.

Yep, that's sure some pro-US agenda and President you Bush Jr lackeys are backing all right.

Posted by: KingCranky | April 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

What disturbs me, what has always disturbed me, is that the Democrats whine and cry but never substantively challenge Bush on anything. So what if Democrats are increasingly bothered by anything; they're too timid to stand up the this administration. Bush doesn't have to do anything except what he so wishes, because substantive accountability doesn't exist. Whatever happened to the Rove/Miers contempt of Congress? Nada. What happened to Bush's demand for telecom immunity? The Senate slavishly caved. Happily, the House hasn't. By and large, Congress is a defunct institution.

Posted by: Staggo Lee | April 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

A monkey would be a significant improvement over George W. Bush!! My dog would be even better! Bush was in office for nine months before 911. He was even given written material indicating a major attack was coming from Bin Laden. He got the audacious hint from his national security advisor in plain language--"Bin Laden to Strike in the U.S.--one month before 911. Bush then went on vacation. But you blame Clinton. Typical Repugnant.

Posted by: Game Over | April 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Bush has actually sent more than 4000 us soldiers to their death now.

How many military funerals has he attended. ZERO

He doesn't care one bit about our soldiers

Posted by: Dave | April 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Tom, you really are delusional if you believe there will ever be peace on this planet if these closed cultures are not confronted.

By the way, we "lost" the Vietnam war. However, today you can take a tour of all the old US military sites in a nice little vacation package. hummm... sounds like capitalism to me!

Free market systems work. It just takes time. They appeal to human nature even more than religion. Every human wants a better quality of life.

You can be as insulting as you like Tom. You're just another liberal drone to me. Try thinking for yourself sometime.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Trolls like Timmeh are the reason why this nation is split and may even have another civil war before we are through.

Timmeh lives in a fact-free Bizarro World of Repuke talking point LIES. He has had a psychotic break with reality and is incapable of rational thought or telling the truth.

And Tim thinks we can make Iraq into a free market democracy. We've been there for five years and are spinning our wheels. There has been no progress. And the Iraqis know what our "free market economy" is - Economic Hitmen and the Shock Doctrine. They don't want any part of it.

Tim and the rest of the Repukes are dangerously delusional idiots who are aiding and abetting the hijacking of our nation by a criminal conspiracy led by Chimpy and Cheney.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Paul Bremer instituted a "free market economy" in Iraq. He closed all the state-run industries, laid off a million workers, and caused the unemployment rate in Iraq to top 50%. It is still high today.

Meanwhile, incentives to foreign businesses were not enough to lure them into an increasingly violent country. And our no-bid contractors exclusively hired foreigners to do their work in Iraq, so the unemployment rate stayed high.

Iraqis are now financially worse off than they were under Saddam. The infrastructure is worse (no water or power) and the unemployment rate is astronomical.

WE have failed in Iraq. We are spending $12 Billion a month and have nothing to show for it. We are a hostile occupier and the Iraqis want us out. Time to cut our losses and get the hell out. Now.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Tom, you're really comical.

You resort to name-calling.

So, let's do this.. let's do everything you like. I can't wait to see the liberals/democrats try and take a swing at this terrorism problem.

Go to Iran, and tell them how horrible President Bush was. In fact, call him "Chimpy" there, they will love that.

I can't wait to watch you people fail miserably at the tough job George Bush has been given by your Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) It should have been Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)

Posted by: dplum | April 10, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Tim, you deserve to be insulted.

You're a talking-point spewing moron.

"I can't wait to watch you people fail miserably"??

You want the US to FAIL??

You're not only a moron, you're a TRAITOR.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Another major difference between us is, that if I'm wrong, 4,000 armed soldiers will have died for nothing.

If you're wrong, 3,000+ innocent Americans could die again for nothing.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) It should have been Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) - Posted by: dplum

Actually, it WAS briefly called Operation Iraqi Liberation. Stupid Repukes didn't bother to check the acronym. They caught it a day later and changed the name.

We are in Iraq for the oil. Trillions of dollars worth of it.

