Bush Commits 20,000 More Troops
A rather stiff President Bush did what people expected him to, committing another 20,000 troops to Iraq.
America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
Bush believes this will succeed where other efforts failed:
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
Despite an admission that things have not gone as he had planned, Bush reiterated his faith in the war as a central effort in the war on terror:
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
Discuss.
|
January 10, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (66 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: BOHICA | Jan 10, 2007 8:43:33 PM
I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing - and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.
Patriot missiles in Iraq? Iran is next.
Posted by: David English | Jan 10, 2007 11:32:51 PM
Did anyone else notice the fact Bush brought up September 11th again? More fear mongering on the part of the Bush Administration.
Sending more troops is going to do one thing for sure, which is encourage the insurgents to fight harder.
Bush's message to Americans: Stay the course, send more troops, I don't care what most Americans think.
Posted by: BlueNote | Jan 11, 2007 1:40:49 AM
From all available evidence, Bush appears to be such a dim bulb that he actually believes his own drivel including this "new direction" in Iraq. I assume that all this stuff continues to be spoon fed to George Jr. by Dick Cheney who, unlike George Jr., is very intelligent and cunning and who, as others have suggested, is entirely in the pocket of Big Oil.
I believe that when he closes his eyes at night, George Jr. forsees an Iraqi constitutional democracy where Iraq is governed by the Iraqi equivalents of George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln (and probably William F. Buckley). Unfortunately, the reality in Iraq is that the government is (and will continue to be) dominated by psychotic bomb throwers and their religious fanatic sectarian supporters. I doubt that our country would exist today if George Washington and his supporters had car bombed (buggy bombed?)Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin on their way to the Constitutional Convention. If Lincoln had ordered the sadistic execution of Jefferson Davis after the civil war (complete with black ski masks and taunting the condemned on the gallows), do you think that the US would have survived the way it has? I don't.
Given the nominal powers granted the President in the Constitution, the only way out of this that I can see is for the Congress to do an "intervention" on George Jr. Congress should immediately cancel the authorizing legislation to invade Iraq, and deny funds for the continuation of the war. Anybody who will take immediate and direct action to support that agenda has my support regardless of party affiliation.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Jan 11, 2007 1:55:29 AM
Congress should immediately cancel the authorizing legislation to invade Iraq, and deny funds for the continuation of the war. Anybody who will take immediate and direct action to support that agenda has my support regardless of party affiliation.
And mine as well. It needs to be about ending this madness, not people positioning themslves for their next run at elective office.
Posted by: edison | Jan 11, 2007 2:03:07 AM
You can't kill for peace, but you can for oil. These guys don't care about peace or human suffering. They do care about $$. They all need to go ... now.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | Jan 11, 2007 3:34:13 AM
Well, I'm certain the Martians are breathing easier tonight, since he left them unmentioned. And he was showing how considerate he can be, as it surely made poor old Osama smile.
Surge and accelerate.... I had a car like that. It only careened into a few pedestrians. But they admired me for driving such a classic Dodge Democracy.
Posted by: Sid Leader | Jan 11, 2007 8:53:08 AM
Did anyone else notice that Shakes forgot to say "God Bless You, God Bless America" at the end of his speech. He's been ending his speeches that way since his disastrous run for 5th grade class president in Midland.
Maybe Shakes has figured out there are TONS more Muslims than Christians on this Earth, which is why Iraqi teenagers with "Made in the USA" RBG's are kicking our @ss in Baghdad.
Maybe.
Posted by: Karl Smiley | Jan 11, 2007 9:53:27 AM
Bush is ironically throwing in his lot with Maliki and the Badr army and death squads of Dawa and SCIRI. The same guys backed by the Iranians. Now AlSadrs' mahdi army will be fair game. His guys pulled out of the government and won't come back unless there's a timetable for the end of the occupation and an end to Iranian influence. He's been negotiating with the non-AlQaida, Non-Salafi sunni resistance along with some Christian, Turkman and even Kurdish leaders to form an alternative unity government. I believe that the timing and manner of Sadams execution was an attempt to derail this. I fear that attacking Muqtqda and his followers in Sadr City could greatly increase the power and unity of the resistance.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 11, 2007 10:04:30 AM
Fail in Afghanistan - invade Iraq.
Fail in Iraq - attack Iran.
This is the start of an escalation well beyond troops. We just attacked an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq and seized its diplomatic staff. They were told to surrender or die. The deployment of a carrier task force and patriot missiles, along with Bush's failure to mention diplomatic measures, all add up to some kind of military action against Iran. Probably by the Israeli's.
