The legacy of President George W. Bush - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-03-2008, 08:41 PM   #141
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,622
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Well obviously Rove is misinformed.
__________________

Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 09:50 PM   #142
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Bush already stated that he still would have removed Saddam even if he had known that certain WMD weapons would not have been found after the invasion. In fact, during the national security deliberations on the issue before the war, it was listed as a possible although unlikely outcome. Despite that, it did not deter anyones view in the need to remove Saddam from power because the key tenents of the containment strategy of the 1990s, Sanctions, the Weapons embargo, had recently crumbled and the means to rebuild them were limited at best do to the political and economic situation in the region.

Bush by the way has already been widely qouted on the issue giving definitive responses below unlike the ABC interview:

Quote:
"knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision."

"So, if you had had this -- if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?" Fox News' Brit Hume asked.

"Absolutely," replied Bush.

Let me remind you that just because Saddam might not of had certain WMD weapons in March of 2003 did not in any way prove that he would not have such weapons in 2006, 2008, or 2010, or beyond, just as the fact that Saddam did not have WMD in the summer of 1979 did not prevent him from both acquiring and using such weapons by the summer of 1982.

While specific WMD weapons were not found in 2003, programs related to the production of WMD and that were in violation of the UN resolutions were found. Their existence and Saddam's concealement of them alone show his true intent.

Sanctions and the weapons embargo were at best a band aid, and by 2002 were essentially gone. The means to rebuild them were very limited because of the political and economic situation in the region. The means to overthrow Saddam from within were virtually zero do to the police state Saddam had built up over decades. Relying simply on deterence would not work with a regime that had shown in the past that it had a very different way of caculating risk and benefits derived from certain actions. This is why the only way to insure that the Saddam regime would never cause a crises in the region again or use or develop certain WMD weapons was by removing the regime from power.
__________________

Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 10:08 PM   #143
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Let me remind you that just because Saddam might not of had certain WMD weapons in March of 2003 did not in any way prove that he would not have such weapons in 2006, 2008, or 2010, or beyond, just as the fact that Saddam did not have WMD in the summer of 1979 did not prevent him from both acquiring and using such weapons by the summer of 1982.
Let me remind you that just because the U.S. is not ran by aliens from Mars in 2008 does not in any way prove that aliens won't be running the country in 2010, 2020, or 2025.
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 11:01 PM   #144
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Let me remind you that just because the U.S. is not ran by aliens from Mars in 2008 does not in any way prove that aliens won't be running the country in 2010, 2020, or 2025.
Sorry, but the fact that Saddam did not have WMD in 1979 but had acquired and used such WMD by the summer of 1982 is a matter of historical fact.

As to the issue of what he had at the time and what he might be able to get in the future and what the US response should be consider the following:

Absent the removal of Saddam's regime, what was the only way the United States had of preventing Saddam from acquiring new WMD?

Sanctions and the Weapons Embargo


What condition were sanctions and the weapons embargo in, in 2002?

very depleted to non-existent

What was the capacity of the United States to rebuild the sanctions regime and weapons embargo that existed shortly after the 1991 Gulf War?

very limited given the political and economic situation in the region


What was the capability of US intelligence to tell what Saddam did or did not have before the 1991 Gulf War and before Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003?

Very limited in both cases in terms of what was found after each conflict, far more WMD capability than had been thought before the 1991 Gulf War given what was found, and far less after the invasion in 2003 given what was found

If Saddam were left in power like many liberals would have like to have done, would US intelligence be any better and determining when or what level of WMD capacity Saddam would have in 2006, 2008, than they were in 1991 and 2003?

highly unlikely given the difficulty in detecting such materials and programs plus the growing capabilities in concealing such efforts


Given the disentigration of the key part of the containment program in the 1990s, the sanctions and weapons embargo regime, the limited ability of US intelligence to tell what Saddam did or did not have at any specific time, the regimes refusal to fully cooperate on the verifiable disarmament of all WMD and its violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, the only way that the United States and the international community could fix the situation and remove the threat for good and also finally enforce the UN resolutions was through the removal of the Saddam regime.