Tim is stupid enough to believe that bullcrap about us being in Iraq to give them free market freedom. What a sucker.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Bush has been trashed by the media since day one. The Dems have tried to hog tie him at every move with the help of course by the liberal media. The man didn't have a chance. If a democrat gets into the white house, watch and see how quickly the news will become fully positive. Economy on an upswing-YAY. We're still in Iraq but great progress is being made-YAY. ETC ETC. Can't you all see what's being done to Hillary by the media and make the connection as to what has been done to Republicans for many years? Sheep.

Posted by: Kathy | April 10, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm a traitor???

You're a MORON, a COWARD and a TRAITOR!

Stop living in Neverland Tom, Peter Pan doesn't need any more friends. In real life, there are real enemies the must be dealt with.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Tim, you are wrong.

You spew talking point lies.

Two-thirds of Americans disagree with you.

And your beloved Chimp is down to 28%.

You're wrong Tim. And your mom's calling, she wants you to come upstairs out of the basement.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a traitor, Tim. It is not treason to disagree with the government, it is patriotic. Teddy Roosevelt said this in a famous quote.

Tim, you are the traitor. You want a Democratic administration to FAIL in the War on Terror. That's wanting the US to fail.

And you support Chimpy and his thugs. They did commit treason when they outed a NOC undercover CIA agent AND her entire undercover company, Brewster-Jennings.

Tim, you are a TRAITOR and an idiot.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, America has seen so much oil benefit from this so-called Operation OIL! hahaha

Tom, you moron, try reading the news and thinking for yourself.

It's OK to defend America Tom, it just takes courage. Well... we won't count on you for that.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"the liberal media"?? Kathy, you're another moron who believes rightwingnut talking points.

The media are NOT liberal. They supported the Iraq invasion without question. They continue to support it. Judith Miller at the NYT supported it and then went to jail to cover up for Scooter Libby's treason.

Liberal Media? Only a moron says that.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Tim, I read more news than you do. You only read propaganda and talking points, obviously.

And you're putting words in my mouth. You assume I don't want to defend America because I think Chimpy has done a crappy job of it. That's another talking point LIE, by the way.

You don't know anything about me, moron.

Chimpy left our borders wide open after 9-11. He cut funding for the Border PAtrol and the Coast Guard.

I support tightening border security and fully funding our border forces.

Chimpy let Bin Laden get away twice, at Tora Bora in 2002 and again in 2005. I support going after Bin Laden. So does Senator Obama.

And I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban were supporting Al Quaeda.

But Chimpy pulled our best assets out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq, the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now Afghanistan is a mess again and we may well lose it to the Taliban and Al Quaeda.

I support redeploying our troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan to get the job done and get Bin Laden.

You support Chimpy, who has not been able to catch Bin Laden in 7 years and has stopped trying.

Tim, you're a talking-point spewing idiot.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I guess everyone who disagrees with Tom is an idiot.

Tom, your name-calling just shows everyone here your low level of intelligence.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious that braindead Repukes like Tim cannot be reasoned with.

They live in their own seperate reality, a Bizzaro World of talking point lies, spin and propaganda spewed by Junkie Rush Limbaugh, Mann Coulter, PervOreilly and Glenn-or-Glenda Beck. And don't forget Sean Insannity and Michael the Savage Weiner.

Tim listens to all these foaming-at-the-mouth psychotics and that has made him psychotic too. He has had a break with reality.

You cannot reason with a madman like Tim. Or any of the other 28% of Americans who are still crazy enough to support Chimpy.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Tim, you DESERVE to be insulted.

You're a braindead moron who supports a criminal conspiracy that is wrecking our great nation.

Fortunately, you are in the minority.

And your party will lose in November.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Tom, do you deny that Bin Laden is in Pakistan?

By the way, when you call President Bush, Chimpy, you insult the majority of Americans who voted him into office.

Also, it shows that you have absolutely no class.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

How about just go for the Roman victory.
The troops then get to come home so the Dems are
happy and it will be a victory so the Reps are happy. Lincoln/Grant/Sheridan used a variant in
Virginia in 1864, the Prussians were just as brutal
with the French a few years latter. Sure the peace now crowd will be all up in arms about destroying,
shelter, food, etc, but history says it works. Like
I said we get victory AND can bring the troops home
quickly.