We got a gambler for a President who keeps playing double or nothing and coming up short.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Jan 11, 2007 10:20:51 AM
We got a gambler for a President who keeps playing double or nothing and coming up short.
No kidding. Busted, he suddenly pulls another 20,000 chips out of his butt, and doesn't care if he loses them or not.
We're the ones who have to care and stop the madness.
Posted by: John Mulvey | Jan 11, 2007 11:09:08 AM
I agree with Ross 100%.
I could not believe the news this morning when I saw that we had taken the Iranian consulate. The supposed "bipartisan" era is over. Bush has been asking Congress and the public to wait for him to unveil his new plan for 2 months. Now we find out that (1) the "surge" in Baghdad is already in progress by the time the plan is announced, (2) we're sending a carrier group to the Persian Gulf to "disrupt" Iran's "meddling", and (3) the helicopter gunships were already on their way to take out the Iranian consulate.
The level of bad faith from this President is a slap in the face to Congress and the people.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are calling for war to protect Iraqi Sunnis from the Shiites and Turkey is massing troops on it's border with Iraq to put down the Kurds.
Only 24 hours ago I would have said that cutting off funding was too drastic a move, but now I can't see any other way to prevent this maniac from making this into an even worse disaster than it already is.
John
Posted by: Zak J. | Jan 11, 2007 11:13:25 AM
"The secret to a long life is knowing when it's time to go."
That applies to nations and empires as much as it does to individuals.
It's time to go.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jan 11, 2007 11:28:58 AM
Much as what the US has been doing in western Asia to conrol petroleum reserves, as most here ralize. We shouldn't ignore, though, the importance of the currency used to trade for the petroleum. Hussein was switching to Euros when we discovered WMDs there. Iran, along with other nations, is diversifying out of the US dollar now.
This is a direct threat to the value of our overextended currency, a threat that can bring down our economy faster than expensive oil. There is really little that can be done at this point to rectify our f'd up monetary policy. Unfortunately, our Bully Elite is willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people and spend trillions of tax dollars in an effort to scare the world into letting the dollar charade go on a while longer.
Don't be surprised in the US or our proxy, Israel, attacks Iran soon. What they plan to do about India, China, and Russia, I have no idea.
Posted by: genop | Jan 11, 2007 12:58:25 PM
I'm heartened so many of us seem to understand the diabolical plan gone awry that is the occupation. Depose a dictator, loan billions to an oil rich country, prop up (stabilize) its government, and collect on the debt. Use fear to gain public support. Best of all, feed the tycoon buddies with no-bid contracts.
When reality rears it's ugly head and democratization doesn't work, then what? A surge, by god, that'll do it. So, when the surge fails, and more innocents are sacrificed then what. Write off the debt. The tycoons win and we taxpayers foot the bill. Misson accomplished. The architects are laughing all the way to their offshore accounts.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 11, 2007 2:10:14 PM
George Bush:
"Yet, it’s important for our fellow citizens to understand that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for our future."
He is, of course correct. So why didn't he think of that before he invaded?
This was exactly what many of the critics of the war warned about. No one doubted the US army would beat the Iraqi army, the question was what came next. And it has been just about as bad as anyone imagined. And the other shoes - Iraq's neighbors joining the fight - may be yet to drop. The plan to use Kurdish troops against the insurgents in Baghdad means that the one ethnic group that has stayed out of it is now going to brought into the civil war.
Posted by: paul | Jan 11, 2007 2:32:22 PM
Bush's cronies are getting hammered on Capitol Hill, and some Republicans are joining in (Hagel, Coleman). G. Smith has been roundly criticized on this blog for his about face on Iraq, but nationally, his opposition is making a significant dent in the President's support, and I think we have to credit Gordon for that, regardless of his intentions.
I have to voice one note of dissent, however--I see in comments above the shopworn charge that this conflict is all about oil. I'll restate what I said when we went into Iraq--if this was all about oil, then we would have simply cooperated with Hussein. Under Saddam, the oil flowed freely and cheaply, and he served as a counterweight to Iran.
It's a dangerous oversimplification to describe this as a blood for oil conflict. It fits far too comfortably into our anti-corporate ethos.
No, this conflict is all about neo-conservative dreams of establishing pro-US democracies in the Middle East. Their rationale for the war was a lie and their strategy was terribly misguided. They've left the region far less stable, and the chances for democracy far more dim, than they were before we went in.