Equally important, the number of casualties Coalition forces would suffer, the number of Iraqi civilian casualties, possibly the number of civilian casualties in other countries in the region, would all increase the longer an invasion to remove him was put off as Saddam acquired more capabilities over time given the disentigration of the sanctions. Waiting for Saddam to develop certain WMD capabilties as well as other conventional military capabilities before removing him would only increase the cost and casualties of every country involved.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 11:44 PM   #145
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Sting, do you feel the slight bit lonely now that even the administration isn't defending this rhetoric?
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 11:57 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 12:41 AM
it seems that some people think that the indefinite "conditions based" occupation -- as defined by the generals, of course, not the president who has abdicated any responsibility for Iraq -- in a fast-devolving, ethnically toxic, religiously crazy region is somehow in American interests. given the enormous challenges of, say, Pakistan, the huge debt we are piling up, the exhaustion of the military, i do not believe that an endless "conditions based" military, economic and political commitment to Iraq makes sense. it only makes sense if we are determined to occupy the Middle East indefinitely to secure oil supplies. which is why this war was always about in the first place.

where do we stand at present? we still have 150,000 troops occupying Iraq nearly 6 years later. yes, because we've bought off the Sunni tribes, divided and walled Baghdad, and changed some techniques, we've managed to bring Iraq back from the brink so instead of a civil war, we merely have a society that's become normalized to a scattering of car bombs across the country on any given Tuesday. but we're still there. there is no stable state that will grow to fill the void that will be left when we do leave unless Maliki somehow becomes Saddam part 2.

nothing has really been "won" here by the Surge, and the Surge has worked insofar as it has been a band aid that has helped stanch a bleeding head wound. but to think that the Surge has somehow healed Iraq, that the society has somehow been mended, that we actually will be better off in the long run because of The Surge, is foolish. yes, The Surge was a success in that it succeeded in what it set out to do -- cut down on the apocalyptic violence of 2006/7. but for how much longer? have we not just delayed the coming inevitability of more mass death in Iraq? for what? at what cost? and does the delaying of this inevitable mass death mean more occupation? for how long? to what end? do we have to wait for an entire generation to die out? what happened in Vietnam after 1975? are we to endlessly prop up Baghdad? to contain ... not the Soviet Union, but what?

there is no way out of Iraq, and nothing was improved by the removal of Hussein that has not been negated by something just as dangerous. you've replaced one set of problems with another, and managed to kill tens of thousands along the way. is it reasonable to ask the American people to spend their treasure and spill their blood on something that amounts to very little in the end? do we really think we can forcibly integrate the Arab/Muslim world to be like a secular European democracy? has Iraq ever been truly pacified? simply because the Americans seem to have done it better than anyone doesn't mean at all that it's being done well -- to say, as some do, that we're "the most successful occupation in the history of Afghanistan" is rather damning with faint praise.

if you want to "succeed" in Iraq, and to follow The Surge through to it's logical end, which is not just the stanching of violence for a few months, then it will require a significant military presence in Baghdad for the rest of our lives.

is that what we really want? does this address the actual challenges that lie before us?
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 04:06 AM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

Bush by the way has already been widely qouted on the issue giving definitive responses below unlike the ABC interview:
One is an opinion given with elections and political ramifications still at stake.

The other is an opinion with absolutely nothing attached to it but the opinion itself.

Which do you think is the more honest answer?
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 07:50 AM   #148
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,462
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Sting, do you feel the slight bit lonely now that even the administration isn't defending this rhetoric?
it reminds me a bit of those japanese soldiers who hid in the jungles decades after the second world war had ended, because they refused to come to terms with the surrender.

everyone's laughing at sting2 and strongbow nowadays, guys.
Zoomerang96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 08:06 AM   #149
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:41 PM


but the ladies still love him.

diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 01:48 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 12:41 AM
I'm Really Gonna Miss Systematically Destroying This Place | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 07:24 PM   #151
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Sting, do you feel the slight bit lonely now that even the administration isn't defending this rhetoric?
I think your mistaken about what the administration has said on the issue:

Here is what Bush has said definitively over the past few years:


Quote:
"knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision."

"So, if you had had this -- if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?" Fox News' Brit Hume asked.

"Absolutely," replied Bush.
note this was said AFTER the 2004 elections!


Here is what Bush said today:

Quote:
"In a world where terrorists armed with box cutters had just killed nearly 3,000 people, America had to decide whether we could tolerate a sworn enemy that acted belligerently, that supported terror and that intelligence agencies around the world believed had weapons of mass destruction,"

"It was clear to me, it was clear to members of both political parties, and to many leaders around the world that after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take,"
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 07:27 PM   #152
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
One is an opinion given with elections and political ramifications still at stake.

