what happened to the war in iraq....

[manu1959]

it has been strangely quite......did we win....

[April15]

it has been strangely quite......did we win....Nope! Seems the Iraqis want us out of their country. Most of the aggression has been in Afghanistan where it should have been 6 years ago instead of galivanting all over the mid east in search of a weak country to overthrow.

[Trigg]

Nope! Seems the Iraqis want us out of their country. Most of the aggression has been in Afghanistan where it should have been 6 years ago instead of galivanting all over the mid east in search of a weak country to overthrow.

If we were looking to overthrow a country we wouldn't be working with their officianls and citizens to help them establish a working gov. :lame2:

[No1tovote4]

Nope! Seems the Iraqis want us out of their country. Most of the aggression has been in Afghanistan where it should have been 6 years ago instead of galivanting all over the mid east in search of a weak country to overthrow.
Inane. A three-year conditional withdrawal plan is a good thing to happen and it is based on the conditions on the ground, exactly what Bush has stated withdrawal should be based on. Thank the gods the surge was as successful as it has been. As we draw down we will bolster troops in Afghanistan and return security to that place along with all the other UN troops there with us.

[PostmodernProphet]

it got won.....

[Little-Acorn]

it has been strangely quite......did we win....

No. But the surge is working well, we are turning over more provinces to the growing Iraqi military, more and more parts of the country are becoming peaceful, the bad guys are on the run, and the Bush admin and the Iraqis are having talks about when we will begin to move our troops out as the enemy is defeated. In other words, it is not won, but we are winning.

So, the mainstream media has begun avoiding reporting on any part of it.

[April15]

If we were looking to overthrow a country we wouldn't be working with their officianls and citizens to help them establish a working gov. :lame2:you really don't understand, do you?

[April15]

Inane. A three-year conditional withdrawal plan is a good thing to happen and it is based on the conditions on the ground, exactly what Bush has stated withdrawal should be based on. Thank the gods the surge was as successful as it has been. As we draw down we will bolster troops in Afghanistan and return security to that place along with all the other UN troops there with us.What Bush said was "NO timetable".

[manu1959]

What Bush said was "NO timetable".

so which is it.....do you want bush to pull the troops out or not.....

[No1tovote4]

What Bush said was "NO timetable".

Rubbish, what he said is no timetable set in concrete that ignores conditions on the ground. You are being deliberately obtuse and conveniently and disingenuously "forgetting" the context. Consistently Bush has spoken of the time when we could turn over provinces and begin drawing down the troops, as long as it was done by the conditions on the ground rather than some inane concrete schedule that could not be departed from regardless of conditions there.

[theHawk]

Remember a few years ago when the Dims all proclaimed that the '08 election would be "all about the Iraq War". How things change....it barely gets mentioned at the DNC. Dims know they lost big on betting on an American loss in Iraq. Now they are putting all their chips into a bad American economy. What a noble political party, win an election by betting on and hoping for a disaster on one American front or another!

[Little-Acorn]

What a noble political party, win an election by betting on and hoping for a disaster on one American front or another!

Historically the Democrats have always come to power as a result of disaster. It took the Great Depression to bring FDR to office along with a Dem Congress and his cadre of "Whiz Kids" who were going to fix everything. Roosevelt proclaimed he would use government to help everyone, and insisted that his predecessor's (hoover) ventures into deficit spending were dreadful, and that he owuld never do that. He wound up lengthening the Depression more than has ever been done in American history, with conditions even worse four years after he started, and ballooning the deficit to then-unheard-of heights. It took a world war to drag us out of the Depression, not "help" from Roosevelt.

In the 70s, it took a media-generated loss of the Vietnam war, plus Nixon's criminal behavior in the Watergate affair, to get Carter into office, who proceeded to become possibly the worst President we'd ever had.

Who can blame the Democrats for trying to get history to repeat itself? If you have to screw up the country and/or lose a few wars to do it, that's OK with them. The quest for power is all to them, nothing else matters.

Why do you think today's media is saying so little about the US and its allies finally starting to win in Iraq? Any decent newspaper would be trumpeting the news from the rooftops.