But I think progressives have to do the hard work of wrestling with their ultimate goal. Is it in the US interest to establish democracies in other regions? If so, how can we foster such developments? Are you willing to argue that some regions simply not ready for democracy, or does that make you too uncomfortable?
Posted by: Zak J. | Jan 11, 2007 2:51:43 PM
The plan to use Kurdish troops against the insurgents in Baghdad means that the one ethnic group that has stayed out of it is now going to brought into the civil war.
Didn't we try this in Vietnam with ethnic Cambodians and Hmong? I seem to recall the results for them weren't so good post-1975. The Kurdish leaders would be morons to commit to this, since they'll have to live in the neighborhood after leave.
Posted by: Karl Smiley | Jan 11, 2007 3:07:56 PM
Paul,
If the neocons gave a damn about democracy why didn't they start someplace easier, like Kuwait? or Saudi Arabia? Or maybe even Pakistan? Why did they end the democracy in Haiti? Why did they try to end it in Venezuela?
Posted by: John Mulvey | Jan 11, 2007 3:08:39 PM
I agree with you, Paul. The oil issue is not the motivating factor, because as we've seen, the oil conglomerates' profits go through the roof whether the supply goes up or down.
Anybody remember the Carter administration? Back then there was a windfall profits tax to prevent profiteering from the gas shortage. The same thing has been done to defense contractors in every war the US has ever been in. It used to be considered unpatriotic to benefit from a war effort. What a joke.
Regarding use of Kurdish troops, if it happens at all it will be a token effort to mollify the White House. A Shiite/Sunnite civil war is the best thing that could happen for Kurdish independence.
John
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 11, 2007 3:51:19 PM
It's a dangerous oversimplification to describe this as a blood for oil conflict. It fits far too comfortably into our anti-corporate ethos.
One of the interesting scholarly pursuits of the future will be to pull apart the multiple motivations and their principle actors for this war. Even reading some of Bush's pre-war speeches, you can see the kitchen-sink motivations that propelled us into war.
My fave, since this is also a fun parlor game to play with friends, is water. Controlling water resources in the middle east was argued by some of the old-school realpolitic types to be far more important than controlling the oil. I found it far more persuasive tactically, too.
Posted by: paul | Jan 11, 2007 4:55:36 PM
Jeff,
The whole water issue is a critical one between the various "stans" as well.
Yep, it will be an interesting history, to be sure. What is it now, 15 or 25 years when they open up the papers? I've heard Bush is convinced he's going to be viewed "like Truman" by history. I have serious doubts. Sadly, I think the next 10 years at least are going to be much more dangerous as a result of this sorry state of affairs.
Looks like the rest of the day on the Hill was brutal.
The UK has now announced that it won't follow up with more troops.
So let's start a pool: how long until this new strategy falls apart? I say six months.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 11, 2007 9:18:09 PM
So let's start a pool: how long until this new strategy falls apart? I say six months.
Six months before it becomes clear that the surge has failed, or six months before Bush admits it? I suspect it will fall apart sooner, but Bush may dig in for a looooong time.
Posted by: BlueNote | Jan 12, 2007 12:48:25 AM
Twenty or thirty years ago, the Pentagon was bragging about their newest nuclear weapon which I think was called a "Neutron Bomb". As I recall, the clever advantage of a Neutron Bomb is that it kills all the people (and sheep) in a country but leaves all of the infrastructure intact. I wonder if George Jr. has considered using Neutron Bombs in Iraq, Iran and Syria. We could get rid of all those nasty Arabs but not destroy the oil fields or the oil infrastructure or the pleasant biblical tourist spots. Plus, without those darn Arabs, we could turn the Middle East over to some nice Eurocentric types who would not bomb each other, and who probably would create a democracy within a few years.
Those of you with political connections may want to pass this recommendation on to George, Jr. as I seem to have lost his phone number.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Jan 12, 2007 4:54:10 AM
I've heard Bush is convinced he's going to be viewed "like Truman" by history.
Well THAT'S a scary thought, seeing as Truman approved the incineration of the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 12, 2007 7:11:46 AM
Well THAT'S a scary thought, seeing as Truman approved the incineration of the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think its important to remember that incinerating civilians was pretty much SOP in World War II. And that wasn't the reason people questioned Truman at the time.
But what is scary is that I think Bush doesn't understand that. He sees himself as making "tough" decisions when, in fact, he's making stupid ones.
