No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq,

[Princess Serenity]

I have to agree with Ketros. It really cause something worse if we try to leave Iraq.

Shouldn't the first word be "Not" instread of "No?"

[BrucePrime]

saddam was a CIA operative built up by george sr and that class of CIA agents....I believe bush sr was a cia agent since the early 60s....what a great cover as ambassador to china...

So...when exactly did he build-up Hussien? When he was a US Rep (67-71), Ambassador to the UN (71-73), RNC chairman (73-74), Chief Liason Officer to the US mission in China (74-76), or when CIA director for 355 days? Seems like he was already built up before GHWB was in positions of power.

GHWB was never a CIA agent. Yes, he did have ties to the CIA, but was never an agent -- he was described as a CIA "asset".

You have no evidence Saddam was a CIA "operative" or was built up by the agency, other than your terrible understanding of history and bad conspiracy theories. If you do have evidence, you are welcome to post it.

Edited May 3, 2007 by BrucePrime

[BrucePrime]

We'll probably hear more drear and fear in the Repubo's debate tonight.

It will air on MSNBC as well as a video stream of it here: http://www.politics.msnbc.com

Certainly.

You don't see the irony in your statement, do ya'? It's so cute.

[Unlimited]

It's a matter of record that the US armed saddam hussien during the 70s and 80's i dont need to post proof....they armed Iraq while they were arming Iran..this is simple war history...where do you think saddam got the WMD's?...and if GHWB bush was involved like his family was with texaco and saddam.. it would be covered up...

[Bob26003]

W has been taking bribes from the Saudis for years....... Hell, the Taliban even visited Texas. The Bush Crime family! Their all corrupt.

Edited May 3, 2007 by Bob26003

[__Kratos__]

Exactly, there ARE more problems now. That is precisely why everyone is against the War. 80% of the reconstruction money has been spent, and don't quote me here but I believe 60-70% of Iraqis dont have access to clean drinking water. Electricity is below Prewar levels, and down from what it was last year even.

The vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave and say they would be safer with us gone.

+

That money needs to be spent though... And it is because well the Iraqi market is going surprisingly good right now. All over Iraq businesses and life are getting back in order. The majority of all problems are in one city and Anbar... Though this year less and less in Anbar because of the progress that has been kicking forth by the sunnis.

By staying we are going against the will of the Iraqi people and the American people.

The freely elected Iraqi government wants the US to stay.

The American people fully supported the war in Iraq. Can't make a mess and then refuse to clean it up.

I think people see this as a bottomless hole............ Only the Iraqis can fix their country. They have the resources and the manpower, but not the will. They do not want Iraq to look how we want Iraq to look.

This has got to end IMHO. It is a bottomless pit........ The longer we stay, the bigger the insurgency gets.

We have been there long enough. We have failed........... Period

Iraqis are a huge part in fixing their country. They don't have the resources and the manpower is hard to get or they're just not ready yet. From all the oil production in last year, I believe the Iraqi government can really only pay for some of their military because the production just isn't going up. This year should be better because there are more investors coming into Iraq and the government is seeing how very important it really is.

We haven't failed. We haven't won either. We have to stay until Iraq can work and defend it's self.

[Unlimited]

+

The freely elected Iraqi government wants the US to stay.

The American people fully supported the war in Iraq. Can't make a mess and then refuse to clean it up.

the freely elected governments about to take a two month vacation.. in light of the situation....would the american people have been for the war if they hadn't been repeatedly lied too...

[Cinders]

You read this bit of recent news right?? And it's no suprise... but still.. WTF?

Shadowy Iraq office accused of sectarian agenda

POSTED: 8:27 p.m. EDT, May 1, 2007

Nuri al-Maliki set up the group of advisers to give him support as Iraq's commander in chief.

• Powerful advisers are accused of having an extreme Shiite bias

• U.S. military, intelligence sources: Office could undermine entire U.S. effort

• Iraqi defense minister says the Office is a consultation office and "nothing else"

• Senior Iraqi army officer says: "It's people with no power who want to have power"

By Arwa Damon

CNN

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country's sectarian divide.

The Office of the Commander in Chief has the power to overrule other government ministries, according to U.S. military and intelligence sources.

