Bush On Iraq & The Cost

Loading

With Hillary stating a few days ago that we cannot win in Iraq Bush came out today and told her and the rest of the country that we ALREADY are winning in Iraq, and will continue to do so unless the defeatists win and force a withdrawal:

Question: Take a guess how this writer feels about Iraq

Five years after launching the invasion of Iraq, President Bush strongly signaled Wednesday that he won’t order troop withdrawals beyond those already planned because he refuses to “jeopardize the hard-fought gains” of the past year.

As anti-war activists demonstrated around downtown Washington, the president spoke at the Pentagon to mark the anniversary of a war that has cost nearly 4,000 U.S. lives and roughly $500 billion. The president’s address was part of a series of events the White House planned around the anniversary and next month’s report from the top U.S. figures in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. That report will be the basis for Bush’s first troop-level decision in seven months.

“The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated,” Bush said.

But, he added, before an audience of Pentagon brass, soldiers and diplomats: “The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory.”

Democrats took issue with Bush’s stay-the-course suggestion.

“With the war in Iraq entering its sixth year, Americans are rightly concerned about how much longer our nation must continue to sacrifice our security for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Democrats will continue to push for an end to the war in Iraq and increased oversight of that war.”

Bush repeatedly and directly linked the fight there to the global battle against the al Qaida terror network. And he made some of his most expansive claims of success. He said the increase of 30,000 troops that he ordered to Iraq last year has turned “the situation in Iraq around.” He also said that “Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al Qaida out.”

“The surge … has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror,” the president said. “We are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his terror network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated.”

Bush appeared to be referring to recent cooperation by local Iraqis with the U.S. military against the group known as al-Qaida in Iraq, a mostly homegrown, though foreign-led, Sunni-based insurgency. Experts question how closely — or even whether — the group is connected to the international al-Qaida network. As for bin Laden, he is rarely heard from and is believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

The U.S. has about 158,000 troops in Iraq. That number is expected to drop to 140,000 by summer in drawdowns meant to erase all but about 8,000 troops from last year’s increase.

Faster and larger withdrawals could unravel recent progress, said Bush. “Having come so far and achieved so much, we are not going to let this happen,” he said.

It is widely believed that he will endorse a recommendation from Petraeus next month for no additional troop reductions, beyond those already scheduled, until at least September. This pause in drawdowns would be designed to assess the impact of this round before allowing more.

The surge was meant to tamp down sectarian violence in Iraq so that the country’s leaders would have time to advance legislation considered key to reconciliation between rival Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities. But the gains on the battlefield have not been matched by dramatic political progress, and violence again may be increasing.

Bush, who has successfully defied efforts by the Democratic-led Congress to force larger troop withdrawals, criticized those who “still call for retreat” in the face of what he called undeniable successes.

“The challenge in the period ahead is to consolidate the gains we have made and seal the extremists’ defeat,” he said. “We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast — the terrorists and extremists step in, fill the vacuum, establish safe havens and use them to spread chaos and carnage.”

With just 10 months before he hands off the war to a new president, Bush is concerned about his legacy on Iraq.

Both Democratic candidates have said they would begin withdrawing forces quickly if elected. Only expected GOP nominee John McCain has indicated he planned to continue Bush’s strategy of bringing troops home only as conditions warrant.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who just completed a two-day visit to Iraq, said the administration won’t “be blown off course” by continued strong opposition to the war in the United States.

Cheney compared the administration’s task now to Abraham Lincoln’s during the Civil War. “He never would have succeeded if he hadn’t had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there,” Cheney said of Lincoln in an interview broadcast Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

As of Tuesday, at least 3,990 members of the U.S. military have died in the war, which has cost the U.S. roughly $500 billion. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglizt and Harvard University public finance expert Linda Bilmes have estimated the eventual cost at $3 trillion when all the expenses, including long-term care for veterans, are calculated.

Without specifics, Bush decried those who have “exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war.”

“War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much,” he said.

As far as costs, he is right on the mark. The estimates of 2 trillion are combining the entire war on terrorism and cover many years into the future, some as far as 2017, along with side effects such as our economy. 2 trillion has not been spent on Iraq.

If your old enough to remember you will recall this was the same argument used against Reagan during his fight against the Soviet Union. The left used the costs of the missile buildups and our defense buildups as excuses to explain why we should just give up and allow the Soviet Union to exist without a fight.

