Iraq Spending/timeline

[BLZBUBBA]

Both the House and Senate have passed funding bills for Iraq and Afghanistan. They also include the timeline for withdrawal of troops. Bush vows to veto.
Then what?
Will the Democrats stand their ground forcing troops to be brought home by cutting off the money?
I was somewhat suprised the Dems stuck to their guns. If they continue to do so they'll really be showing me something.
It will be interesting, as pointed out on the news, to see Bush screaming about timelines almost 4 years to the day he was claiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED on the boat.

[Midkiff]

It's about fucking time.

Bush is all like "it's just a political statement." That's what they always blame if somebody disagrees.

W, just because your stupidity gets called out does not mean it's a political move! Something has to be done, and this is finally taking care of business! Get over yourself, punk Bush!

[Furtherman]

Although anything that pushes against Bush's arrogant mindset give me flutters of joy in my heart, the House & Senate really should put aside all political idealism and work with the White House to come up with a plan that is the most efficient way to hand over the country to the Iraqis as well as bring our troops home.

I know it sounds like a lot but with Washington at odds with each other about this war - we just don't look good to those who want to kill our soldiers and have us out of the country. Seeing bickering like this displays weakness.

I don't have any easy answers - I don't think anyone does.

I read this excellent article that everyone who still thinks Bush is right to surge the troops and stay the course should read. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=E7327616-E7F2-99DF-38F214BFD77FE010) (Don't worry - it's not political; left and right leaning is not present)

It's basically about what happens when someone says "I was wrong".

Which Bush has not done, and unfortunately never will.

But when you think about it, when people do admit their mistakes, much more often than not, they are forgiven. At least a healing would start in this country. We have to heal ourselves before we worry about the rest of the world. That is the position Bush has wedged us into.

To quote the article:

Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush delivered the following speech:

This administration intends to be candid about its errors. For as a wise man once said, "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors.... We're not going to have any search for scapegoats ... the final responsibilities of any failure are mine, and mine alone.

Bush's popularity would skyrocket, and respect for his ability as a thoughtful leader willing to change his mind in the teeth of new evidence would soar. That is precisely what happened to President John F. Kennedy after the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, when he spoke these very words.

[BLZBUBBA]

Good article FURTHERMAN.
Unfortunately the Republicans are already condemning this funding bill as
abandoning the troops and aiding al Queda.
I think the whole Iraq thing was done to lure al Queda into Iraq where we could fight them there. They screamed WMDs and regime change but I think drawing al Queda into a fight was their aim. It's the only reason I can see for the entire Iraq mess. But even that was poorly conceived. It has never been a straight-up fight. They do the hit and run while we're there swatting at flies with a baseball bat. I heard it once put this way. In order to fight a guerilla force you have to outnumber them 10 to 1. We've never been anywhere close to those numbers. It was the same deal with Vietnam.
Being optimistic I hope the two parties can work out a plan to get out with some degree of honor. I don't really like the idea of deadlines. But what ever prevented al Queda and the others attacking from waiting? I think the bottom line is that as long as we're there they'll continue the attacks. And that was probably the whole idea from the beginning. They attack us and we in turn kill them. It was never about WMDs, Saddam, or regime change...or IRAQ. If it were we would have declared victory and left when we nabbed Saddam.

[epo]

This whole thing is a horrible spot for the troops. These poor guys have been overextended and in many ways used. Now they are literally in the middle of an ugly political fight as well as a civil war.

The Democrats in Congress need to prove to the American people they have a nutsack and will deliver on the reason they've been put into a majority.

Bush is in the "legacy" portion of his presidency and is going "all-in" with Iraq. He knows that if Iraq fails he will be viewed as having a train-wreck presidency.

What an ugly spot. It's going to take some great politics, some real world diplomacy and world-view that understands that region to get us out the right way.