Posted by: Cato-the-Elder | April 10, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Tim, you're an idiot. Everybody knows Bin Laden is in northern Pakistan. Even Chimpy knows but he doesn't have the balls to go get him.

A majority of Americans did not vote Chimpy into office, moron. Gore won the popular vote and would have won Florida on a recount.

Chimpy went to the Supreme Court to stop a recount. Only an un-American fascist would stop a recount.

Tim, you're the one with no class. You're an ignorant, inbred, redneck Repuke who lives in his mom's basement and is stupid enough to believe the Repuke propaganda.

Posted by: Tom3 | April 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Tom3, go to google and type in "percentage media liberal". It goes on and on with the media being more liberal than not since 1962. "Now the new study by the Pew Research Center for people and the press found the media to be 34% self identified liberal and 7% conservative". Now instead of resorting to childish name calling, shoot back with some legitimate stats of you own.

Posted by: Kathy | April 10, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Terrorism took real hold under your great President Bill Clinton.

He did nothing about terrorism under his administration and that emboldened them.

You may say that people like me are wrecking this nation. I say people like you will bring about another big attack against us. Because you lack the courage to confront our enemies on their land. So, they will bring it to ours.

Whatever President is voted into office in this election, I hope they are successful in countering terrorism. I just think the Democrats are delusional with their approach and I think it will fail. We have seen it fail under Bill Clinton. I don't want it to fail BUT history shows it will. Both Obama and Hillary already say they willl be using many of the same foreign advisors the Bill Clinton used. (note the lack of name calling here - that's called class, Tom you should try it. Maybe more people will listen to you instead of writing you off as an idiot).

Posted by: Tom | April 10, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Tom, I'm a 42 year old, male who hasn't lived with his parents since I was 16.

I have a full time job and I work another one on the side. Today is actually my one day off this week. I'm spending it here with you because I can't stand that people like you are on these boards spreading your venom and no one confronts you.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

The hearings conducted on April 9-10 re the report of Petraeus and Crocker on progress in Iraq demonstrate the lack of any good options in dealing with the morass the United States has helped create there. The contradictions of arming and paying former (and perhaps future) Sunni insurgents, accusing Iran of fomenting the civil war in Iraq while the Maliki government greets Iranian leaders as friends and brother Shiites, of claiming considerable progress that is nevertheless "fragile and reversible" and requires an indefinite "pause" to sustain - all this appears to show that our government hardly has a grip on any good strategy for an end game. Petraeus and Crocker are ever so cautious but seem to convey an underlying optimism that they have hit upon a formula for success in Iraq which will somehow resolve both the Sunni-Shiite (not to mention Kurdish) divide as well as the internecine factionalism among the Shiites themselves. In this scenario, moderate Shiites (despite strong ties with Iran) will coalesce to marginalize (and if necessary disarm) more radical, revanchist elements like Sadr; the same moderate Shiite coalition will be wiling to make peace with both Kurds and Sunnis by giving them substantial autonomy in their respective regions, fairly sharing oil revenues, and allowing them to play a significant role in central government operations such as Iraq Security Forces that will affect the balance of power in Iraq. This will be messy, of course, but gradually these parties will see that it is in their self-interest to come to a lasting accommodation and they can be counted upon to control their own divisive or more militant elements. The linchpin for this progress will remain the U.S. military presence that guarantees no major backsliding on the compromise commitments while mutual trust is built up on the ground. As such trust takes hold, an independent, nonpartisan ISF will more and more be capable of replacing American forces to deter resort to violence. Peace and progress will feed on itself, and within a couple of years, during which violence will wind down, most American combat forces can be withdrawn.