The other is an opinion with absolutely nothing attached to it but the opinion itself.

Which do you think is the more honest answer?
Sorry but what I qouted above is from 2005, AFTER the 2004 elections.

What you qouted above is not at all a definitive answer on anything.

What Bush said TODAY is indeed a definitive answer:

Quote:
"In a world where terrorists armed with box cutters had just killed nearly 3,000 people, America had to decide whether we could tolerate a sworn enemy that acted belligerently, that supported terror and that intelligence agencies around the world believed had weapons of mass destruction,"

"It was clear to me, it was clear to members of both political parties, and to many leaders around the world that after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take,"
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2008, 09:30 PM   #153
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it seems that some people think that the indefinite "conditions based" occupation -- as defined by the generals, of course, not the president who has abdicated any responsibility for Iraq -- in a fast-devolving, ethnically toxic, religiously crazy region is somehow in American interests. given the enormous challenges of, say, Pakistan, the huge debt we are piling up, the exhaustion of the military, i do not believe that an endless "conditions based" military, economic and political commitment to Iraq makes sense. it only makes sense if we are determined to occupy the Middle East indefinitely to secure oil supplies. which is why this war was always about in the first place.
The global economy cannot currently survive without the energy supply that comes from the persian gulf. US security strategy for decades through both Democratic and Republican administrations has made defending the planets access to the energy supplies of the Persian Gulf a vital priority. The planets dependence and need for this energy has only grown over the years and has never been higher than it is now. It will take years or decades for alternative energy to reduce the planets dependence on Persian Gulf energy supply. Even if the planets dependence on the Persian Gulf were reduced to where it was in the 1970s, the need to intervene to protect the energy supply there in the event of a crises or threatening situations would still be necessary.

It is a gross exageration to say that the United States currently is occupying the Middle East. There have been substantial US troops on the ground in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan since 2001, but provided that there is continued progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States will be able to safely reduce the number of troops it has in all three countries. The United States has only deployed this number of troops do to security needs which are improving over time and will allow for the withdrawal of more troops.

There have certainly been large cost to US occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but both missions clearly make sense when you look at the consequences of not invading and successfully rebuilding both countries.

US military expenses in both operations combined along with all defense spending continue to be lower as a percentage of GDP than US defense spending during the peacetime of the 1980s or during virtually any time since the start of World War II, except the defense spending holidays of the 1990s.



Quote:
where do we stand at present? we still have 150,000 troops occupying Iraq nearly 6 years later. yes, because we've bought off the Sunni tribes, divided and walled Baghdad, and changed some techniques, we've managed to bring Iraq back from the brink so instead of a civil war, we merely have a society that's become normalized to a scattering of car bombs across the country on any given Tuesday. but we're still there. there is no stable state that will grow to fill the void that will be left when we do leave unless Maliki somehow becomes Saddam part 2.

nothing has really been "won" here by the Surge, and the Surge has worked insofar as it has been a band aid that has helped stanch a bleeding head wound. but to think that the Surge has somehow healed Iraq, that the society has somehow been mended, that we actually will be better off in the long run because of The Surge, is foolish. yes, The Surge was a success in that it succeeded in what it set out to do -- cut down on the apocalyptic violence of 2006/7.
Is this the lesson we learned in that other country called Bosnia that actually had a real CIVIL WAR? Does Bosnia need a TITO 2?

Oh, and the United States paid several thousand volunteers in Sunni tribes 300 dollars a month to work as security guards and informents. That whole effort over the course of a year cost the equilevent of having US forces in Iraq for 1 DAY! Unemployment was huge in many of the Sunni area's, and many Sunni's were aiding the insurgency for money from insurgents and Al Quada before this, NOT because they really believed in what they were doing. They simply needed money to keep themselves and their family fed. Helping them in that respect while the Iraqi government was still forming was important and did help to save lives and bring stability to some area's.

But the main reason for the decline in Iraqi deaths and violence throughout the country was the US decision to deploy 33% more ground combat power and spread out US deployments all across the country. While individually each outpost was more vulnerable than the larger but fewer well protected bases, they were able to cover a much larger area of the country and better protect the population. While this was happening, the additional surge brigades were actively rooting out insurgent cells in Baghdad and then in Baghdad suburbs and finally into the more rural Sunni provinces. Better intelligence helped out enormously as the stationing of US troops in a wider number of villiages and towns brought confidence and a sense of security to locals. They were more willing to risk helping the coalition in rooting out insurgence in their area's.

