Don't worry. The helicopter scenes so familiar to us all from the fall of Saigon in 1975 are yet to come. Iyad Allawi is even yelling "civil war" now. What Bunnypants has done to Iraq is nothing short of war crimes.
Posted by roamer at July 11, 2005 10:14 AMIt is a record of foreign policy failure the likes of which have never been seen in modern American history.
I think you meant to say, "which have never been seen in American history."
The single worst American president, ever. Bar none. Nice legacy you get there, trolls and neo-cons! Which alcoholic failure are you guys running in 2008?
Posted by phidipides at July 11, 2005 10:33 AMCentral Asia has been lost to China, Iraq will be in Iran’s hands, the Taliban are still around, Afghanistan is not secure, Al Qaeda’s ability to strike again is unimpeded, North Korea will have armed them with WMDs, the Europeans will know that we are increasingly irrelevant, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will be even closer to toppling.
sure, if you want to pick nits.
Posted by benjoya at July 11, 2005 10:50 AMActually, you're lagging behind somewhat. Some reports after the bombing pointed out the irony that the bombing occurred the day after UK announced the projected pull-out. This was circulating well before the memo that mentions US "force reduction" and was freely available to UK media outlets last week.
Posted by buck turgidson at July 11, 2005 10:59 AMWhen it was posted that the Iranians would be training the Iraqi army, I thought either we have lost control of Iraq or this is something that will bode well for Bush and Co………Well, either way, we have lost control of Iraq (if we ever had it to begin with) and now it becomes clearer that this is Bush and Co way of cutting and running away from the wonderful mess they created…how devious. Just in time for the mid-terms……can’t afford to loose any seats.
Posted by Parallax at July 11, 2005 11:04 AMbush isn't concerned about losing seats; he has no loyalty to the republicans in congress. his only interest in retaining a GOP majority is to prevent impeachment hearings.
Posted by benjoya at July 11, 2005 11:12 AMWhile you may be right about the false loyalty, it does come down to retaining the powerful grip the GOP (the extreme wing) has on the government overall. Bush and CO are fully aware of the fast deteriorating second term of theirs…..Iraqi quagmire, Bolton, Rove/Plame, falling dollar, trade imbalance, China, and so on. They still need to maintain power….for the long term, for the good of the party. Although we are early in Bush’s second term and as crappy as it seems, they can still do more harm…this is not an administration that gives up easily (politically speaking).
Posted by Parallax at July 11, 2005 11:30 AMand lets not forget at least 300 billion in lost treasure that could nave been used to fight terrorism at home...
Posted by headxray at July 11, 2005 11:30 AMCheck Bush's savings account. :)
Posted by Judith at July 11, 2005 12:09 PMDamm good summary [as usual], albeit depressing as hell [as usual]
Make sure you are backing it up somewhere. Years from now, we will want to show historians that not everyone drunk the kool-aide.
Cath
Posted by at July 11, 2005 01:20 PMSorry folks, but there is some serious misrepresentation going on here folks.
1 - The only major withdrawal discussed in those memos is a joint UK/US reduction in numbers .. and even then, only if handover goes to plan. It is a timetable that isn’t set in stone. Nothing more than a target.
2 - The British forces aren't being withdrawn from theatre; they are being redeployed so that Britain can meet its NATO commitments that will allow a British lead NATO force to take over an increasing number of commitments from the coalition, releasing all US forces from Afghanistan (with the exception of Special Forces). In effect, what that means is that even more partners are joining the coalition forces in theatre under the auspices of NATO.
British and European NATO troops concentrate training on peacekeeping and are considered more expert in the roll required in Afghanistan, there is nothing more dramatic to it than that. The coalition isn’t falling apart and the NATO assignment gives countries who were not part of the coalition a way in and it also gives Spain and Italy a way back in.
Is it even remotely possible that anyone could have fucked things up worse than the fucking morons currently occupying the White House?
Posted by Vinnie at July 11, 2005 03:18 PMWhat I find particularly heinous is the concept that our brave men and women in uniform are being kept in harms way to provide for 2006 race gamesmanship...how do these people sleep at night?
Posted by Roy Batty at July 11, 2005 04:02 PMLet me try to sum this up, because I don't normally follow the political threads here as much.
You want Bush to give a time table. You've been demanding that. Shouting it from the mountaintops, as a matter of fact.
He initiates a time table, and now you hate it. Now you're shouting from the mountaintops that he's cuttin' and runnin' from Iraq.
How can anyone take you seriously when you change your opinions from day to day? Are you all disciples of the John Kerry flip-flopper ideology?