This scenario is just so rational it has much appeal. But it all depends on the parties in Iraq to in fact be rational and pursue their enlightened self-interest by seeing that the power distribution process is not a zero sum game. If this were the case, then there would not be a great difference between American policy makers. The issue would be only about tweaking the timing of private or public announcements about an anticipated (but flexible) time frame for this process to work itself out. After all, if we could rely on the Iraqi factions not to be plotting power grabs aided by the potential resort to force, then why would it hurt to announce a tentative withdrawal timetable. Such a timetable would help the various factions plan an orderly transition to a new and peaceful civic future of mutually beneficial cooperation.

To the contrary, the reason why we don't wish to announce a timetable is that we assume that any (anticipated) void left by U.S. military presence would encourage the more fundamental urge of the factions to indeed plot for advantage and hold on to their military options. Implicit in this decision is our belief that the Iraqis themselves have no confidence that their own civic or military institutions will be capable of substituting for American power in the forseeable future. Only an indefinite commitment of American presence as referee and financier will keep the parties at bay. Parties that have no genuine commitment to or experience of peaceful civic power sharing, but who have skills in exploiting ruthless competition, will simply adapt to the system created by the American presence by gaming that system and biding their time. Indefinite American presence can keep the lid on in Iraq, but only at the cost of unsustainable blood and treasure.

The alternative is to recognize that the Iraqi factions are not going to be reformed into anything like a Western democracy over any sustainable period of American presence, and that they will need to figure out for themselves the relative costs and benefits of their respective strategies for power when that presence is gone. We can recognize that what we have done over the last year with the surge and the additional time and space created by an orderly withdrawal over the next two years or so is to give Iraq an opportunity for a kind of success - that is, a civic life without Saddam. In the end it is up to them to sort out their differences which is what they would have had to do at some point in the future when Saddam left the scene, if the U.S. had never invaded. We can and should apply every reasonable effort diplomatically to support good faith efforts by such Iraqi factions.

In the end, it may be unlikely that the Kurdish, Sunni and (divided) Shiite groups can live together peacefully and they may splinter into quasi independent entities. Iran, Syria and other Arab states have a greater interest in a stable (if weak) Iraq than we do since these states are immediate neighbors. If we can't get the neighbors to compromise and cooperate in that venture, then how likely is it that we can do it without them? With a Shiite majority, many of whose leaders were allied with Iran during Saddam's tenure, any stable Iraq is likely to be in Iran's camp in the near term. That is the long run consequence of the decision to overthrow Saddam, which is a major strategic blunder if we view Iran as a permanent enemy. But any attempt by the U.S. to manipulate the situation in Iraq to avoid such an outcome will only entangle us in a hopeless morass that will continue to provoke Islamist fury. We must face the fact that our influence is very limited in the long run and be ready to cope with a situation that may be at least as inimical to U.S. interests than before Saddam was ousted.

Posted by: fjwas | April 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Read this book Tom, it's what lead President Bush's tough job:

Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Monday morning quarterbacks don't help you on Sunday afternoon. The democratic party has had the luxury of the republicans facing a difficult time since 9/11.
1)There were no weapons of mass destruction - doesn't mean there wouldn't have been some sooner or later.
2)Fighting this war costs alot of money. - Yep, but still the same you all bought your HDTV this past year.
3) We're no safer today than we were before Iraq. - Maybe, but then again, no one has bombed anything on US soil since 9/11

Q? On who's watch did Mr Bin Laden live to fight another day, and plan 9/11
That would be Billary Clintons.

Doing nothing is sometimes worse than doing something.
So we have a choice of do nothing Democrats, or do something, but do it badly Bush. I'd take Bush. At least he's trying. Clinton smoked dope, banged his secretary, and got 3000 American's killed in NYC.

Posted by: Dan | April 10, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Tim- I think you are Dubya's love child.

Bush has no earthly idea what to do so he is going to maintain the 'status quo' and dump this mess on the next president. If troops are withdrawn and violence erupts, then McCan't won't be able to continue saying that the surge is working, and the only issue that he seems to have a grasp on would dissolve.

Posted by: Heather | April 10, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge . . ." "User reviews that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site." I'm waiting for most of the comments posted here to be removed. I can only hope that those of you who are involved in the puerile name-calling are children who are too young to vote. Many of you cannot be trusted with the responsibility of decision-making, if your comments are any indication of your abilities to reason. Washington Post, it is time for you to follow through on your rules.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

And so spoketh Shrub: "If there be oil in them thar fields, there be troops of ours to guard it."