But Reagan understood that the cost of doing nothing was to great a cost. Communism must be defeated. All that money spent helped literally tens of millions of people to escape that hell they were living in.

This new enemy must be defeated. They won’t go away on their own and will continue to do as much violence and damage against our country until they are beaten.

So the cost is worth it and history will be the judge of that. Unless, of course, a defeatist gets into office soon and undoes everything this nation has done to help a fledging Democracy in the Middle East. But if that Democracy is allowed to flourish, the long term benefit to the entire planet will be huge for generations to come.

UPDATE

Just as the writer above obviously had some bias against the war check out CNN: (via The Corner)

The president reasserts our commitment to the war against Islamofascists (my word, not his), asserts the facts of recent success in Iraq, and within a minute, Ed Henry, reporter, is framing the speech on CNN as there goes that damn cowboy again.

If you were CNN and really wanted to you could actually present that objectively, with troops on the ground, and impassioned political debates about withdrawal and a presidential campaign at home, President Bush went to the Pentagon today and reaffirmed his commitment to victory in Iraq and a longer war on terror….

UPDATE: Anchor just screamed to a reporter on the ground in Iraq: When will the country get its act together?!

Nice…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Actual monetary costs are difficult to determine. Does this figure factor in funds that would have been allocated as defense spending anyway? What about spending on new programs like the UAV’s that existed before as experiments but have been expanded? Is that a “Iraq war cost”? Calculating the actual cost is nearly impossible and largely pointless.

Re: “Actual monetary costs are difficult to determine. ”

Of course.

Especially when a Republican president is being preotected from accountaility.

Re: “Calculating the actual cost is nearly impossible and largely pointless.”

If this were being spent by a Democratic Prtesident, Conservatives would “know” the number to the penny; FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh would see to that.

Democrats took issue with Bush’s stay-the-course suggestion.

I take issue with their inflexible “stay the course” blinders as well.

Nice projection there Steve. Inknow you know everything abot Republicans and conservatives and weshould just let you post on our blogs. I mean you know exactly what we think and how we think. So whatis theusefor use to even postanything.

I, for one, want more transparency in the numbers before I can accept another “we’re winning!” speech. I’m tired of hearing “we can’t tell you that because it would help the enemy.” I want to know how many of those 18 benchmarks (remember those?) have been met to date. I want some assurance–tangible assurance, not just platitudes–that we’re holding Iraqi feet to the fire in order for them to get their act together.

This group of leaders has lost my confidence. That isn’t partisanship, but simple reality. I don’t know that any of the three remaining candidates can do any better, but I can’t take the current crop at face value any longer.

What kind of “accountability” are you looking for?
“Especially when a Republican president is being preotected from accountaility.”

Elections are accountability. He was re-elected/held to account. End of story.

wesmorgan1,

Just “how much time” did you suppose it would take to replace 30 years of brutality under Saddam with instituting democratic change? Even in the absence of an insurgency, even in the absence of Islamic terrorists out to sabotage reconstruction and reconciliation efforts, even in the absence of political partisans acting as a ball-and-chain on expediency and efficiency by holding up the glass half empty at every turn?

To do things right, it will take an investment of time and commitment- ESPECIALLY in the face of those who stand in the way of success. President Bush made that crystal clear in his “Mission Accomplished” speech.

Let’s repeat it again:

POLITICAL PROGRESS in IRAQ:

GEN Petraeus told Wolf Blitzer on Jan 27, 2008 that the Iraqi government:

  • Passed a pensions law that extends pension rights to tens of thousands of individuals who were left out in earlier arrangement several years ago.
  • they passed the Iraqi flag law in the council of representatives. Now, you might think that’s purely symbolic. It’s not. It has been a contentious issue for several years. The current flag does not fly in portions of the Kurdish regional government are in Iraq. And so this is an important step forward.
  • The de-Baathification reform bill, so-called accountability and justice law, has passed
  • The 2008 budget is being debated right now in the council of representatives, and it distributes oil revenues in a way that is in line with the oil revenue-sharing bill that could be debated later in the year
  • So, again, all of a sudden, it’s as if there’s a new dynamism in the council of representatives.