Looking at the actual statistics, Iraqi deaths and violence did not start to decline with the Anbar awakening in the summer of 2006. It started to significantly decline after the arrival of all 5 Surge Brigades and the launch of all surge operations in the late summer of 2007!

As of November 2008, the murder rate in Iraq is less than that of most major US cities including Washington DC!


An Iraqi government, military, and economy is currently developing that will sustain and improve on the stability that has been achieved by the surge. It is already helping in many ways, and political issues that seemed impossible to resolve have been steadily overcome over the past several years. The government is improving even though progress is slower than people would like. The Iraqi military and police force have made dramatic strides in raising their capababilities. Iraq is in charge of all security in 10 of its 18 provinces. By the end of 2009 all Iraqi provinces security will be under the control of Iraqi military and police forces. The US military at that time will be mainly in a support role and will have withdrawn from all Iraqi cities and villiages.

There is no society in the world that is immune to the effects of successful and proper counter-insurgency and nation building efforts. Multi-ethnic and religious societies can develop into stable democracies provided they are given the time and the aid needed to do so.


Quote:
but for how much longer? have we not just delayed the coming inevitability of more mass death in Iraq? for what? at what cost? and does the delaying of this inevitable mass death mean more occupation? for how long? to what end? do we have to wait for an entire generation to die out? what happened in Vietnam after 1975? are we to endlessly prop up Baghdad? to contain ... not the Soviet Union, but what?
Iraq is sitting on the worlds largest oil reserves, with the exception of Saudi Arabia. Even though its oil infrustucture has yet to be fully repaired and improved, it has already accumulated a surplus of over $100 Billion dollars. Over the next 10 years, there are plans to TRIPLE Iraqi oil production. Bosnia and Kosovo do not have any source of wealth comparable to that and have much less of a history of being and independent state, yet both continue to successfully develop into stronger more stable countries.

By rebuilding Iraq, the United States is helping to stabilize the worlds most vital energy resource region. Iraq does not have to go through some mass blood letting process to achieve stability if the country continues to stay on the right path of development and the international community does not withdraw its aid prematurely.

In 1975, the independent nation of South Vietnam was overrun by North Vietnamese forces in a large scale armored military assault similar to Hitlers invasion of Poland. This occured two years after the United States had withdrawn ALL of its troops and a year and a half after it had cut off most supplies for the South Vietnamese military. There is NOTHING in Iraq today that even vaguely resembles the situation between North Vietnam and South Vietnam in the spring of 1975!


In Iraq, just as in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, it will continue to require aid and support for many years. But over time, the level of support will be able to be reduced as development increases. In Iraq's case, they already have a 100 Billion dollar surplus and the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world to help out.

Quote:
there is no way out of Iraq, and nothing was improved by the removal of Hussein that has not been negated by something just as dangerous. you've replaced one set of problems with another, and managed to kill tens of thousands along the way.
How is Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil supply more in danger of being siezed or sabotaged with Saddam out of power? Removing Saddam has reduced and eliminated many of the fundamental regional problems that have existed for many years if not decades. Nation building and counter insurgency are not problems, but are beneficial to Iraq and the region and will create opportunities that previously did not exist for the majority of people.

Quote:
is it reasonable to ask the American people to spend their treasure and spill their blood on something that amounts to very little in the end?
Protecting the worlds vital energy resources has always been in the interest of the United States for decades. You cannot minimize the importance of protecting these vital global energy resources. Without Persian Gulf Energy supply, the global economy currently would not be able to survive. Were talking about the survival of global society as we have known it for decades.

Quote:
do we really think we can forcibly integrate the Arab/Muslim world to be like a secular European democracy?
Thats not the US goal in Iraq.

Quote:
has Iraq ever been truly pacified?
Its been pacified multiple times through out history although with different methods.

Quote:
simply because the Americans seem to have done it better than anyone doesn't mean at all that it's being done well
Well, thats certainly not an indication that its being done poorly.

Quote:
if you want to "succeed" in Iraq, and to follow The Surge through to it's logical end, which is not just the stanching of violence for a few months, then it will require a significant military presence in Baghdad for the rest of our lives.
Is that the lesson that we learned in Bosnia? Kosovo? Is that the lesson that were learning in Afghanistan?