Those sources say the 24-member office is abusing its power, increasingly overriding decisions made by the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior and potentially undermining the entire U.S. effort in Iraq.

Full article here

Edited May 3, 2007 by Cinders

[AROCES]

W has been taking bribes from the Saudis for years....... Hell, the Taliban even visited Texas. The Bush Crime family! Their all corrupt.

Was it an official visit ? Or a Taliban member told you about it?

[AROCES]

the freely elected governments about to take a two month vacation.. in light of the situation....would the american people have been for the war if they hadn't been repeatedly lied too...

Who repeatedly lied?

[Goblin-5]

Options for Iraq following a US troop pullout

1. All intercine violence stops and Iraq government successfully runs country with popular support. US gets blamed for not pulling out sooner and allowing this utopia to occur (Not in this lifetime IMO)

2. Iran, Turkey and Saudi carve up Iraq between them amid a huge bloodbath of religous/ethnic violence between the Turks/Kurds and Sunnis/Shiites. US gets blame for all deaths because of their pullout before securing a peace in Iraq. (Very likely IMO)

3. Country is split betwen shiites, Sunnis and Kurds with a semi autonomous government for each faction. US gets blame for not allowing this to happen earlier (Ideal scenario, but most unlikely. Turkey will never allow a Kurdish homeland and Shiites and Sunni cant agree that the sun rises in the East)

4. Iraq descends into massive civil war with hundreds of thousands dead/displaced. Country becomes ungovernable. Iran steps in to "protect" its fellow religionists from extermination triggering new mid east war with Syria and Iran on one side and Saudi and Turkey on the other. US gets blame for not stopping Iranian aggression and for not reining in Saudi and Turkey (very likely)

5. New strongman rises in Iraq. Sets up a Talibanesque regime ruled by terror. Al Queda gets new bases and support and starts a renewed terror campaign against the West. US gets blame for allowing a "New Saddam" to rise up who supports terrorism (Quite possible)

6. US and Israel attack Iranian nuclear plants. Everybody forgets about Iraq. US gets blamed for starting new war (Possible)

Anyone see a common thread in the outcomes?

Edited May 3, 2007 by Goblin-5

[BrucePrime]

W has been taking bribes from the Saudis for years....... Hell, the Taliban even visited Texas. The Bush Crime family! Their all corrupt.

I'm going to assume you're refering the Taliban's 1997 trip to meet with UNOCAL officials in Houston. The trip was to secure a deal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan; UNOCAL represented a cosortium of Japanese, Pakistani, Saudi companies interested in the deal.

I'm sure that many a serial-killer, mobster, and child-rapist have passed through Texas, that doesn't mean who-ever is governor at the time is somehow in cahoots with them. Despite being governor, Bush (or any other governor for that matter) is powerless to stop someone from entering their state, much less the country.

In order to visit Texas, the Taliban had to win approval from the State Department, which was controlled by Madeline Albright.

And according to this article from the UK Telegraph, the trip, along with the pipeline, had the blessing, backing and support of the Clinton White House! In fact, the article says, "The Unocal group has one significant attraction for the Taliban - it has American government backing. At the end of their stay last week, the Afghan visitors were invited to Washington to meet government officials. The US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children "despicable", appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract. The Taliban is likely to have been impressed by the American government's interest as it is anxious to win international recognition."

Funny, there is no mention anywhere of the Taliban meeting with the then Texas-governor, but they meet with the Democrats. Interesting, don't you think?

Next time, trying backing up your rhetoric with facts. But you're welcome to play again.

[Unlimited]

Who repeatedly lied?

Bush... i watched the speeches; and he lied so many times it's boggling..."he has drones that can reach the US and spray you with chemicals"..gw bush ...thats called putting the fear in the common man..to start your war...aroces when bush is finally arrested you might? open your eyes..but it's doubtful..

[AROCES]

Bush... i watched the speeches; and he lied so many times it's boggling..."he has drones that can reach the US and spray you with chemicals"..gw bush ...thats called putting the fear in the common man..to start your war...aroces when bush is finally arrested you might? open your eyes..but it's doubtful..

Everything he said was from intelligence provided to him, and most of those intelligence the United Nations, Clinton and a whole bunch of Democrats bought into. So, Bush was not the only liar, correct?