[Immanuel]

Inane. A three-year conditional withdrawal plan is a good thing to happen and it is based on the conditions on the ground, exactly what Bush has stated withdrawal should be based on. Thank the gods the surge was as successful as it has been. As we draw down we will bolster troops in Afghanistan and return security to that place along with all the other UN troops there with us.

Sorry NoOne,

But, I think this is Bull Cacaa. The only reason we've heard talk about a planned withdrawal is Nov 4. McCain and the Republicans will be talking up the impending withdrawal but come Nov 5, if McCain wins, the tune will begin to change. If Obama wins on Nov 4 then the whispers of withdrawal will be left in tact until after Obama takes office then in four years his "failure" to withdraw troops will be a major issue in 2012.

Immie

[No1tovote4]

Sorry NoOne,

But, I think this is Bull Cacaa. The only reason we've heard talk about a planned withdrawal is Nov 4. McCain and the Republicans will be talking up the impending withdrawal but come Nov 5, if McCain wins, the tune will begin to change. If Obama wins on Nov 4 then the whispers of withdrawal will be left in tact until after Obama takes office then in four years his "failure" to withdraw troops will be a major issue in 2012.

Immie
I don't care if you think it is "bull caacaa". Can you find one time that Bush didn't say that it must depend on the conditions on the ground when speaking of withdrawal? No, you cannot. Because it is exactly what he has stated is necessary. As for withdrawal per the Treaty with the Iraqi government (which emphasizes the condition on the ground as a requisite), when approved by the Senate it becomes the "law of the land", per the constitution, regardless of McCain's impending victory.

[Immanuel]

I don't care if you think it is "bull caacaa". Can you find one time that Bush didn't say that it must depend on the conditions on the ground when speaking of withdrawal? No, you cannot. Because it is exactly what he has stated is necessary. As for withdrawal per the Treaty with the Iraqi government (which emphasizes the condition on the ground as a requisite), when approved by the Senate it becomes the "law of the land", per the constitution, regardless of McCain's impending victory.

And you think the Senate will approve it?

Please!!!! ;)

They are as culpable as Bush in this fiasco.

I doubt it will even get THAT far.

Immie

PS I'm not challenging your point of view. Simply the administration's sincerity in providing a withdrawal timetable.

[No1tovote4]

And you think the Senate will approve it?

Please!!!! ;)

They are as culpable as Bush in this fiasco.

I doubt it will even get THAT far.

Immie

PS I'm not challenging your point of view. Simply the administration's sincerity in providing a withdrawal timetable.
I do. And I think it will be approved.

[Immanuel]

I do. And I think it will be approved.

You have a hell of a lot more faith in this admin than I do.

I think they are blowing smoke up our asses as they've been doing for years.

Immie

[No1tovote4]

You have a hell of a lot more faith in this admin than I do.

I think they are blowing smoke up our asses as they've been doing for years.

Immie
It has nothing to do with the Admin, it has everything to do with what is.

[Immanuel]

It has nothing to do with the Admin, it has everything to do with what is.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I think it has everything to do with the admin.

They are telling us this wonderful news about a withdrawal. It just ain't gonna happen. Not in our lifetimes. IMHO

Immie

[No1tovote4]

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I think it has everything to do with the admin.

They are telling us this wonderful news about a withdrawal. It just ain't gonna happen. Not in our lifetimes. IMHO

Immie
I mean, if the admin is to maintain any semblance of control they must bow down to the wishes of the government they created to take over Iraq. Whether or not you think they will, it is their only choice as the Treaty is reestablished between the two nations.

[Immanuel]

I mean, if the admin is to maintain any semblance of control they must bow down to the wishes of the government they created to take over Iraq. Whether or not you think they will, it is their only choice as the Treaty is reestablished between the two nations.

Well, I hope you are right.

I don't see it happening, but maybe I'm just too damned cynical for my own good.

Immie

[April15]

Rubbish, what he said is no timetable set in concrete that ignores conditions on the ground. You are being deliberately obtuse and conveniently and disingenuously "forgetting" the context. Consistently Bush has spoken of the time when we could turn over provinces and begin drawing down the troops, as long as it was done by the conditions on the ground rather than some inane concrete schedule that could not be departed from regardless of conditions there.I don't believe I was being obtuse. Now the bush administration has been busy obfuscating what he said and when. I know I heard years ago, "Mission Accomplished" out of his mouth. So who is being obtuse?