Nation Building and sustainable development are about creating the ability for a country to be able to handle all of its own internal affairs without the need for foreign help. There are numourous examples around the world where this has worked or is currently working.
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 01:42 AM   #154
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Sorry but what I qouted above is from 2005, AFTER the 2004 elections.

What you qouted above is not at all a definitive answer on anything.

What Bush said TODAY is indeed a definitive answer:
YES, exactly. Are you daft?

Should we let this sink in a few more minutes before proceeeding?

I didn't quote anything but your words, brainchild.

If you mean, what I quoted of your stunted words is "not at all a definitive answer on anything" then, I have to ask a simple question.

Is that lost on anyone?

Let me type slowly, if that's even possible....

Bush had one opinion when he wanted to be re-elected. IN 2004

And a different opinion when elections didn't matter.

Caught up yet?
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 01:00 PM   #155
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
YES, exactly. Are you daft?

Should we let this sink in a few more minutes before proceeeding?

I didn't quote anything but your words, brainchild.

If you mean, what I quoted of your stunted words is "not at all a definitive answer on anything" then, I have to ask a simple question.

Is that lost on anyone?

Let me type slowly, if that's even possible....

Bush had one opinion when he wanted to be re-elected. IN 2004

And a different opinion when elections didn't matter.

Caught up yet?
Bush's opinion on the war has been consistently the same from 2002 to today. Before elections and after elections. Caught up yet?
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 12:42 PM   #156
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 27,432
Local Time: 12:41 AM



BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A man identified as an Iraqi journalist threw shoes at -- but missed -- President Bush during a news conference Sunday evening in Baghdad, where Bush was making a farewell visit.

Bush ducked, and the shoes, flung one at a time, sailed past his head during the news conference with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in his palace in the heavily fortified Green Zone.

The shoe-thrower -- identified as Muntadhar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist with Egypt-based al-Baghdadia television network -- could be heard yelling in Arabic: "This is a farewell ... you dog!"

While pinned on the ground by security personnel, he screamed: "You killed the Iraqis!"

Al-Zaidi was dragged away. While al-Zaidi was still screaming in another room,Bush said: "That was a size 10 shoe he threw at me, you may want to know."

Hurling shoes at someone, or sitting so that the bottom of a shoe faces another person, is considered an insult among Muslims.

Al-Baghdadia issued a statement Sunday demanding al-Zaidi's release.

Al-Zaidi remained in custody Monday while the Iraqi judiciary decides whether he will face charges of assaulting al-Maliki, a government official said.

The official said al-Zaidi is being tested for alcohol and drugs to determine if he was fully conscious during the incident.

Al-Zaidi drew international attention in November 2007 when he was kidnapped while on his way to work in central Baghdad. He was released three days later.

Bush had been lauding the conclusion of a security pact with Iraq as journalists looked on.

"So what if the guy threw his shoe at me?" Bush told a reporter in response to a question about the incident.

"Let me talk about the guy throwing his shoe. It's one way to gain attention. It's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. It's like driving down the street and having people not gesturing with all five fingers. ...

"These journalists here were very apologetic. They ... said this doesn't represent the Iraqi people, but that's what happens in free societies where people try to draw attention to themselves."

Bush then directed his comments to the security pact, which he and al-Maliki were preparing to sign, hailing it as "a major achievement" but cautioning that "there is more work to be done."

"All this basically says is we made good progress, and we will continue to work together to achieve peace," Bush said.

Bush's trip was to celebrate the conclusion of the security pact, called the Strategic Framework Agreement and the Status of Forces Agreement, the White House said.

The pact will replace a U.N. mandate for the U.S. presence in Iraq that expires at the end of this year. The agreement, reached after months of negotiations, sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns. The date for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq is December 31, 2011.

Bush called the passage of the pact "a way forward to help the Iraqi people realize the blessings of a free society."

Bush said the work "hasn't been easy, but it has been necessary for American security, Iraqi hope and world peace."

Bush landed at Baghdad International Airport on Sunday and traveled by helicopter to meet with President Jalal Talabani and his two vice presidents at Talabani's palace outside the Green Zone.

It marked the first time he has been outside the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad without being on a military base.

The visit was Bush's fourth since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Afterward, Talabani praised his U.S. counterpart as a "great friend for the Iraqi people" and the man "who helped us to liberate our country and to reach this day, which we have democracy, human rights, and prosperity gradually in our country."

Talabani said he and Bush, who is slated to leave office next month, had spoken "very frankly and friendly" and expressed the hope that the two would remain friends even "back in Texas."