[Unlimited]

make the case...was all the intelligence agencys heard....tenet even said their was no discussion on the threat..just how to make the case for war...clinton is a buffoon what would he know about saddams weapons..

[BrucePrime]

the freely elected governments about to take a two month vacation.. in light of the situation....would the american people have been for the war if they hadn't been repeatedly lied too...

Question for you, Unlimited...

Throughout the 1990s, the Clinton Administration (at the blessing of the UN) enforced a sanctions regime against Iraq, and conducted numerous bombing campaigns against the Ba'athist regime. These actions were taken for many of the same reasons the Bush Administration invaded Iraq. Now, my question to you is, was the Clinton Administration lying as well?

If Bush was lying about WMDs in Iraq, then so was the Clinton Administration. The point of Operation Desert Fox was to "degrade" the Ba'athist ability to make WMDs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox)

And I will also remind you it is the Clinton Administration that first illustrated ties between Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden, as per the indictment against Osama Bin Laden for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Nirobi and Dar es Salaam. So, if Bush lied about ties between al'Qaeda and Ba'athist Iraq, was Clinton lying as well?

[BrucePrime]

make the case...was all the intelligence agencys heard....tenet even said their was no discussion on the threat..just how to make the case for war...clinton is a buffoon what would he know about saddams weapons..

I think I got an answer to my question. That is an interesting defense of the Clinton, I have to say...

[Unlimited]

Question for you, Unlimited...

Throughout the 1990s, the Clinton Administration (at the blessing of the UN) enforced a sanctions regime against Iraq, and conducted numerous bombing campaigns against the Ba'athist regime. These actions were taken for many of the same reasons the Bush Administration invaded Iraq. Now, my question to you is, was the Clinton Administration lying as well?

If Bush was lying about WMDs in Iraq, then so was the Clinton Administration. The point of Operation Desert Fox was to "degrade" the Ba'athist ability to make WMDs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox)

And I will also remind you it is the Clinton Administration that first illustrated ties between Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden, as per the indictment against Osama Bin Laden for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Nirobi and Dar es Salaam. So, if Bush lied about ties between al'Qaeda and Ba'athist Iraq, was Clinton lying as well?

Clinton blew up an aspirin factory, a ball bearing factory, and i think a baby food manufacturer during desert fox....a sweeping success...and yes i suppose clinton was lying as well..whatever placates the war machine...

[AROCES]

make the case...was all the intelligence agencys heard....tenet even said their was no discussion on the threat..just how to make the case for war...clinton is a buffoon what would he know about saddams weapons..

How would I or you know if all intelligence was heard? Tenet had to explain why his intelligence was inaccurate, that is what he should be focusing on and make sure it does not happen again. Instead he writes a book of blame game.. There was no discussion on the threat? Then he should have not presented anything that poses a threat if he was not sure about it.

[AROCES]

Clinton blew up an aspirin factory, a ball bearing factory, and i think a baby food manufacturer during desert fox....a sweeping success...and yes i suppose clinton was lying as well..whatever placates the war machine...

And remember those times? The talking point was not Clinton lied, but why we made the mistake? Or what happened to the Intelligence?

But now basically the same intelligence inaccuracy, and it is BUSH LIED!

I mean who can't see what the Democrats are doing?

[Bob26003]

I am no supporter of Clinton. The intelligence he used was wrong.......... Hence the bombing of the Pharma plant. But see this is where it gets interesting, by the time Bush was making his war drum speeches, they knew the Intelligence was full of holes at best and wrong at worst. Hence, Douglas Feith "making alternative intelligence assessments in an inappropriate manner" (I am pretty sure that is the exact quote from the Pentagon report)

And Bruce, as Far as Bush's dealings with the Taliban. Please refer to the article below from before Sept. 11.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01...umns/052201.htm

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban

By Robert Scheer

Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

========

Bush's Enron buddies were freinds with them too.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...20497texasvisit

1996-September 11, 2001: Enron Gives Taliban Millions in Bribes in Effort to Get Afghan Pipeline Built