Posted by: DJ (Seattle) | April 10, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

To the poster above that wants comments that contain "puerile name calling posts" removed. I actually find them to be helpful in determining who has class and brains and who doesn't. When confronted with facts, the name callers generally leave. I notice that Tom3 seems to have left the building.

Posted by: Kathy | April 10, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Stop and think about it. What better way to win a war against the US than to bankrupt it. I think we are getting the crap beat out of us by Bin Ladin and his friends with the greatful help of Bush and company AND the Iraqi civil war. We are dang near broke and so badly in debt that China, India and the Saudi's could call in their debt at anytime and own us. OH there are others we have borrowed from too. You betcha!

Posted by: gcbfred | April 10, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Since the Administration admits it cannot eradicate Iranian or Al Qaida from Iraq, we have to wonder if the USA is essentially admitting defeat. Even if that defeat is slow and painful, it is still defeat. The reason, Iran and Iraq share a long border, and even if some Iranian or Al Qaida influence remains, this will always be an opening to much, much more. As for Iran, the USA has presented no proof that she really is engaged in destabilizing Iraq. Not captured supplies nor even Iranian prisoners. You would certainly think with hundreds of thousands of troops and contractors, the USA could do at least this much to make its point. We are, therefore, left to believe, however, that Bush is up to his old tricks, remember the "WMD's of Saddam?" Which, of course, never existed. Now, is Iran simply being turned into a "bogeyman" or a scapegoat for USA's terrible failure in Iraq? Ironically, it was Bush, who of course, removed Iran's enemy by taking out Saddam. Now, with increased Iranian diplomatic and cultural influence inevitably spreading in the region, Washington and Tel Aviv are left squealing. But, the only thing left now is to blame Iran with a manufactured tirade, an ineffective and impotent strategy at best! As for Iran destablizing Iraq, why should they? All they need to do is wait.

Posted by: Joseph | April 10, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/wirq319.xml

why is the government microwaving me? because i filed a document in federal court in los angeles today indicating that senior bush is a criminal? because i filed a document indicating the intelligence community has been firing microwave weapons at me without my consent and without justification for years?

Posted by: crminal assault | April 10, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Our nation is trapped in the Bush Nightmare. Junior's bellicose language against Iran means that he will attack them in the upcoming months.

This is what happens when a sociopath gets elected to the Presidency.

His language & tone went far beyond a mere threat. It's a done deal. That's why Junior's been looking so smug lately, dancing for the press, smirking at Putin, he's going to bomb the bejezzus out of Iran. Notice how his reasons for aggression against Iran keep changing, not a word about their "nuclear threat." Just like Iraq, the reason doesn't matter at all to him, it's just an excuse, a figleaf to cover his desire to bomb & kill other people so that he feels like a master of the universe.

When the Gods came up with the concept of "hubris," they had Junior in mind.

Ultimately, this is about a Little Bush who wants to prove he has a Big Dick.

Posted by: patriot76 | April 10, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

80,000 thousand people lost their jobs, right? Why don't these guys go join the army/marines, and serve there country

Hey look, it's an American Fascist!

Posted by: TLE | April 10, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Bush is keeping a full contingent of

troops in Iraq for his war with Iran. How stupid are we?

Bush promised the Jews/Israelis he'd do Iran and do Iran he will.

You didn't hear it here first. You all know it but sit there sucking your thumbs like idiots.

God forbid anyone should go to the streets to protest. Just take it.

Posted by: sickened | April 10, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi and Reid are right to critize this endless war in Iraq, but they ought to look in the mirror when they talk about "putting off difficult decisions." Both of these Democratic majority "leaders" have ample power to cut off or limit further appropriations for the war, and they know perfectly well how dishonest it is for war supporters to say that bringing this war to a close within a time certain is "not supporting the troops." As a former "troop," I can testify that our troops go where they are ordered to go and stay as long as they are ordered to stay. Keeping our troops under fire in the streets of Bagdad or Basra is exposing them to injury or death, not "supporting" them. It's long past time for the Democratic majority in Congress to make the "difficult decision" to bring our troops home safe and sound.

