excellent post, turkana. it seems you are knowledgeable across the board.
it really is time, and past time, we democrats started talking about iraq.
i see clinton made a strong speech on iraq today down in texas.
glad she finally got her butt off that rhetorical stump she's been sitting on for months,
and started talking about things i care about.
as for how long we'll continue to occupy iraq,
despite what McCain or obama or petraeus or lieberman, or wide-mouthed billy kristol expect or hope,
the failing economy we are entering now will stop that occupation cold.
bet on it.
will any sane american politician want to explain in september 2008 why we need to continue spending billions per month "over there",
when the fact that we never needed to be there in the first place has been so well-documented by now
and millions are having trouble holding onto their jobs or their homes?
Posted by orionATL at March 17, 2008 12:52 PMorion,
ultimately, you may be right- iraq may turn out to be for us what afghanistan was for the soviet union. it's breaking our soul, our military, and our economy.
Posted by Turkana at March 17, 2008 12:54 PMIn october of 2002, who said this?:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical
and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and
his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary
to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members”.
Hint: She's running for president.
Posted by at March 17, 2008 01:00 PMThe obvious question is why haven't the benchmarks been reached (not that they haven't been met) and who is responsible for not meeting those benchmarks?
We are at 3,988 American deaths five years after the Mission Accomplished speech, and no end in sight. One cannot begin to talk about the death, destruction, and human suffering of the Iraqi men, women and children. How much longer can we keep this insanity going?
Posted by Judith at March 17, 2008 01:05 PManonymous (as if anyone doesn't know):
when cds is made an official diagnosis, you will be a case study. congrats!
Posted by Turkana at March 17, 2008 01:08 PMThe US invaded a country for fun, and now occupy it. The fighting will never stop until the occupiers leave. It may not stop then, but it might.
Posted by T2 at March 17, 2008 01:19 PMTo anonymous posted @ 1:00 p.m.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
People have been posting this bs for years. No matter how many times it's been refuted, some still believe it (these are the people who comprise Bush's 19% popularity rating, I guess)
BTW, Cheney says that Iraq was a "successful endeavor"!!!! Holy crap!
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0157942120080317
Posted by Moon at March 17, 2008 01:19 PM"...an egregious strategic blunder that persistence will only compound."
Surge to Nowhere by Andrew Bacevich, Washington Post, 20Jan08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802873_pf.html
Too bad so many innocent Iraqis and faithful US soldiers died needlessly to advance Chinese, Iranian and Russian influence at America's expense.
At least the nation's arms manufacturers and oil industries are benefitting.
And creditors owning the US debt our children will repay that financed it.
Someday, the nation will find a way to properly recognize their actions.
Just in case you don't know how to look for it, here's the whole thing.
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York also spoke on the issue of the Iraq resolution:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
AND, who said this?
"I hope you kill every man, woman and child in Iraq down to the lizards. And may George W. Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq."
I'm pretty sure it was Hillary before the Iraq War vote or on an Iraqi visit or on a Pentagon visit, maybe chilling out with good ol' Rummy or Cheney or Rice or something.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 17, 2008 02:15 PMI think it's too late for you to try to be "funny", Bell.
Posted by Moon at March 17, 2008 02:25 PMWell, Moon, I don't think it's too late for Hillary supporters to pull the sticks out of their collective a**.
Besides, who is to say I'm not entirely serious.
Anyway, as I have said repeatedly, I have been hanging around as an interested reader far longer than the invasion of the rabid Hillary supporters. I started off in my thread comments supporting Obama far more gently than I am today. I was even positive. It was only after being repeatedly insulted and sworn at that I resorted to the same name-calling right back. I reached out to be friendly with Hillary supporters like Coyote repeatedly to no avail. Once my candidate gets the nomination, I will be very magnanimous. Indeed I still am. Come on, support Obama! He's a really great candidate deserving your support.
Unlike the Clinton lady who wanted to suck the blood of Iraqi orphans like a vampire.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 17, 2008 02:38 PMMoon, I think your best bet is to ignore Brian, like you would any other troll. He's now pulling a peter, hoping to draw anyone he can into a flameout. I guess the stress finally got to him. Being outed as a racist, and a homophobe after exposing himself as a misogynist finally tweaked his brain. Now, he's just creepy.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2008 02:46 PMWatch it coyote!
He'll threaten you with legal action.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 02:50 PMFlorida Democrats aren't going to re-vote. Now it's up to the DNC to figure this one out. Good luck...hope they're not needed for someone to win the nomination. We'll see how much the rules mean now.
Posted by peter at March 17, 2008 02:55 PMHe'll threaten you with legal action.
Being creeped out by an anonymous commenter on a blog is illegal?? Who knew?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2008 02:59 PMI googled "Afghanistan romantic getaway packages for 2", and I'm coming up empty.
Was the chimp just kidding?
Posted by TIKI AL at March 17, 2008 03:05 PMTIKI, I think you'll have to check with the US Marines for that all-expense-paid trip!
Did anyone see that the CEO of Qwest, who was railroaded by Bush, has had his conviction overturned and will be retried? Can't wait for discovery on that one!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2008 03:11 PMGod you are funny, TIKI. LOL.
He wasn't kiddin', but surely someone else searches the internets for him and whomever he gets "romantic" with.
Posted by euzoius at March 17, 2008 03:11 PMI googled "Afghanistan romantic getaway packages for 2", and I'm coming up empty.
Was the chimp just kidding?
Was he talking about the Military's Buddy System?
Posted by Seven of Six at March 17, 2008 03:33 PMThe "opposite sex buddy system"?
Isn't that what got Spitzer into trouble?
If "Afghanistan is romantic", Iraq must be orgasmic. For that stupid remark, I think bush owes the troops some complimentary Empire Club worker visits.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 17, 2008 03:56 PMI never threatened you, Snark, and I know exactly to what you're referring and you're wrong that there was a threat. I just pointed out how wrong you were. Feel free to ignore me, Coyote. You never bothered to actually listen to anything I said anyway.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 17, 2008 05:10 PMonce again, where's a Nuremberg Trial when you need one for this pack of war criminals?
Posted by gay veteran at March 17, 2008 05:47 PM