[AgnosticJihad]

Good article FURTHERMAN.
Unfortunately the Republicans are already condemning this funding bill as
abandoning the troops and aiding al Queda.
I think the whole Iraq thing was done to lure al Queda into Iraq where we could fight them there. They screamed WMDs and regime change but I think drawing al Queda into a fight was their aim. It's the only reason I can see for the entire Iraq mess. But even that was poorly conceived. It has never been a straight-up fight. They do the hit and run while we're there swatting at flies with a baseball bat. I heard it once put this way. In order to fight a guerilla force you have to outnumber them 10 to 1. We've never been anywhere close to those numbers. It was the same deal with Vietnam.
Being optimistic I hope the two parties can work out a plan to get out with some degree of honor. I don't really like the idea of deadlines. But what ever prevented al Queda and the others attacking from waiting? I think the bottom line is that as long as we're there they'll continue the attacks. And that was probably the whole idea from the beginning. They attack us and we in turn kill them. It was never about WMDs, Saddam, or regime change...or IRAQ. If it were we would have declared victory and left when we nabbed Saddam.

It was all about regime change and nothing to do with terrorism. The U.S. goernment wanted to overthrow Saddam, and the government of Iran, because both are destabalizing forces in the region: Saddam liked to invade his neighbors, and the mullahs in Iran like to promote revolution with a very anti-Western orientation. There are many other regimes in the region who really bad guys as well (take the House of Saud for example, who do just as much as Iran to promote fundamentalist Islam), but since these regimes maintain order and the status quo, they are perfectly fine. The reason we are still in Iraq is because we have not been able to establish a new regime that is able to maintain order, and allow the oil to flow and create a stable environment for foreign investment to come in.

I have mixed feelings about staying or withdrawing. I'm very tired of this war, and have relatives fighting over there and would love to see them come home alive. At the same time, I also feel we created this situation and have a certain responisbility to make sure we leave Iraq better off than when we came in (which it is not). I personally think we should've kept Saddam in place: he may have been brutal and oppressive, but there are other oppresive regimes in the region we don't feel the need to overthrow (as I've already pointed out); Saddam maintained order, and was a secularist, and thus did not promote fundamentalist Islam and actually did a very good job of suppressing this movement. Just more evidence that this had nothing to do with terrorism, as is the fact that our government is encouraging the Saudi government to provide logistical support for Saudi jihadis who are crossing over into Iraq to fight those who are coming in from Iran. This is really fcuking dumb, and I would really think our government would've learned form the Russo-Afghan War that supporting Jihadis isn't a very good idea; after all, our support for them there ultimately led to the Taliban and Al'Queda. However, it is part of our efforts to undermine Iran and prevent the Islammic Revolution from spreading into Iran (the main reason we used to support Saddam, before he invaded countries besides Iran), and will help to create more Jihadis to ensure that the "War on Terror" continues indefinitely and replaces the Cold War as the main justification for spending so much on "defense" (here's a couple of links showing how much we spend on defense:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/83722_1.pdf (righties)
http://www.federalbudget.com/ (lefties)

[A.J.]

Just more evidence that this had nothing to do with terrorism, as is the fact that our government is encouraging the Saudi government to provide logistical support for Saudi jihadis who are crossing over into Iraq to fight those who are coming in from Iran.

Those guys aren't getting any support from the U.S. or Saudi governments, believe me. The last thing either government wants is the creation of more experienced fighters who can possibly overthrow the Al-Sa'ud.

[AgnosticJihad]

Those guys aren't getting any support from the U.S. or Saudi governments, believe me. The last thing either government wants is the creation of more experienced fighters who can possibly overthrow the Al-Sa'ud.

Read this. I know it's a long article, but bear with it.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh

[AgnosticJihad]

Those guys aren't getting any support from the U.S. or Saudi governments, believe me. The last thing either government wants is the creation of more experienced fighters who can possibly overthrow the Al-Sa'ud.

And in case you don't want to read it, here's what the article says regarding your comment:

The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the family’s myriad princes. The princes are gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists. The Administration’s new strategy is heavily dependent on this bargain.

[A.J.]

Read this. I know it's a long article, but bear with it.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh

The Saudis are driven by their fear that Iran could tilt the balance of power not only in the region but within their own country. Saudi Arabia has a significant Shiite minority in its Eastern Province, a region of major oil fields; sectarian tensions are high in the province. The royal family believes that Iranian operatives, working with local Shiites, have been behind many terrorist attacks inside the kingdom, according to Vali Nasr.

Precisely my point. The Royal family is too concerned with internal security and they have their hands full with "Iran" in their own country. Part of their support of the U.S. is that we provide external security.