[No1tovote4]

I don't believe I was being obtuse. Now the bush administration has been busy obfuscating what he said and when. I know I heard years ago, "Mission Accomplished" out of his mouth. So who is being obtuse?
And? That means nothing to me. I am not attempting to defend, I am simply reminding you of the context of Bush's statements regarding withdrawal as you disingenuously (and conveniently) forget that he consistently has said, "No withdrawal timetable that does not consider the conditions on the ground".

It takes deliberate "mistakes" to get where you take that, hence the need to reveal to you the deliberately obtuse nature of the remark.

I don't defend Bush, I don't believe we should ever start a war without a Declaration and the WPA is one of the worst pieces of crap legislation ever letting the politicians who vote for a war an "out" of "I didn't think he'd actually go!"....

Total garbage. I don't care about "Mission Accomplished" or his bad timing that clearly showed he was ignoring the complexity of occupation. It doesn't change the statements he has said about withdrawing agreeable to conditions on the ground.

At a place where people constantly pay attention to what politicians say, you come in and pretend you can't remember or clearly only access "news" sources that give you an opinion. It's disingenuous posturing from a hack.

[Trigg]

you really don't understand, do you?

Actually, it seems that you are the one who doesn't understand.

[April15]

And? That means nothing to me. I am not attempting to defend, I am simply reminding you of the context of Bush's statements regarding withdrawal as you disingenuously (and conveniently) forget that he consistently has said, "No withdrawal timetable that does not consider the conditions on the ground".

It takes deliberate "mistakes" to get where you take that, hence the need to reveal to you the deliberately obtuse nature of the remark.

I don't defend Bush, I don't believe we should ever start a war without a Declaration and the WPA is one of the worst pieces of crap legislation ever letting the politicians who vote for a war an "out" of "I didn't think he'd actually go!"....

Total garbage. I don't care about "Mission Accomplished" or his bad timing that clearly showed he was ignoring the complexity of occupation. It doesn't change the statements he has said about withdrawing agreeable to conditions on the ground.

At a place where people constantly pay attention to what politicians say, you come in and pretend you can't remember or clearly only access "news" sources that give you an opinion. It's disingenuous posturing from a hack.

Well I am a hack? Stay the course, no timetables

By The Associated Press Thu Aug 21, 3:42 PM ET

Changes in the Bush administration's rhetoric over the past 16 months on a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq:
ADVERTISEMENT

April 3, 2007:

• "I think setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. It is — it sends mixed signals and bad signals to the region and to the Iraqi citizens. Listen, the Iraqis are wondering whether or not we're going to stay to help. People in America wonder whether or not they've got the political will to do the hard work." — President Bush.

___

April 27, 2007:

• "And if the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept the timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one. I just don't think it's in the interest of our troops. I think it — I'm just envisioning what it would be like to be a young soldier in the middle of Iraq and realizing that politicians have all of a sudden made military determinations. And in my judgment, that would put a kid in harm's way, more so than he or she already is." — Bush.

___

Sept. 6, 2007:

• "The prime minister says: What Iraq and her people now need is time, not a timetable. They seek our patience, not political posturing. They require resolve, not our retreat. We're going to succeed in Iraq. If given a chance, liberty will succeed every time, and liberty will help yield the peace we need." — Bush.

___

July 15, 2008:

• "There's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way with the considered judgment of the commanders. That's why I strongly rejected an artificial timetable of withdrawal. It's kind of like an arbitrary thing, you know — 'We will decide in the halls of Congress how to conduct our affairs in Iraq based upon polls and politics, and we're going to impose this on people' — as opposed to listening to our commanders and our diplomats, and listening to the Iraqis, for that matter." — Bush.

___

July 18, 2008:

• "In the area of security cooperation, the president and the prime minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals." — White House statement that first raised the possibility of timelines.