Not only that, but the Iraqi Parliament has been more effective than the U.S. Congress:

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs compares Bills Signed Into Law:

  • Democratic Congress – 48
  • Iraqi Parliament – 53

Progress Report on Iraqi Parliament

Reconciliation Continues…

Reconstruction progress via the US Army Corps of Engineers

Desperate Al-Qaeda Resorts to Using Retarded Women in Attacks

Al-Qaeda Car Bombs Decrease Dramatically in Iraq

Iraqi Officer Challenges Media Misinformation about Coalition Forces

U.S. To Transfer Authority of Anbar Province Back to Iraq

Soldiers Celebrate Safest Christmas Ever in Iraq

Sunni, Shia March Together in Baghdad for Peace

Inflation Drops 90% In Iraq (and other good news)

  • Year-to-date inflation as of October 2007 is 4.2%, compared to year-to-date inflation through October 2006 of 42.7%
  • The continued appreciation of the Iraqi dinar went from 1,475 dinars per U.S. dollar in late 2006 to 1,218 dinars per U.S. dollar currently.
  • Electrical output/production is up 14% from this time last year.
  • The postwar electricity production record for one day (123,000 MWh) was broken on October 12, 2007 with the production of 125,000 MWh.
  • Violence and casualties are down
  • Security is up
  • Sectarian deaths have plummeted
  • In NOV 2006 there were 6 Iraqi Division Headquarters, 30 Brigade Headquarters and 91 Battalions.
  • In NOV 2007 there are 10 Division Headquarters, 34 Brigade Headquarters and 108 Battalions.

LMAO!
* Democratic Congress – 48
* Iraqi Parliament – 53

I want some assurance–tangible assurance, not just platitudes–that we’re holding Iraqi feet to the fire in order for them to get their act together.

Iraqis who have defied al-Qaeda and insurgents have bled the most. Many in the Iraqi army, government, and police force have given their lives to make things work. And you’re criticizing the pace?

It takes 3 years for Iraqi officers to graduate from training. Are you so sure your expectations are realistic? What do you want? A 4 hour workshop and an open book test? What is needed is patience and commitment and resolve not to cave in and have our will sapped by every IED and homicide bomber that seeks to prove America to be a paper tiger who lacks the intestinal fortitude needed to win wars.

The worst thing we could do, is make our Iraqi allies think twice about whether or not we would “abandon” them. Why should Iraqi fence-sitters cast their lot with “the losing side”? Why should they align themselves with those who would desert them to al Qaeda killers, when “the going gets tough”?

Seems tome that the Iraqi Parliment is doing a better job than the Democrats in CONgress

“Why should Iraqi fence-sitters cast their lot with “the losing side”? Why should they align themselves with those who would desert them to al Qaeda killers?”
…so President Bush and his neocon cabal can be held accountable [/sarcasm off]

Here are commercials (PSAs) seen in Iraq:

And now for some humor:
I said raiding party, not raid and party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_nZ4M5nkHE&NR=1

What to do with the bones of suicide bombers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_FxmqdEBKs&feature=related

Re: “Elections are accountability. He was re-elected/held to account. End of story.”

So. Assuming that either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama were to be elected in November, would Conservatives give them the same free pass they now give to George w. Bush?

Not a chance.

—begin quote—
The United States plans to lower the number of its troops in Iraq from 160,000 to 130,000 by July — reversing President George W. Bush’s “surge” strategy which pumped 30,000 fresh troops in last year and has been credited with improving security in the insurgency-wracked country.
Gates said the United States aimed eventually to take a more hands-off role, overseeing the Iraqi forces’ own security operations from a distance.

“Ultimately the mission will be one of what we call strategic overwatch, which is basically that we are not engaged on a daily basis, the Iraqis in the lead and we are providing support,” he said.

“We have begun that process of transition.”

The US general in charge of training Iraq’s security forces judged however that a full handover of duties to those forces would not be possible until some time between 2009 and 2012.

“The Iraqi security force structure and capability still lack some maturity,” Lieutenant General James Dubik told a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

“They cannot fix, supply, arm or fuel themselves completely enough at this point.”
—–end quote—-

The last time I saw hard readiness numbers, only 3-4 of 100+ Iraqi battalions were capable of operating on their own; has anyone seen more recent numbers?

You’re absolutely right to state that this can’t be some “4-hour training class,” but this is obviously the single most tangible sign of progress. When we can remove ourselves to this ‘overwatch’ role, I’ll start believing the hype. I’m not willing to accept any more “eventually,” “ultimately,” or “progressing well”–not to mention “on the run”–until I see more Iraqi units taking their rightful place on the front lines.