And I'm really surprised Hersh makes absolutely no mention (positive or negative) of Saudi King 'Abdallah's peace plan (http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2007/ioi/070328-peace-plan.html). If nothing else, it would help Saudi Arabia firmly establish itself as a leader in the Arab world.

[A.J.]

And in case you don't want to read it, here's what the article says regarding your comment:

The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the family’s myriad princes. The princes are gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists. The Administration’s new strategy is heavily dependent on this bargain.

I REALLY wish I could talk about this because this is not exactly true.

[AgnosticJihad]

Precisely my point. The Royal family is too concerned with internal security and they have their hands full with "Iran" in their own country. Part of their support of the U.S. is that we provide external security.

And I'm really surprised Hersh makes absolutely no mention (positive or negative) of Saudi King 'Abdallah's peace plan (http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2007/ioi/070328-peace-plan.html). If nothing else, it would help Saudi Arabia firmly establish itself as a leader in the Arab world.

I fully understand your point and that this is why the Saudis support us, and agree that the royal family doesn't want experienced fighters causing trouble for them at home. However, according to the article they are supporting Jihadis in Iraq, so I'm not sure what they're thinking. Maybe the article is wrong, but to my knowledge Hersch is a pretty reliable source of info. Plus, the way I understand it, the article says Saudi Princes are supporting the Jihadis, not King Abdallah specifically. Given that there are literaly hundreds of Saudi Princes, I'd imagine they are doing this on their own, and not necessarily with Abdallah's approval. The way I understand it, this is how the Jihadis in Afghanistan were able to get so much funding during the Russo-Afghan War, as well as from other wealthy families who wanted to appear sympathetic to the fundamentalists cause.

[AgnosticJihad]

I REALLY wish I could talk about this because this is not exactly true.

Go ahead.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't trust the Saudis at all. They've used their moeny and resources to become the main singular voice in global islam over the last 20-30 years, and that voice is an extremist, pseudo-Wahabbist one that's bad news for everyone, American, European, the rest of the Middle East...everyone. They're shaking our hands and stabbing us in the back without even trying to hide it.

[AgnosticJihad]

I don't trust the Saudis at all. They've used their moeny and resources to become the main singular voice in global islam over the last 20-30 years, and that voice is an extremist, pseudo-Wahabbist one that's bad news for everyone, American, European, the rest of the Middle East...everyone. They're shaking our hands and stabbing us in the back without even trying to hide it.

Exactly.

BTW, sorry for derailing your thread, BLZBUBBA.

[A.J.]

Go ahead.

I'd rather not be Scooter Libby's cellmate.

[Yerdaddy]

I REALLY wish I could talk about this because this is not exactly true.

But aren't you authorized to use the Cone of Silence?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Coneofsilence.jpg

[Bulldogcakes]

Total cost of war 1.2 Trillion (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html?ex=1326690000&en=7f221bfce7a6408c&ei=5090)

Other costs for US and Iraq (http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm)

Stay the course, my friends.

[A.J.]

But aren't you authorized to use the Cone of Silence?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Coneofsilence.jpg

Missed getting access to it by THAT much.

[AgnosticJihad]

I'd rather not be Scooter Libby's cellmate.

understandable

[AgnosticJihad]

Precisely my point. The Royal family is too concerned with internal security and they have their hands full with "Iran" in their own country. Part of their support of the U.S. is that we provide external security.

And I'm really surprised Hersh makes absolutely no mention (positive or negative) of Saudi King 'Abdallah's peace plan (http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2007/ioi/070328-peace-plan.html). If nothing else, it would help Saudi Arabia firmly establish itself as a leader in the Arab world.

Actually, he does mention it, just not in any detail.

[Midkiff]

The president will explain his decision to veto the legislation on network television at 6:10 pm.

Let's all start reciting his script right now, because we all know what it's gonna be. "Democrat's defeatist strategy," "artificial timetable just tells terrorists to wait a little longer and then they win," "take the fight to them so they don't bring it to us..."

Fuck that mother fucker right up his hayseed ass. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html)







Sectarian monkeys. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.office/index.html)

[Furtherman]

The last four speeches he's made have been recycled over each other. This one will be no different. Does he really have to make a speech?

We know who you are, we get it.

Allow us the pleasure of not hearing your fake Texas accent.

[AgnosticJihad]

The president will explain his decision to veto the legislation on network television at 6:10 pm.