The Associated Press will later report that the Enron corporation bribes Taliban officials as part of a “no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan.” Atul Davda, a senior director for Enron’s International Division, will later claim, “Enron had intimate contact with Taliban officials.” Presumably this effort began around 1996, when a power plant Enron was building in India ran into trouble and Enron began an attempt to supply it with natural gas via a planned pipeline through Afghanistan (see 1995-November 2001 and June 24, 1996). In 1997, Enron executives privately meet with Taliban officials in Texas (see December 4, 1997). They are “given the red-carpet treatment and promised a fortune if the deal [goes] through.” It is alleged Enron secretly employs CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas. According to a CIA source, “Enron proposed to pay the Taliban large sums of money in a ‘tax’ on every cubic foot of gas and oil shipped through a pipeline they planned to build.” This source claims Enron paid more than $400 million for a feasibility study on the pipeline and “a large portion of that cost was pay-offs to the Taliban.” Enron continues to encourage the Taliban about the pipeline even after Unocal officially gives up on the pipeline in the wake of the African embassy bombings (see December 5, 1998). An investigation after Enron’s collapse in 2001 (see December 2, 2001) will determine that some of this pay-off money ended up funding al-Qaeda. [Associated Press, 3/7/2002]

===============

Please Watch the Video

Oh, now he’s done done it. Keith Olbermann and the folks at Countdown has put together exactly what the Bush administration was given prior to 9/11. I had some specific examples listed on my website. But it’s a little bit different when they list the exact documents. The one thing that I was not aware of was that Osama bin Laden may have been offered to the Bush administration in February of 2001! This is major. Ari Fleischer was asked a question in February about an offer from Sudan brokered through Saudi Arabia to give up bin Laden. Ari Fleischer states that he’ll get back to the reporter and there is no record that he ever brought up the subject again. Interesting. (The first several minutes need to be edited off of this but, because of my own time constraints, I thought it’s best that I posted now.)

http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress...tion-really-do/

=================

Gotta love this too:

U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law.

The offer came as the United States massed forces in southwest Asia for a possible strike against Afghanistan if the Taliban refuse to surrender bin Laden. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer and repeated U.S. demands that bin Laden be turned over unconditionally.

The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence.

The United States blames bin Laden for the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

"America has given evidence to other countries, we do not say anything," Zaeef said. "If Americans are convinced that they have solid evidence, we are ready for his trial in Afghanistan, and they have to produce that evidence."

[AROCES]

I am no supporter of Clinton. The intelligence he used was wrong.......... Hence the bombing of the Pharma plant. But see this is where it gets interesting, by the time Bush was making his war drum speeches, they knew the Intelligence was full of holes at best and wrong at worst. Hence, Douglas Feith "making alternative intelligence assessments in an inappropriate manner" (I am pretty sure that is the exact quote from the Pentagon report)

Oh, Clinton saw no holes, but Bush was able to see the holes and because he wants to make his buddies rich. He said, the heck with my legacy and 2nd term in office, my friends needs to get rich and I'll just take the gamble and hope the American people won't find out I lied.

You do have a very comical theory,.

[ninjadude]

Back to the original topic. Here's a truly conservative viewpoint. I don't want any more of my hard earned money or my adult children's hard earned money going down a never ending hole in Iraq. 500 Billion dollars in enough already (plus all the uncounted tons of their own shrinkwrapped money we shipped back to them). In fact, it's way more than enough.

You see, I suspect that the Neocons on this board will say that it's not. That they want to spend more. I suspect they are no longer Republicans or conservatives. Neocon is now a political movement that wants never ending war and subservience to a unitary executive (i.e. dictator).

[ninjadude]

Everything he said was from intelligence provided to him, and most of those intelligence the United Nations, Clinton and a whole bunch of Democrats bought into. So, Bush was not the only liar, correct?

Saying that "everyone else did it" is not a defense. They tried that at Nuremberg.

[Pinky Floyd]

We need to just go ahead a split Iraq up into 3 parts (Krd Shia Sunni) and call it a day..Split the oil revenues amongst the 3 based on demographic percentages.

If the UN gripes, make them come up with something better...they will fail and then agree with the decision, realizing that splitting the country along secular lines is what should of happened long ago..

But the UN will take the credit for all of it...that is, only if it's a success..