Truman's response to the threat of the Soviet Union was the Marshall Plan.It was Truman who made the United Nations the tool for an international responce to North Korea's aggression. It was Truman who approved something less than the "unconditional surrender" that had been demanded of Japan. As a result the Emperor was allowed to stay, creating the basis for Japan's peaceful transition to a democracy. Its hard to see what it is Bush is doing that will make him look like Truman. But he may very well see using nuclear weapons against Iran as achieving that purpose.
Posted by: mrfearless47 | Jan 12, 2007 8:01:10 AM
Our killer-in-chief seems not to care about the American lives he jeopardizes as troops keep getting redeployed over and over again. Most are so battle weary that they couldn't recognize an insurgent if they dressed up in a costume that said "INSURGENT" right across their chest. My son-in-law has been in Falluja for the past 14 months, was due to return to the states in March and just got orders extending his tour until December 31st. He's *just* in the National Guard. My nephew, regular army, has already done two tours in Iraq and has been home for about a year as an Army Drill Instructor at a camp in Kentucky. He just got his orders to return to Iraq for tour #3 in mid-February after some brief retraining. They are both incredibly cynical (big surprise) about this whole war, but adopt the attitude that Bush's motto must be: "Let no soldier return home unless in a body bag or maimed for life". I've always loathed Bush, but this latest attempt to wag his limp dick and testicles at the world has converted that to pure hatred. The man isn't a moron; that denigrates morons. He's a stark, raving lunatic with his finger on the button. How soon can we start impeachment hearings?
Posted by: Zak J. | Jan 12, 2007 9:38:39 AM
He's a stark, raving lunatic with his finger on the button.
I sincerely agree with you. The man is mad.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 12, 2007 9:45:25 AM
sincerely agree with you. The man is mad.
This was my conclusion, too.
Posted by: Former Salem Staffer | Jan 12, 2007 3:53:12 PM
I think Congressional Democrats should sit Bush in the corner, put a dunce cap on him and ignore anything he has to say for the next two years. As much as I would like to see he and his cronies impeached and thrown out of office (so nobody ever destroys this country like this again), I would be willing to settle for seeing him effectively neutralized for the remainder of his presidency. The sooner we all quit listening to him or taking him seriously, the better chance we have of undoing the tremendous damage he's done to this country and the rest of the world.
Posted by: W. Bruce Anderholt | Jan 13, 2007 12:08:43 AM
John Mulvey:
There is no "Iranian Consulate" in Irbil, Iraq. The 6 detainees did not carry diplomatic passports.
Here's the official list of consulates from the Islamic Republic of Iran's Foreign Affairs Website.
You will find similar results from IranianVisa.Com
You will notice Irbil is not mentioned: Karbala and Baghdad are the only diplomatic missions staffed by the Iranians in Iraq. Guess why? Because the Iranians are currently destabilizing Iraq, and there is still distrust between the two countries.
The AP got it wrong: don't believe everything you read.
Posted by: Zak J. | Jan 13, 2007 10:12:00 AM
The sooner we all quit listening to him or taking him seriously, the better chance we have of undoing the tremendous damage he's done to this country and the rest of the world.
Nice idea, FSS, but W. still commands the military. Kind of hard to ignore him when he is in absolute control of the deployment of our soldiers. He needs impeaching. A close read of the Constitution says that the president (and vice) can be replaced, not just for crimes, but for the "inability" to perform their duties. I would say Bush's manifest incomptence at this point qualifies as inability. He needs to go before he engages with Iran; war with that nation will most likely not be confined to far-off battlefields we can all still tut-tut about from the safety of our TV couches.
Posted by: John Mulvey | Jan 13, 2007 11:02:59 AM
Thanks Bruce. Henceforth I will no longer believe everything I read.
I'm not an expert in international law, as you are. If Iraq is a soveriegn state, doesn't that give it the authority to recognize the credentials of diplomats operating within its borders? Which international treaty gives the US government the authority to enforce the rules of diplomacy between Iraq and Iran?
Please educate me further.
John
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 13, 2007 1:03:35 PM
The AP got it wrong: don't believe everything you read.
Apparently so did the Kurdish government. There is quite a long list of reports on their complaint all referring to the building as a consulate - you can find thelinks if you just Google it.
On the other hand, neither of the two links provided have a list of consulates - but I am not sure that is relevant anyway.
Posted by: Blind leading the deaf | Jan 13, 2007 2:51:14 PM
Ross/Mulvey: the Islamic Republic of Iran has a propaganda machine that is perpetrating a lie.