The problem is a simple one; there are many in Iraqi government who will, quite simply, be happy to move at a snail’s pace as long as American blood is picking up the slack. It is that against which we must guard. There are some tangible things we can do along those lines without withdrawing troops wholesale. For instance, LTG Dubik testified that they can’t arm themselves yet; why on earth aren’t we doing more to arm them, thus hastening the time that they can take over for themselves?

I’m not trying to be defeatist here, but realistic. We’ve had too many leaders with rose-colored glasses for me to buy a pair for myself.

Phillie Steve… da guy that’s long on liberal platitudes, but short on specific facts and events… says:

“Assuming that either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama were to be elected in November, would Conservatives give them the same free pass they now give to George w. Bush??

Whooooaaaaa there boy, Phillie… back on up. Bush WH and “a free pass” by the GOP? Except in the immediate aftermath of 911, this POTUS has had more than a few manure loads dumped on his shoulders by BOTH sides of the aisle… add to that media, and gullible, under researched citizens. Then all topped it with personal insults, charges of “war criminal”, and comparisons to Hitler. Those with not even a smidgen of his education or scholastic scores deem him an idiot.

GWB’s biggest failing has been bad judgement in some of his appointments, and lousy mouthpieces to the public (except during Tony Snow’s tenure). This Pentagon IV report is the latest example… it should have been shouted from the mountaintops. Not left to the media to misinterpret and spread as propaganda.

GWB has never goverened with the goal to be the Prom King. Just did what he believed was best for this country. Free pass, my arse. The man has taken his abuse with far more grace than could be expected.

I expect that the far edges of both ends of the political spectrum-including the far right-would seek to unseat an elected Democrat regardless of their performance, but that wasn’t and isn’t me, and I don’t think any of the other FA writers would put partisanship over performance. You on the other hand, from the opposite direction have and do so daily; political partisanship over patriotism. You seek some sort of “accountability” where there is none to be had particularly since you continue to fail to prove that President Bush has handled the Iraq War worse than any other President has handled foreign affairs.

Philly Steve was not around when Dubya wanted all the Illegal Aliens to have a pass ot when he nominated Meirs. He was chewed out ans spit out sideways by many on the right. He just listens to the Koskids and the DUmmies for his views. Which we actually look up facts and have our own minds and not the daily Talking Points from the DNC.

See I was for Harriet Meirs (spelling?) and didn’t think she would be that bad of a Supreme Court Justice, but many on the right hated her nomination. We have a wide variety of ideas and thoughts, but come back to the same thing we always have stood for. Smaller Government, Strong Defense, Less Spending in government (which is why the 2006 elections went to the Dems, many conservatives did not vote to teach them a lesson), and more Personal Freedom.

It is the Democrats that are almostalways lock stock and barrel together, no matter who the nominee or person is. It is all about power to them, they do not care who or what happens, it is all about them being in power. Yes, some Republicans are the same, but majority want to so what is best for the country.

I can not say the same for most Democrats. They want to leave Iraq to our enemies so we have to come back later with a more embolden enemy. They want to punish people who make jobs.

I know they think that that is what the country wants or think it is the best for the country. But when you come down to it, it is Pure Socialism. Not bones about it.

Yes the biggest problem I have with Dubya, is that he lets the MSM and Liberals dictate the news. he never came out and said that the Democrats are wrong on everything they say, he just lets it pass and never sticks up for himself. He never explained what is going on in Iraq that everyone could see what is going on. He let the MSM dictate what the masses heard. he could have came out more forcefully and tell it like it is. But I think that one reason he didn’t do himself., is he had a lot of other things on his mind that we will never hear about. But he could have had his surrogates explain it better. I agree Tony Snow was the best at it, too bad he left.

Among Iraqi leaders of various factions, “there was very, very strong agreement” on the need to work out the security agreement with the U.S. and pass the oil law, a senior aide to Mr. Cheney told reporters aboard a C-17 military transport plane as it prepared to depart from Iraq, bound for Oman. Still, “getting there is a difficult thing to do,” the official said. “The devil is in the details in trying to make the…sometimes existential compromises they [Iraqi leaders] have to make on some of these issues.”