For his part, Bush said he had come to admire Talabani and his vice presidents "for their courage and for their determination to succeed."

As the U.S. and Iraqi national anthems played and Iraqi troops looked on, he and the Iraqi president walked along a red carpet. VideoWatch President Bush and Iraq's president walk the red carpet »

Bush left Iraq on Sunday night and arrived Monday morning in Afghanistan, where he will met with President Hamid Karzai and speak with U.S. troops.

In remarks to reporters, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who traveled with Bush, described the situation in Iraq as "in a transition."

"For the first time in Iraq's history and really the first time in the region, you have Sunni, Shia and Kurds working together in a democratic framework to chart a way forward for their country," he said.

On Monday, new violence in Iraq showed that work remains to be done.

A suicide car bomb attack killed at least three people and wounded 31 others west of Baghdad on Monday, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said. The noontime bombing targeted civilians on a road between Khan Dhari and Abu Ghraib, according to the official.

Also, the U.S. military said three militants were killed and 13 others were detained in operations targeting al Qaeda in Iraq on Sunday and Monday. The incidents took place in Baiji, Tall Sumayyir, Tikrit, near the towns of Abu Ghraib, Mahmoudiya and Kirkuk.
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 02:46 PM   #157
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 09:41 PM
For years South Park has been incorporating current events.



So why not have a little South Park in our current events.
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 03:12 PM   #158
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 12:41 AM
among other disasters, we now know that GWB himself was responsible for torture:


Quote:
Levin, McCain Release Executive Summary and Conclusions of Report on Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody

WASHINGTON – Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) today released the executive summary and conclusions of the Committee’s report of its inquiry into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.

A major focus of the Committee’s investigation was the influence of Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape (SERE) training techniques on the interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. SERE training is designed to teach our soldiers how to resist interrogation by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions and international law. During SERE training, U.S. troops --- in a controlled environment with great protections and caution --- are exposed to harsh techniques such as stress positions, forced nudity, use of fear, sleep deprivation, and until recently, the waterboard. The SERE techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody. The Committee’s investigation found, however, that senior officials in the U.S. government decided to use some of these harsh techniques against detainees based on deeply flawed interpretations of U.S. and international law.

The Committee concluded that the authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials was both a direct cause of detainee abuse and conveyed the message that it was okay to mistreat and degrade detainees in U.S. custody.

Chairman Levin said, “SERE training techniques were designed to give our troops a taste of what they might be subjected to if captured by a ruthless, lawless enemy so that they would be better prepared to resist. The techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody.”

Senator McCain said, “The Committee’s report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody. These policies are wrong and must never be repeated.”

Chairman Levin also said: “The abuses at Abu Ghraib, GTMO and elsewhere cannot be chalked up to the actions of a few bad apples. Attempts by senior officials to pass the buck to low ranking soldiers while avoiding any responsibility for abuses are unconscionable. The message from top officials was clear; it was acceptable to use degrading and abusive techniques against detainees. Our investigation is an effort to set the record straight on this chapter in our history that has so damaged both America’s standing and our security. America needs to own up to its mistakes so that we can rebuild some of the good will that we have lost.” (Sorry Strongbow! your sputtering "bad apples" argument is crap! Even McCain knows it!)

In the course of its more than 18-month long investigation, the Committee reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents and conducted extensive interviews with more than 70 individuals.
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 05:49 PM   #159
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Got Philk?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Arizona, Tacoma, Philadelphia ,Atlanta, LA...
Posts: 6,875
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Dang...that George W. has some quick reflexes!
Got Philk? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2008, 05:57 PM   #160
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
among other disasters, we now know that GWB himself was responsible for torture:
Well, thats the bad kind of torture, the type run by Rethuglicans, Obama will be more enlightened
Quote:
FEW post-9/11 issues have produced more anxiety and revulsion than the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of “aggressive interrogation” and the extrajudicial rendition of terrorist suspects to countries that practice torture. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to ban waterboarding and other pain-inflicting soliciting techniques, as well as rendition. He has also promised to close the Guantánamo Bay prison.

More broadly, liberal Democrats in Congress intend to deploy a more moral counterterrorism, where the ends — stopping the slaughter of civilians by Islamic holy warriors — no longer justifies reprehensible means. Winning the hearts and minds of foreigners by remaining true to our nobler virtues is now seen as the way to defeat our enemies while preserving our essential goodness.