The AP has subsequently corrected their initial reports, and I would expect Reuters, the BBC, AFP, and (possibly) NBC and ABC to correct the word "consulate" as well. Don't expect CNN or CBS to acknowledge the mistake.
If you click on the first link I provided, then go to the left hand bullet next to "Diplomatic Missions" and then click on "Iran's Embassies" it will give you a list of every Iranian Embassy and Consulate in the world. I wish I could list them all here, but it's a long list: where you see multiple listings for the same country, you can be sure the capital city of the host nation is the Embassy and the remaining branch locations are consulates. That's been international protocol for the last 300 years.
The "Kurdish Government" is a separatist movement which would like to secede from the multi-religion and multi-ethnic National Government of Iraq. They are direct beneficiaries of Iran's willingness to destabilize the National Government because (if the sh!t ever hits the fan), there will be a less formidable military response to the declaration of independence.
The second link, IranianVisa.Com was (as you so delicately noted) a stub, which was my error. It was corrected in the previous sentence. You'll have to click a few more times to get to the letter "I" for Iraq (look under the "please select" drop down) but you'll surely notice there is no listing for Erbil/Arbil/Irbil.
One of the alleged detained "diplomats", Dr. Hassam Abbasi has a detailed record of vitriol, terror, and leadership in the struggle to defeat the Great Satan (that would be us). I don't believe that either the White House or the Departments of Defense or State have yet admitted who they arrested, but the Iranian media have already done so. Those of you in Rio Linda and Boring will need to scroll down to the third story before you give up all hope of finding it.
Fairly ironic that George Bush has got your back while y'all are trying to BBQ his.
Posted by: Blind leading the deaf | Jan 13, 2007 4:05:42 PM
NPR's Morning Sedition called it the "Iranian Consulate"; while All Things Considered used the more conservative "Iranian Office". The NYT is using "Iranian government liaison office" which offers both ambiguity and precision: the office facilitated the liaison of Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents to the Iraqi "Resistance" movement (because no matter who I call them, it will offend somebody).
Here's a good opinion piece that will provide some background on Hassan Abbasi which ran in the WSJ, but please don't hold that against the author: he's an expert on the region. And who really cares if it was a consulate or not: if the DoD believes they helped to kill Americans, we should all delight in their capture.
Right, Speaker Pelosi?
Hassan Abbasi was quoted:
The Western powers, especially the United States, still wield immense military and economic power that “looks formidable on paper.” But they are unable to use that power because their populations have become “risk-averse.” “The Western man today has no stomach for a fight,” Abbasi says. “This phenomenon is not new: All empires produce this type of man, the self-centered, materialist, and risk-averse man."
He continued, "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
Nothing to worry about, kids, nosireee. Probably just empty rhetoric.
Posted by: lin qiao | Jan 13, 2007 7:13:42 PM
A look at the latest issue of Harper's would be quite a good idea.
Posted by: PssstHeyBuddyWannaBuyaClue | Jan 13, 2007 7:45:28 PM
Harper's...They make the lists, right?
Here's one you may find compelling (you can only read the preview without subscription, but it's a generous preview), written by the former P.M. of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew.
I'll read you mine if you'll read me yours?
Posted by: Ladies Home Journal | Jan 13, 2007 8:01:49 PM
Here's a piece from LHJ.COM The Ladies Home Journal!
Granted, we may not have the same gravitas as Harper's Bazzar, but we've been publishing longer.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 14, 2007 1:17:10 PM
Rice told reporters that the Iranian office was not a diplomatic consulate, which would be protected by international treaty...
But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contended the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate.
"the Islamic Republic of Iran has a propaganda machine that is perpetrating a lie."
With the help of the elected Iraqi government apparently...
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 14, 2007 1:38:53 PM
"Hassan Abbasi was quoted:"
Actually he wasn't quoted, a book by Efraim Karsh was quoted. Here is part of the entry on Karsh from wikipedia:
"Starting with an article in the magazine Middle East Quarterly [1], Karsh alleged that the new historians "systematically distort the archival evidence to invent an Israeli history in an image of their own making". Karsh also provided numerous examples where, he claimed, the new historians "truncated, twisted, and distorted" primary documents. Avi Shlaim's reply [2] defended his analysis of the Zionist-Hashemite negotiations prior to 1948, which Karsh had particularly attacked. Benny Morris declined immediate reply [3], accusing Karsh of a "mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies", but published a lengthy rebuttal in the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies. Morris replied to many of Karsh's detailed accusations, but also returned Karsh's personal invective. Karsh also published an attack [4] on an article of Morris [5], charging him with "deep-rooted and pervasive distortions"."