Yeah, “…getting [them] there is a difficult thing to do”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1&ex=1363665600&en=3ded79fb27a2f58f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Re: “Among Iraqi leaders of various factions, “there was very, very strong agreement” on the need to work out the security agreement with the U.S. and pass the oil law, a senior aide to Mr. Cheney told reporters ”

That item was dated March 19, 2008.

It could have been dated March 19, 2007.

Or 2006

Or 2005

Or 2004.

And, if John McCain is elected president in November, other than the name “Cheney”, it can be dated for 2009

And 2010

And 2011

And 2012.

“he never came out and said that the Democrats are wrong on everything they say, he just lets it pass and never sticks up for himself.”

If you honestly believe that either side is “wrong on everything”–or right on everything–the problem goes beyond what you describe.

I really never meant to say they are wrong on everything. I was trying to point out that Bush never defended himself and let the Democrats walk all over him.

Not much on Iraq recent history, are you Phillie Steve?

Iraq did not even vote on the *transitional” nat’l govt until Jan 2005

In Oct of 2005, they voted to ratify their Constitution

In Dec 2005, they voted in members of the Iraq Assembly

Two months later (Feb 2006, for the math challenged…LOL), terrorists bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra, and the internal violence increased, slowing progress

Maliki assumed PM power in April of 2006, and in May 2006, helped oversee the formation of the new permanent government.

You expect all your personal issues of choice to be addressed by a government structure that’s 22 months old?

Now let’s throw in a year or so of increasing violence in the streets, targets changing from the US troops to Muslim citizens. Add in an attack on the Parliament building in April 2007, and another Samarra attack on the Shiite shrines there, and you have three steps forward, and four steps back because of violence. Thus the Surge…

By comparison, you may want to start applying some of your cute talking points to your liberal buds in Congress… who have taken almost the same amount of time to rack up numerous failures while attempting to honor their 2006 campaign promises to get the US out of Iraq. All sans violence in the streets and bombs at the Capitol.

Seems to me that, under the circumstances, a newly formed nation of those who’ve lived under oppression either all (or most) of their lives is making more impressive progress than our own Congress.

Seems to me that, under the circumstances, a newly formed nation of those who’ve lived under oppression either all (or most) of their lives is making more impressive progress than our own Congress.

First of all, great post MH. One has to wonder if the Rev. Wright’s congregation believes that the Iraqis have advanced themselves further in six short years than Black Americans have in the past fifty? While we could certainly compare the Sunnis as the most suppressed in the nation of Iraq, (much of it justified), they are at least in the past few years been given the opportunity to be a part of the future. Two generations have passed in the U.S. and the only answer offered by the left has been false promises of a government dependency philosophy that offers no moral self-discipline. I for one am impressed with the direction the Iraqis have taken in such a short time despite the pessimistic views of our friend Steve here at FA. They may very well set an example the world, (and this nation) can embrace. The only thing that could prevent this opportunity would be the actions of this current majority in congress that consumes itself in its own rhetoric.

(Disclaimer: I’m an optimist, one who usually expects a favorable outcome.)

p.s. to Curt ——- I’m logged in and still have no editing capabilities.

Vigil
What in the hell have you been smoking. Man that is one of the most asinine posts I have seen in a long time, and that is after reading the DUmmies and Koskids. You need to put that tin foil hat on a little tighter.

Investigating the cost of the war in the short-term as it’s related to the Nov. election I thought this was interesting:

Seven of 10 U.S. adults blame the Iraq war for the country’s current economic problems, a survey indicated.

Only 28 percent of those surveyed for the CNN/Opinion Research poll found no link between the economy and the war. The majority said war spending is at least partly to blame for growing unemployment and other signs of a slowing economy.

On the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the war continues to be unpopular, the poll found. While 32 percent of respondents support the Iraq effort, 66 percent oppose it.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/19/poll_iraq_war_blamed_for_bad_us_economy/3344/

Of course, the election is a long way off and many things can change from now ’til then, but here we have some initial evidence now of a interconnectivity between Iraq and the economy in terms of ‘cost’ on the public’s impatience on the Iraq war.

Stix1972 said a mouthful. I can’t figure out what Vigilante was talking about. Alot like how Cindy Sheehan claims Bush killed her son when it was in fact the insurgents who did it, Vigil’s statement is absurd with mendacity. Apparently he needs to read Kenneth R. Timmerman’s book to find out why we are stuck in Iraq longer than we had planned to.