Sounds uplifting. Don’t bet on it happening.

Mr. Obama will soon face the same awful choices that confronted George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and he could well be forced to accept a central feature of their anti-terrorist methods: extraordinary rendition. If the choice is between non-deniable aggressive questioning conducted by Americans and deniable torturous interrogations by foreigners acting on behalf of the United States, it is almost certain that as president Mr. Obama will choose the latter.

Of course, he and his senior officials seem to believe now that they don’t have to make this choice. For them there is a better way to combat terrorism, by using physically non-coercive questioning of suspects and civilian courts or military courts-martial to try and punish jihadists.

But this third way, which is essentially where America was before the Clinton administration embraced rendition, is plausible only if Mr. Obama is lucky. He might be. If there is no “ticking time bomb” situation — say, where waterboarding a future Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the 9/11 mastermind) could save thousands of civilians — then there is neither need for the C.I.A.’s exceptional methods, nor the harsh services of Jordan’s General Intelligence Department.

And there are signs that Mr. Obama won’t have to confront such a situation. Through American and allied efforts, Al Qaeda has sustained enormous damage since 9/11. Osama bin Laden’s decisive battle in Iraq, where Al Qaeda intended to re-energize its holy war against the Americans among the Arabs, has turned into a military and moral disaster. Arab Muslim fundamentalists have finally started the great debate as to whether it is, in fact, unacceptable to kill believers and nonbelievers in jihad.

And the internal-security services of our allies in Europe are, on the whole, vastly better today than they were in 2001. Thanks to intrusive surveillance methods (many of which are outlawed in the United States), they are much more efficient in pre-empting the plots of holy warriors traversing their borders.

However, troubles in Pakistan may well reverse Mr. Obama’s luck. He has said he intends to be hawkish about fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Central Asia. So, let us suppose that he increases the number of Special Forces raids into Pakistan, and those soldiers capture members of Al Qaeda and their computers, and learn that the group has advanced plans for striking American and European targets, but we don’t know specifically where or when.

What would Mr. Obama do? After all, if we’d gotten our hands on a senior member of Al Qaeda before 9/11, and knew that an attack likely to kill thousands of Americans was imminent, wouldn’t waterboarding, or taking advantage of the skills of our Jordanian friends, have been the sensible, moral thing to do with a holy warrior who didn’t fear death but might have feared pain?

Mr. Obama will probably not have the option of ordering the C.I.A. to aggressively interrogate another member of Al Qaeda — not after running a campaign that highlighted the moral failings of President Bush. To get the C.I.A. back in the interrogation business would probably require a liberal Democratic Congress to pass laws guaranteeing case officers’ immunity from criminal and civil prosecution. This seems unlikely — unless, of course, the United States is again devastated by a terrorist strike.

And because of Mr. Obama’s plan to close Guantánamo, the Justice Department is already going to have to figure out how to move, try, punish and release its detainees. Thus the last thing in the world the Obama administration will want is to bring in more “enemy combatants” from the Central Asian battlefield.

Which brings us back to rendition, which, properly understood, is what Americans do when they realize that active counterterrorism against jihadists prepared to use mass-casualty weapons is an ethical, juridical and operational tar pit. It isn’t an ideal solution — American intelligence officers have no control of the questioning, and Washington can become beholden to foreign security services — but it’s a satisfactory compromise. Just ask Samuel R. Berger, the national-security adviser for President Bill Clinton, who no doubt worked through all the pitfalls when he first approved extrajudicial rendition.

In addition, the C.I.A. is able to guard the secrecy of foreign-liaison operations more effectively, especially from Congressional prying, than it can its own activities. It has also certainly paid close attention to how the press tracked some of its clandestine international flights carrying terrorism suspects after 9/11, and will in the future undoubtedly make it much harder to sleuth out who is going where.

A dense bipartisan moral fog surrounds rendition. Former senior Clinton officials can still deny that they sent anyone away in order that he be tortured. Few are as honest and frank as Walt Slocombe, a Clinton undersecretary of defense who once remarked that the difference between Democratic and Republican rendition was that Democrats “drilled air holes in the boxes.”

If Mr. Obama’s Democrats get blown back into the ugly world that we live in, and resume rendition (and, of course, fib about it), then President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who have been vilified for besmirching America’s honor, may at least take some consolation in knowing that hypocrisy is always the homage vice pays to virtue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/op...pNdqrsgBXhxgOg
__________________

A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×