Which is not to say Karsh is wrong. Just that he is a partisan in this debate who has his own motives for discrediting Iran. They have little or nothing to do with whatever real threat it may pose to the United States. But it certainly adds to the perception that we are about to embark on another adventure in diplomacy at gunpoint. We can only hope Bush wins one of these gambles. But gamblers don't usually quit until they have lost everything.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 14, 2007 1:49:46 PM
And then we have Dick Cheney that if we withdraw, "we’d simply go back and revalidate the strategy that Osama bin Laden has been following from Day 1 that if you kill enough Americans, you can force them to quit;"
The flip side of that, of course, is that the more Americans get killed, the more it disproves bin Laden's theory. Which makes sense only if you have no skin in the game.
Posted by: The word consulate is, is? | Jan 14, 2007 2:34:37 PM
Iraqi and Iranian officials initially said the Iranian office raided in Irbil was a diplomatic mission. But Mohammad Ali Hosseini, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, later changed the description to an "office of relations."
"The office was waiting for permission from the Iraqi authorities to operate as a consulate," Hosseini said, according to Iranian state television.
AlJazeera.net a well known NeoCon website, reports:
The five men were arrested on Thursday in a US raid on an Iranian government office in the Iraqi city of Arbil.
[Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs] Hosseini told a news conference: "Americans should immediately release the five Iranians and pay compensation for the damages they caused to our office in Arbil.
"What they were doing was consular work. These were employees who were doing their job according to the rules.
It appears the rules have changed, Minister Hosseini.
Posted by: 444 Days | Jan 14, 2007 2:56:15 PM
If the Iranians are retreating from the word "Consulate", maybe Ross will too?
Tell them they only have to wait another 442 days until we let the hostages go. Because turnabout is fair play.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 14, 2007 3:41:42 PM
"If the Iranians are retreating from the word "Consulate", maybe Ross will too?"
I couldn't care less what its called. The Iraqi foreign minister was pretty clear about what it was.
Posted by: Greg Tompkins | Jan 14, 2007 4:42:20 PM
What kind of double standard is this? Iran has the audacity to say that we have to release 5 of their hostages? How long did they hold our hostages when Carter was president? Now I see the Iranians are forging friendly alliances with countries in our sphere of influence (central America). I say time to bring back the draft and take out Iran before they annihaliate us and Israel, too.
Posted by: John Mulvey | Jan 14, 2007 7:26:27 PM
That's great Greg. You'll be volunteering to be included in the first unit across the Iranian border I assume? If not then how much is your "tough" talk worth?
If all your talk is about somebody else doing the fighting then you are a pathetic little man pretending to be worth a shit.
Posted by: Greg Tompkins | Jan 14, 2007 7:54:57 PM
I would be happy to!! Where do I sign up? BTW, what is your plan to stop the Iranian nuclear missile threat? I don't see you offering any solutions.
--GREG--
Posted by: 2 bad, Scio Sad | Jan 14, 2007 8:09:54 PM
I think Mulvey is a pathetic little man pretending to know something about which he knows nothing.
Truth be told, it actually 5 countries. Although Joe Stalin and the Assad Boys did their best to annihilate their Kurdish populations. At least they weren't Red States. Best of luck to Ross & Mulvey on their Anti-American Jihad on George Bush. Allahu Akbar.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Caelan MacTavish | Jan 10, 2007 8:23:30 PM
"Nobody Leaves Until the Oil is Safe"
How long will we stay in Iraq? Until the oil is safe.
Now the third-longest conflict in US history, Iraq is not marked by a change in control of government, territory, or religion. We invaded in 2003, achieved military victory, and then we did not leave. Why?
The oil was not safe.
For nearly four years, we have shepherded Iraq along its inevitable descent into civil war. Why couldn’t we just let the power vacuum fill on its own?
The oil was not safe.
With 132,000 troops in Iraq, we stationed not even 4,000 in early 2006 in Baghdad. Why were the other 128,000 troops elsewhere?
The oil was not safe.
But their job is not done; we will “surge” some troops into Baghdad to quell that city as we quelled Fallujah. These “surging” troops will not come from a new draft, or from new conscripts; they will come from battle-weary troops who have already completed up to three tours of duty. Their time with their families will be cut short so that they can invade neighborhoods populated with fierce and armed anti-American Iraqis.
These Baghdad patriots are holding back America from our true goal: making the oil safe for American war profiteers.
Democrats, take up the call! Not one soldier comes home, until the oil is safe!