Still, that would be irrelevant because you can not change to past. If we were to leave Iraq right now then it would be detrimental. We have an Al Qaeda sub group that is responsible for the more killings than all the other sub groups in that terror network, who is currently losing and people just want to quit and cut our loses. That would allow them to recover. If there is anyone who is responsible for putting a hurt on America, it would be the idiocy of people like Vigil.

Sadly, when I become a Navy Seal, then I will be fighting to protect people like Vigil. Talk about a faith worse than death. Too bad I can’t just choose who I can’t protect, right? I mean, why would I want to protect someone who constantly says I am making things worse when I know better than that?

The thing is, I can’t think of things that way because I will be making a covenant to the country when I recite that service oath. It doesn’t matter, I will recite that oath proudly no matter what.

Re: “Still, that would be irrelevant because you can not change to past. If we were to leave Iraq right now then it would be detrimental. We have an Al Qaeda sub group that is responsible for the more killings than all the other sub groups in that terror network, who is currently losing and people just want to quit and cut our loses. That would allow them to recover. If there is anyone who is responsible for putting a hurt on America, it would be the idiocy of people like Vigil.”

Thank you for your service, by the way.

However the story that the occupation of Iraq was “going quite swell until al Qaeda caused a war” Is just plain wrong. The United States had ample warning that Iraq’s multiple ethnic groups were being held together solely through Saddam’s terror and police state. The civil war was gathering almost from day-one: Equiped by a total lack of guards on the Iraqi weapons depots after the occupation.

I recall the military’s own estimate of the Summer of 2007 and prior pointed out that foreigners accounted for less than 10% of the insurgency. The Iraqi civil war would have happened, given the lack of preparedness, regardless if al Qaeda existed or not. The “it’s all alQaeda’s fault” is, IMO, both a deceit and a diversion from the price that America and Iraq have paid for a total lack of preparation for the occupation of Iraq (as opposed for the invasion).

Al Qaeda is doing just fine on the Pakistani-Afghanistan border, along with the Taliban controlling large regions of the country, along with supplying the world with heroin.

The Iraqi civil war is not over, just being surpressed by force of US arms. How many times since 2004 have we been told “100,000 Iraqi police have been trained” But the streets of the cities are still patrolled by the individual militias loyal to one warlord or another.

Tough “talk” about the Iraqi government getting to the needed compromises is all hollow. I hear on FoxNews about “great strides” because some bill has finally passed the Iraqi parliment. Knowing that it will never be enforced by a government that barely exists outside of the Green Zone (or are we not allowed to use that word for it any more?)

I, for one, am tired of seeing loyal Americans such as yourself, tossed into yet another delaying action in Iraq, all in the hope that somehow the Iraqi’s will behave any differently tomorrow than they have every day since “Mission Accomplished” and “Major Combat Operations are Over in Iraq” in 2003.

Whether the “rapid withdrawl” from Iraq comes this year, or in two or three years, when China and the rest of the world fail to show up at a US Treasury Bill auction to lend America more money to fund the war, will not matter to the final outcome in Iraq. It will only mean that much more sacrifice in the time in between.

Curt,

Regarding “costs”, take a look at Amy Proctor’s post: Iraq War Costs less than 1% of U.S. GDP. Interesting stuff.

I swear ya got a reading comprehension problem, Phillie Steve.

I recall the military’s own estimate of the Summer of 2007 and prior pointed out that foreigners accounted for less than 10% of the insurgency. The Iraqi civil war would have happened, given the lack of preparedness, regardless if al Qaeda existed or not.

Your self-declared seer abilities aside, what Ryan said was the foreign elements, who organize and implement the suicide bombings, are responsible for the most Iraqi deaths and human collateral. Correct he is. It is not difficult for the 10% of AQ and affiliates to be responsible for the most damage when it only takes one fool jihadist with a suicide bomb belt.

As to your “wouldn’t have happened given the lack of…”, in a “perfect scenario”, you would most likely be wrong. For what, pray tell, would those minority “civil war” Iraq insurgents fight with, if they did not have the financial and weaponry aid of the foreign elements? Once the stockpiles of exising Iraq weapon caches in the country were exhausted or eliminated by US coalition troops and cooperating locals, they could have been contained.