___

Aug. 21, 2008:

• "Well, we have always said that the roles, missions and size of the American forces here, the coalition forces, was based on the conditions on the ground and what is needed. We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in — in such an agreement. ... And I have to say, if I could just make the point, the reason we are where we are going, talking about this kind of agreement, is that the surge worked, Iraqi forces have demonstrated that they are strong and getting stronger." — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Baghdad.

[No1tovote4]

Well I am a hack? Stay the course, no timetables

By The Associated Press Thu Aug 21, 3:42 PM ET

Changes in the Bush administration's rhetoric over the past 16 months on a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq:
ADVERTISEMENT

April 3, 2007:

• "I think setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. It is — it sends mixed signals and bad signals to the region and to the Iraqi citizens. Listen, the Iraqis are wondering whether or not we're going to stay to help. People in America wonder whether or not they've got the political will to do the hard work." — President Bush.

___

April 27, 2007:

• "And if the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept the timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one. I just don't think it's in the interest of our troops. I think it — I'm just envisioning what it would be like to be a young soldier in the middle of Iraq and realizing that politicians have all of a sudden made military determinations. And in my judgment, that would put a kid in harm's way, more so than he or she already is." — Bush.

___

Sept. 6, 2007:

• "The prime minister says: What Iraq and her people now need is time, not a timetable. They seek our patience, not political posturing. They require resolve, not our retreat. We're going to succeed in Iraq. If given a chance, liberty will succeed every time, and liberty will help yield the peace we need." — Bush.

___

July 15, 2008:

• "There's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way with the considered judgment of the commanders. That's why I strongly rejected an artificial timetable of withdrawal. It's kind of like an arbitrary thing, you know — 'We will decide in the halls of Congress how to conduct our affairs in Iraq based upon polls and politics, and we're going to impose this on people' — as opposed to listening to our commanders and our diplomats, and listening to the Iraqis, for that matter." — Bush.

___

July 18, 2008:

• "In the area of security cooperation, the president and the prime minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals." — White House statement that first raised the possibility of timelines.

___

Aug. 21, 2008:

• "Well, we have always said that the roles, missions and size of the American forces here, the coalition forces, was based on the conditions on the ground and what is needed. We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in — in such an agreement. ... And I have to say, if I could just make the point, the reason we are where we are going, talking about this kind of agreement, is that the surge worked, Iraqi forces have demonstrated that they are strong and getting stronger." — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Baghdad.
Post the entire context of each. I bet you won't because you will find that in each he spoke of withdrawal contingent on conditions on the ground not an "artificial timeline".

I know it is difficult for you to get this. But it is what he said. Only a dupe would go among the educated and pretend that they can't see through such a sad attempt at misdirection. From people who complain about supposed misdirection from others it is hypocrisy to so obviously bring it to such a place. Yes, you are a hack. Proved again and again based on deliberate ignorance wheron you build the framework of a flawed policy based in the same failure that 40 years of Democrats brought us before.

Americans forget quickly, mostly because people like you are so willing to ignore reality for what you want so desperately to be true.

But bringing it to a place where everybody, and I do mean everybody, pays actual attention to politics and politicians is a mistake and only underlines your blinders of hate.

[manu1959]

Post the entire context of each. I bet you won't because you will find that in each he spoke of withdrawal contingent on conditions on the ground not an "artificial timeline".

I know it is difficult for you to get this. But it is what he said. Only a dupe would go among the educated and pretend that they can't see through such a sad attempt at misdirection. From people who complain about supposed misdirection from others it is hypocrisy to so obviously bring it to such a place. Yes, you are a hack. Proved again and again based on deliberate ignorance wheron you build the framework of a flawed policy based in the same failure that 40 years of Democrats brought us before.

Americans forget quickly, mostly because people like you are so willing to ignore reality for what you want so desperately to be true.

But bringing it to a place where everybody, and I do mean everybody, pays actual attention to politics and politicians is a mistake and only underlines your blinders of hate.

very well said....and april quotes just that in on of the quotes he uses to claim just the opposite

"I think setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake.

[April15]

Post the entire context of each. I bet you won't because you will find that in each he spoke of withdrawal contingent on conditions on the ground not an "artificial timeline".