Posted by: richard young | April 10, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

yanquis.. Go home!

Posted by: iece | April 10, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

No, George W. Bush would never "cut and run," but our first "bobble head" President and his Neoconservative buddies surely have "bumbled and stumbled."

After years of fabrication, disinformation and an absurd Imperialist agenda from this Administration, how can anyone take them seriously?

A man whose policies have led to the deaths of over 4,000 Americans, the severe maiming of thousands of other Americans, the deaths or displacement of millions of Iraqi citizens, the marginalization of America on the "world stage," the weakening of our military capability, the trashing of our economy and a myriad of other disastrous issues, still lives in his own "parallel universe" and does not take responsiblity or see the consequences of his bankrupt actions. Remember he declared that God told him to take this course, that God was the father whose advice he would take. Apparently, that gets him off the hook.

What is far worse is that the spineless Congress of the United States for over five years now has at best let the administration get away with it, and at worst they have given him tacit consent.

This country needs someone with intelligence and backbone to standup and get this mess staightened out. Not after the elections. Now.

Posted by: Terry Griffith | April 10, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

No, George W. Bush would never "cut and run," but our first "bobble head" President and his Neoconservative buddies surely have "bumbled and stumbled."

After years of fabrication, disinformation and an absurd Imperialist agenda from this Administration, how can anyone take them seriously?

A man whose policies have led to the deaths of over 4,000 Americans, the severe maiming of thousands of other Americans, the deaths or displacement of millions of Iraqi citizens, the marginalization of America on the "world stage," the weakening of our military capability, the trashing of our economy and a myriad of other disastrous issues, still lives in his own "parallel universe" and does not take responsiblity or see the consequences of his bankrupt actions. Remember he declared that God told him to take this course, that God was the father whose advice he would take. Apparently, that gets him off the hook.

What is far worse is that the spineless Congress of the United States for over five years now has at best let the administration get away with it, and at worst they have given him tacit consent.

This country needs someone with intelligence and backbone to standup and get this mess staightened out. Not after the elections. Now.

Posted by: Terry Griffith | April 10, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Tim--

While I agree that Bill Clinton failed in securing this country against Islamic terrorist threats during his presidency, please remind me how this has anything to do with the Iraq war? As you should know, the only "weapons" that the US had any credible intel that Hussein had before we invaded were the ones we sold him in '84, namely any chemical weapons that he didn't use in the prior 19 years before we invaded. The intel that Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake from Niger turned out to be false (just google niger yellowcake) and even if it wasn't, Iraq had no means for refining it. At the earliest, Iraq couldn't have even had fissile material until 2009.

As far as the intel that Iraq was coordinating with Mohammad Atta, this also was baseless. This intel came from a certifiably insane ex-Iraqi engineer that spoke with German intelligence officials ONCE! One interview that the CIA didn't even generate was the only shred of evidence that linked Iraq to Al Qaeda.

So now, you tell me, is it worse to ignore the problem of Islamic extremist terrorism than it is to drag this country into a war that had nothing to do with terrorism in the first place? I really wish that Republicans would stop linking Iraq to the initial threat of Al Qaeda. I'm trying to be reasonable here, so use some facts and a little logic to try to make me see your side of the argument.

Posted by: mikekubo | April 10, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Bush has won, in quite some ways. He has had his way with the invasion in Iraq. His surge and cease fire got down violence in Iraq, and will keep it down until he is out of office. Most voters' minds are not on the war any more anyway, so at the end of his term, the war does not look so bad. For history, he projected the US power onto the Middle East, just leaves the question if any recession will be blamed on him.

Posted by: Gerald | April 10, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

To Tim:
Terrorists want to kill Americans, right?
How many Americans have been killed by terrorists since Bush became President? Around 7000 (3000 on 9/11 and 4000 in Iraq) with 30,000 seriously wounded.
How many Americans were killed by terrorists when Clinton was President? Around 20, as I recall. Which President did a better job of protecting Americans?