In the not-so-perfect but real scenario, the Iraq thugs who seek to overthrow the elected will of the country would turn to foreign fighters for more weaponry when they ran short. Thus your predictions are highly questionable. Civil wars are not, in our modern history, a completely self contained State problem. We’ve armed a few “sides” in civil wars ourselves, as you libs all so love to point out. Why then do you vehemently deny foreign influence in this one?

Al Qaeda is doing just fine on the Pakistani-Afghanistan border, along with the Taliban controlling large regions of the country, along with supplying the world with heroin.

I see your lack of recent history is not only confined to Iraq. AQ always had Pakistan in which to retreat . Their Taliban hosts and cohorts were the conception of Bhutto’s ministry, founded by Maulana Fazlur Rahman (now of Pakistan’s JUI-F and the MMA) and Mulla Omar. It’s a right good hole in which to hide, but lousy for an operational base. Tough for transport of weaponry, training camps, and fighters in and out in on a large scale.

However if you are suggesting some segment of failure in Afghanistan, then I suggest you go whine to the UN/NATO and leave our guys out of it. The UN and NATO have been in charge of the “security” of Afghanistan since late 2003 in all but the far east provinces. Those were turned over to UN/NATO command, July 31st, 2006, putting the entire country into their hands. And of course, it was after that when Afghanistan’s progress started going retrograde.

Even in the past weeks, we’ve had to send add’l troops to the NATO command because the beloved and cowardly int’l community/NATO allies refused to send add’l troops of their own. Again the US must pick up for the failings of the rest of the world.

If forgot… the best “sleight of lips” from Phillie Steve

Tough “talk” about the Iraqi government getting to the needed compromises is all hollow. I hear on FoxNews about “great strides” because some bill has finally passed the Iraqi parliment. Knowing that it will never be enforced by a government that barely exists outside of the Green Zone (or are we not allowed to use that word for it any more?)

Hummm… legislation that will never be enforced. Are you sure you are talking about the Iraq Assembly?

Or are you talking about the US Congress and our immigration laws?

Stone throwers in glass houses must be careful not to trip over their tongues….

Tough “talk” about the Iraqi government getting to the needed compromises is all hollow. I hear on FoxNews about “great strides” because some bill has finally passed the Iraqi parliment. Knowing that it will never be enforced by a government that barely exists outside of the Green Zone (or are we not allowed to use that word for it any more?)

Which one of your leftist masters fed you this tripe Steve? I was there and saw things totally different. Or are those of us who oppose the left just supposed to shut up and let your lies run us over?

I, for one, am tired of seeing loyal Americans such as yourself

I am sure you see this as some “I support the troops” statement. I do not. I see it as hollow at best and an asinine insult of “you are too stupid to know the ‘Bushies’ are using you” at worse. Sorry, been to Iraq, saw the conditions and the work we are all doing, and fully understand and support our efforts. All I have to do is look at leftist websites to see what the left’s “support” really is.

No reason to raise taxes for this war boys, let’s just borrow some more money from the Chinese and let our kids worry about it. Paying for the war now will just erode support for it.

John,

Why is it you think raising taxes actaully INCREASES Tax revenues over the long term when the opposite is proven? Lowering tax rates increases revenues to a certain point (Laffer curve). If you tax people more, they will do everything possible to not be taxed. When you have “punished” the “rich” out of existance, who will you “punish” next? Who will fund your social programs?

What I fault Bush and the republicans for is not being conservatives and being more interested in using leftist plays of spending money to get votes. I called this “Democrat Lite” both here and letters to the RNC when I terminated my membership there. President Bush supported more than one costly leftist program with Ted Kennedy and other Democrats. All President Bush got in return was knives in his back and never credited for “bi-partisanism”.

Tax cuts work when pork cut and government growth is reversed. They work when society moves from a dependent/collectivist/”slave” state to a view of individualism/responsibility state. It is a multi-pronged approach which sadly never seems to be fully implemented. It is too easy to reamin dependent on handout/entitlements when one is told it is someone else’s (the “rich”, corporations, “Big whatever”, etc) fault they are in their economic/social position.

Worse in the continual confusion between “rights” and “entitlements”.

Ahhh.. the ever-changing goal posts or reasons for withdrawal. When fact, events and history – hang, even sheer logic and compassion – are irrefutable, they find another excuse to justify their call for abandonment of Iraq.

The thread’s latest excuse – money. Since most citizens are clueless on economics, they erroneously assume that our defense spending is the cause for the housing market decline which drives our current economic woes and deflating dollar. “We coulda spent in on welfare programs here at home”. Uh huh…..