I know it is difficult for you to get this. But it is what he said. Only a dupe would go among the educated and pretend that they can't see through such a sad attempt at misdirection. From people who complain about supposed misdirection from others it is hypocrisy to so obviously bring it to such a place. Yes, you are a hack. Proved again and again based on deliberate ignorance wheron you build the framework of a flawed policy based in the same failure that 40 years of Democrats brought us before.

Americans forget quickly, mostly because people like you are so willing to ignore reality for what you want so desperately to be true.

But bringing it to a place where everybody, and I do mean everybody, pays actual attention to politics and politicians is a mistake and only underlines your blinders of hate.

I would like to post the entire press conferences they came from but the AP didn't do that and I don't feel like doing the research.
I forget but I when someone pisses me off I don't. The facts support my position because my position is based on them. I do know this site is a shill haven for republican idealogs and that to not be in tow with the mantra of raygun is a mortal sin. But someone has to put the truth in front of you so you will not be able to deny ever seeing it.

[Yurt]

I would like to post the entire press conferences they came from but the AP didn't do that and I don't feel like doing the research.
I forget but I when someone pisses me off I don't. The facts support my position because my position is based on them. I do know this site is a shill haven for republican idealogs and that to not be in tow with the mantra of raygun is a mortal sin. But someone has to put the truth in front of you so you will not be able to deny ever seeing it.

:laugh2:

i'm right because i say so

[April15]

:laugh2:

i'm right because i say soIt does sound bad now that I read it.

[emmett]

it has been strangely quite......did we win....


In this instance I would say that "no news is good news"

Given that the press has been indeed "quiet" on this subject it would safe to assume that other issues now stimulate the interests of ABC/NBC/CBS and MSNBC. CNN mentions it at 4:oo am from time to time.

Right now the press is busy trying to get their candidate elected to the presidency.


AND..............

yes....we won!

[mundame]

AND..............

yes....we won!



If we really won, we could bring the troops home.

Whoops, they aren't coming home.

Guess we didn't win, then.

[manu1959]

If we really won, we could bring the troops home.

Whoops, they aren't coming home.

Guess we didn't win, then.

we still have troops in germany and japan.....

[mundame]

we still have troops in germany and japan.....


Forward power-projection bases. They aren't getting shot at in Japan and Germany: that's, like, a really big difference.

The difference that makes all the difference.

[manu1959]

Forward power-projection bases. They aren't getting shot at in Japan and Germany: that's, like, a really big difference.

The difference that makes all the difference.

they were in the first few years after the occupation....do you know how fast the new german and japanes "police force" and government were up and running after "surrender" ..... and they have only been stationed there for 60 years......

not much shooting going on in iraq these days.....isn't anbar schedueld to be turned over to iraqi forces this week

[Kathianne]

they were in the first few years after the occupation....do you know how fast the new german and japanes "police force" and government were up and running after "surrender" ..... and they have only been stationed there for 60 years......

not much shooting going on in iraq these days.....isn't anbar schedueld to be turned over to iraqi forces this week

Already done my friend, was missed because of Palin's family rumors and reality, not to mention Gustav.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/09/control-of-anba.html

September 01, 2008

Control Of Anbar Given To Iraqi's
Posted By Laughing_Wolf

You will likely miss this on today's news, so I wanted to let you know that formal control of Anbar provence has been turned over to Iraqi forces. What was once the hot bed for AQI and others is now quite something else. As Marine Maj. Gen. Jack Kelly notes, such activities are not dead but "their end is near."

This time last year, I got to see a small part of this process, and even to spend some brief time with some of the Iraqi forces being trained. I got to meet Marines who were extending their stays to continue that training and ensure that things went well despite the risk and the personal costs of so doing. It was more than merely interesting to see Kurds, Sunni, Shia (and others) training and even playing together.

Frankly, this should be a major story of the day, rather than buried as it is. Thanks to those who made it happen, and let us keep those who paid the ultimate price for it in our hearts and minds.

LW

[namvet]

Osama thinks its all but over. shocked the surge worked. so now he wants to start a war in Pakistan. I don't see much about Iraq anymore.