Posted by: Mike | April 10, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Hi Mike

Obviously, we can look back now and see that the intelligence was not good.

However, given the situation at the time, I feel that going to war with Iraq was the right call. Let me explain why.

When it comes to WMD's, every country needs to know that the United States is extremely serious about discovering the truth about it's potential to use them. Saddam was playing cat-and-mouse with the UN weapons inspectors for a long long time. He could have EASILY prevented a war with the United States by allowing the inspectors to do their job completely.

Here are the important things to remember about why we went to war with Iraq:

Saddam lost the Gulf War after invading another country.

He said inspectors would be allowed to inspect. He did not allow this completely.

We gave him 10 YEARS to comply with the UN Charter. He still did not comply with complete inspections. The inspectors were even harassed!

I can never understand why people but the burden of proof on the United States. The Iraqis lost the Gulf War! Our inspectors should have been able to inspect any part of that country anytime they wanted! It was THEIR BURDEN to prove that they DIDN'T have WMD's... not the other way around!

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

TO MIKE

How many Americans died on Iwo Jima? A little piece of Earth in the Pacific. Answer = 6,821 soldiers!

After 911, if you don't think the threat of Islamic terrorists is every bit as deadly then I just don't know what to say to you except this:

We are a country at war. People are killed and injured in war Mike. It's a war of ideas. The soldiers on Iwo Jima understood that and gave their lives to protect it.

I'm sorry Mike, but we're not living in a Disney movie here. The real world sucks. Deal with it.

Posted by: Tim | April 10, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

TO MIKE

How many Americans died on Iwo Jima? A little piece of Earth in the Pacific. Answer = 6,821 soldiers!

After 911, if you don't think the threat of Islamic terrorists is every bit as deadly then I just don't know what to say to you except this:

We are a country at war. People are killed and injured in war Mike. It's a war of ideas. The soldiers on Iwo Jima understood that and gave their lives to protect it.

I'm sorry Mike, but we're not living in a Disney movie here. Deal with it.

Posted by: T | April 10, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

failed oil pipeline deal with Taliban=9/11 U.S to Euro-dollar change on Iraq oil= war

Posted by: J.H | April 11, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

Bush has no agenda other than control and total power. His latest vow is to veto any bill that "....includes restrictions on his authority....". He uses the veto pen and his "signing statements" to consolidate his position and since there are not enough votes in the Senate to override his veto, we are stuck with his policies.

Posted by: Utahreb | April 11, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

hey tim, i got your back. never yield to these losers.

Posted by: jeff | April 11, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

hey tom, why don't you move to a good communist country so we don't have to endure your excrement any longer?

Posted by: jeff | April 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

This war has nothing to do with the American people except for using them as "canon fodder", to use an old expression. This is the war that was going to put Idiot Bush in the history books as a "war" president and get control of Iraq's oil, not to mention enriching his friends.

Posted by: Claire28 | April 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

From Archer:
"If the Iraqis want to settle down to forming a constitutionally framed democracy that resolves its conflicts without violence, fine, then we'll leave. Until then, we stay. McCain's estimate is about right: Anywhere from a hundred to a million years."

Are you saying this just because the people living in Iraq have NOT HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE WITH A DEMOCRATCI FORM FO GOVERNEMENT whatsoever?

Or are you saying it because the SUNNI AND THE SHI'A HAVE BEEN KILLING EACH OTHERE FOR OVER 12 CENTURIES???

Posted by: gotta shout it | April 11, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

What I find so to the point of raging four letter words..is that Bush continues to "fool" the American people on the assertion democracy and personal freedom was the overiding reason for the war in Iraq...all because of no WMD. Yet, how many countries in the Middle East of representative democracy oriented governments..Absolutely none. Countries like Jordan, UAE/Dubai, Kuwait and others are all ruled by Prince's or families..much like Saudi Arabia.

Bush is a fool in a suit..when will people become aware of the horrific damage this man has done to our country and to the thousands of soldiers wounded, maimed and now ove 4000 killed.

Iraq/2005

Posted by: RH-LTC US Army | April 13, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company