Federal budgets, appropriations and allocations don’t work that way. But I forgot… schools don’t teach civics anymore.

BTW, the poll linked above? 70% responders believe the war is the cause for the economy. 66% of them oppose our aid to Iraq. Goes to show the level of miseducation.

Re: “Or are you talking about the US Congress and our immigration laws?”

What has that got to do with this discussion? or did you just toss that in for spite. As I recall, that great hero George W. Bush was pushing for amnesty and open borders (through lack of enforcement) for quite some time. Of course you will give him the automatic Conservative Free Pass, won’t you and tell us, as always, it’s all someone else’s fault.

And of course, conservatives excoriated GWB for the Shamnesty Bill. It is alo the reason most do not like McCain. See, I think neither are conservatives inthe first place, they are Republicnas first and conservatives second, unlike most here that are conservatives first and Republicans second.

Steve,

You obviously were not “allowed” to see that conservatives went ballistic in response to President Bush’s bi-partisan bill on amnesty. But that does not fit your mind-number world view dictated by your leftist “thought leaders”.

Philadelphia Steve Says:

Re: “Or are you talking about the US Congress and our immigration laws?”

What has that got to do with this discussion? or did you just toss that in for spite.
__________________________________

No spite, Phillie Steve. Just a continuance of my previous point to you of your double standard… that you demand performance from the Iraq Assembly which you do not demand of your own Congress.

I repeat what I said in the March 19th, 7:44pm post.

Seems to me that, under the circumstances, a newly formed nation of those who’ve lived under oppression either all (or most) of their lives is making more impressive progress than our own Congress.

I give GWB *no* free passes. I have serious issues with his domestic policies, allowing Congress to spend unfettered, allowing Congress to continue to hold up self-sufficent energy policies, letting Romney team up with Kennedy and stop the MA coast wind farm with nary a word, and royally PO’d that he has lousy mouthpieces and allows the liberal media to miseducate people beyond redemption.

I have plenty to beef about. But going after terrorists… for a change, after previous admins have ignored it… is not one of them.

And I don’t blame others for the issues I have. I blame Bush for his choice of support personnel (‘cept Tony Snow).

Thus you are obviously confused, for it the DNC who is the constituency of “victims”. The party who never met a felon who wasn’t an innocent byproduct of his/her environment, his/her parents, his/her race, lack of govt welfare programs, whatever. The party that made the world so PC that everyone is tiptoeing around for fear of “offending” the other person. For a group that wants “dialogue”, they sure know how to shut it down.

DNC tries to please everyone, and ends up pleasing no one. Hang, that group can’t even get a clean pick of nominee with their primary/caucus system because it’s so dang politically correct. Delegate selection, outside the supers, is just a reflection of the popular vote. Why have it? It decides nothing. Such disorganization and uncommittance doesn’t bode well for power of all branches. Dang, I’m already reeling from the GOP blowing that much power it big time. (yes, I said and believe that!) It’ll be even worse economically under all DNC. A split in these powers is far more productive for the US.

Re: “No spite, Phillie Steve. Just a continuance of my previous point to you of your double standard… that you demand performance from the Iraq Assembly which you do not demand of your own Congress.”

Then you also have to admit that the reason the US Congress cannot get bills forward is that the Republican minority has set a new record for fillibusters in the Senate. Remember when “Conservatives” said fillibusters were so evil that they were going to use the “nuclear” option to abolish them? Now it appears that Conservatives LOVE fillibusters, and will not even admit that Republicans are doing it.

But Conservatives do not have “double standards”, do they?

.

Re: “DNC tries to please everyone, and ends up pleasing no one.”

Republicans do not have that broad a problem, I know. All they have to do is obey James Dobson’s every command and everything else will fall in line.

.
Re: “Such disorganization and uncommittance doesn’t bode well for power of all branches.”

You obviously share Geroge W. Bush’s view of what the form of govenment for the United States should be.
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier…just as long as I’m the dictator…”
George W. Bush–Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during Bush’s first trip to Washington as President-Elect

.

Re: “I have plenty to beef about. But going after terrorists…”

Speaking of which. How is GWB doing getting Osama bin Laden (“Dead orAlive”), the leader of the September 11 attacks? Or are Conservativers not allowed to talk about that?