Posted by muckdog at July 11, 2005 04:15 PMmuckdog
The point here is that if the administration had been honest, on the level and respectful of the American public, we would have had a clearly outlined strategy of why we went to Iraq, what we were going to do once we got there and when we were going to get out (not that they would have had a good reason to invade the country). As you should be aware, this administration has presented none of that and what it has presented has been nothing but lies. Everything that the public has learned about this entire fiasco had to be pulled and yanked out Bush and Co as if from a child. Get some perspective on this!
How can anyone take you seriously when you change your opinions from day to day? Are you all disciples of the John Kerry flip-flopper ideology?
Naw. Were the more common George Bush kind:
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE...[then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...[President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ...[President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE...[President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA...[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
As for the withdrawal, with few exceptions, the concern here has always been the state of Iraq when we leave. A "withdrawal plan" to us has a series of logical steps leading to that withdrawal. But as you know, logic is not the forte of the neo-cons. In the reality based community we tend to operate under a constraint that says "You Broke It, You Bought It." I think we are, and have always been, much more concerned with the fate of the Iraqis. The assumption we can leave is predicated on all but 4 provinces being under control. But 66,000 troops appear to stay permanently. That's not a withdrawal. That's South Korea.
Posted by phidipides at July 11, 2005 06:07 PMLet me sum it for the reading comprehension impaired. Here's the problem. It's not about withdrawing the troops, it's about Dear Leader's flip flops on it.
For example his statement here.
George W. Bush, President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror, June 28, 2005
I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.
but not even 2 weeks later (maybe they looked at those newest polling results and decided to flip flop) we read and discover the exact opposite and that there is a schedule for withdrawing troops.
Yes indeed, Just what kind of a message does that flip flop send to the American troops, the Iraqi's, and the terrorist Mr. President.
I think Josh Marshall sums up the President's Iraq troop withdrawal plans quite nicely (paraphrasing from memory) "We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer, or until the 2006 midterm elections whichever comes first."
Phidipides
You got it right….
South Korea, Okinawa, the Philippines, Germany, Guantanamo,
We will never leave Iraq. After shedding blood, wasting treasure, wasting prestige, stretching our military to the max, etc. do you think this country will leave? Never. The bonds or the strings will be there for generations because this war was not only for oil but also for the sake of gaining a foothold in that part of the world….control…control…control.
Good to see emal take the offensive approach – presumably because he crippled on both the reading and comprehension fronts.
There is a HUGE difference between having a non-rigid timetable in the back of your mind and actually sharing that timetable. You would quite simply be an incompetent manager if you didn’t have something in mind.
What is fraudulently being touted as something that it isn’t, very clearly wasn’t meant for public consumption, wasn’t meant to be shared with the Iraqi people and the troops and therefore wouldn’t have been intended to raise expectations or anything else. The document was leaked.
God knows I am against this war and want the troops out as soon as possible, but it really is quite inane to make this document out to be something that it quite simply isn’t, that it isn’t a contradiction and that it reduces your to the level to that of the rather desperate propagandist spin merchant.
So Mark really doesn't care that the President lied to everyone in public...fair enough some people enjoy that kind of thing.
You mean he couldn't have made some vague statement about how they are working on timetable but it would be very tentative and dependent on many variables but nooo commander in chief continues to politicize the War and you know that Mark. You see I disagree with you right here Mark. Leveling with the American people is what is needed right now because his credibility is pretty much shot. Telling the truth about a non-rigid timetable that was being developed with lots of caution would have been the first step in restoring his credibility. You can disagree all you want, but I feel he needs to be honest and tell us what his plans are for this fiasco because it has gone on for far, far too long and I am sick and tired of the secrecy, the lies, and the utter incompetency.
He didn't lie about that.
Just cos he lied something you are running around like a headless chicken looking for everything he says to be a lie.
Quite frankly you have perposterous expectations, because if he tells the American people what common bloody sense tells them, then he raises expectations elsewhere.
Nothing short of lunacy and that would by incompetency.
Posted by Mark at July 12, 2005 05:04 PMMark, (if you're still following)
The speech I quoted from originally was nothing but political cheerleading specifically done because of sagging war support of the masses. It was pure politics and the rhetoric (and section I quoted) was in direct contradiction to what others in his administration and in the leading political party have admitted to many US newspapers/magazines. The most important difference is that they agree that Junior needs to level with the American people about what the plan is and what the benchmarks/goals are (including troop levels) at each step. Congress specifically requested that information from the DOD and it was due to them yesterday. Guess what the DOD missed the deadline...no surprise here. I still disagree with your reading here and do think that his political speech was very different than what he (and others in power)say outside of that arena. If troop deployment numbers are being discussed (and they obviously are), then Mr. Bush needs to level with the American people and the World what the non-rigid timetable is. End the secrecy, end the political rhetoric and the games, peoples patience with this farce has worn thin..Enough already!