Let's all start reciting his script right now, because we all know what it's gonna be. "Democrat's defeatist strategy," "artificial timetable just tells terrorists to wait a little longer and then they win," "take the fight to them so they don't bring it to us..."

Fuck that mother fucker right up his hayseed ass. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html)







Sectarian monkeys. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.office/index.html)

Interesting story. Again I wonder why we are even bothering.

To echo others, we already know why Bush is going to veto this bill, so why bother giving a speech. I know I won't be wasting my time watching it.

[Midkiff]

Damn right. Fuck, this country's nuts anymore.

I honestly am gonna move to another country in a couple years. I'll be here for that final '08 presidential vote, then I'm gone shortly after. Whoever gets elected will probably make that decision even easier for me.

[AgnosticJihad]

Damn right. Fuck, this country's nuts anymore.

I honestly am gonna move to another country in a couple years. I'll be here for that final '08 presidential vote, then I'm gone shortly after. Whoever gets elected will probably make that decision even easier for me.

I've been considering the same thing for years. This country is getting way to right wing politically and has been far to consumerist for me to stomach it much longer, and I'm too lazy and pessimistic to stay here and fight for change.

Once I'm done with college, I'm going to seriously look into it. I'd like to move to Western Europe, but the way I understand it they are pretty strict on letting people in, and if they do let you in it's hard to get citizenship or even permission to work.

If Europe doesn't pan out, I guess I can always immigrate to Canada. I'd consider Australia, but given my pasty white skin, I'd likely get skin cancer within a month, so fuck that.

[Midkiff]

Canada is a great choice - health care for all, etc, but you have to not mind that cold-ass weather. Western Europe is great, but then you do run into cost-of-living issues and more restrictive immigration rules - although none too strict from what I have seen. Australia would kick ass, and the scenario for them and NZ looks about the same as England. There are a couple of countries I have found that have it all, and one I have settled on for sure - but I ain't gonna broadcast that. I'll keep it under my hat. Maybe I'll whisper it to you, but otherwise I am keeping it locked down.

I'll have to just change to an XM online-only account so I can get my R&F fix.

[AgnosticJihad]

Canada is a great choice - health care for all, etc, but you have to not mind that cold-ass weather. Western Europe is great, but then you do run into cost-of-living issues and more restrictive immigration rules - although none too strict from what I have seen. Australia would kick ass, and the scenario for them and NZ looks about the same as England. There are a couple of countries I have found that have it all, and one I have settled on for sure - but I ain't gonna broadcast that. I'll keep it under my hat. Maybe I'll whisper it to you, but otherwise I am keeping it locked down.

I'll have to just change to an XM online-only account so I can get my R&F fix.

Let me guess: France.

[BLZBUBBA]

Ah. You guys.
A comic used to do this joke..."People keep telling me AMERICA...LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. I considered that, but even if I left I'd still be a victim of it's foreign policy."

[AgnosticJihad]

too true, unfortunately

[Midkiff]

Ah. You guys.
A comic used to do this joke..."People keep telling me AMERICA...LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. I considered that, but even if I left I'd still be a victim of it's foreign policy."

Yeah, actually, it is unfortunately true.

But no bit here, my friend. A common right-wing cop-out is to say stuff like, "if you don't like it, go to another country." It's a pussy thing to say, but fuck 'em. I got da balls. I am down to 2 years and 4 months.

[patsopinion]

Both the House and Senate have passed funding bills for Iraq and Afghanistan. They also include the timeline for withdrawal of troops. Bush vows to veto.
Then what?
Will the Democrats stand their ground forcing troops to be brought home by cutting off the money?
I was somewhat suprised the Dems stuck to their guns. If they continue to do so they'll really be showing me something.
It will be interesting, as pointed out on the news, to see Bush screaming about timelines almost 4 years to the day he was claiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED on the boat.


hey congrats you fucking hayseeds
only 5 years late to
dam i love politicians

[Midkiff]

Bush vetoes 'date for failure' war-spending bill

President Bush said Tuesday he vetoed a $124 billion war-spending bill that called for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq in 2008, arguing that it replaced "the opinion of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders." He said: "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure."

(Veto comes on 4th anniversary of aircraft-carrier speech.)

here's the link...

GEORGE W BUSH IS A CUNT. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html)