A "Generational commitment..."?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Jun 21, 2005.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    That's what <a href=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160008,00.html>Condi Rice</a> said of the US commitment in Iraq. This stands in stark contrast to <a href=http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm>Dick Cheney's assessment</a> in March of 2003 that:

    <blockquote>...we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.</blockquote>

    Or Rummy's statement in February of 2003 that:

    <blockquote>It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.</blockquote>

    And, let's not forget <a href=http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1842094>OMB Director Mitch Daniels'</a> rosy outlook, also in March of 2003:

    <blockquote>The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.</blockquote>

    We all now know that these optimistic or, more appropriately - unrealistic, estimates were nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. Yet the administration, refusing to accept the estimates of its commanders on the ground continues to cheerily assert that the insurgency in Iraq is in its "last throes". According to <a href=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20050619/ts_nm/iraq_dc_37>General William Webster</a>, the US commander for Baghdad,

    <blockquote>Certainly saying anything about 'breaking the back' or 'about to reach the end of the line' or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point.</blockquote>

    This administration has been so wrong on so many things about Iraq, not the least of which includes the lack of post-war planning cited in the Downing Street Minutes and other documents. Can we really trust their myopic, rose-colored assessment of conditions there now?
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Cheney and Rumsfield's statements were about the war itself, not winning the peace, which is what you've been complaining about this whole time - that the Bush administration had no plan to win the peace. Now, Condi comes out with a plan for long-term security, and you criticize them.

    Oh, by the way, you totally took Condi's statement out of context as well. Here's what she said, "And so the administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq. But it is not a generational commitment in military terms; it is a commitment of our support to them, our political support and an understanding that democracy takes time. But they're making very rapid progress."

    So your whole post is based on taking a few words out of context. Way to go. :clap:
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    I'm very well aware of the context in which I placed Condi's statement, and I did so deliberately.

    Again, the point being that this Administration has been so wrong on so much in Iraq, how can we blindly accept that the "generational commitment" won't mean our troops dying on a daily basis in a war rooted in misrepresentation, if not outright lies, for years to come?

    Remember this from October 2003?

    <center><img src=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/1030-02.jpg></center>

    The mission is not accomplished.
     
  4. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    The War On Poverty - started in 1965 --- still going strong 40 years later and no end in sight.... 5 trillion spent, hundreds of thousands dead, relatively few, if any, have broken out of the cycle of poverty.....

    War on Poverty? Bull!!!!

    "War" to maintain phoney baloney government jobs, fatten up social spending with ineffective government programs and expand the role of government meddling in our lives? ---- Mission Accomplished!!!!!
     
  5. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Again, the mission was combat operations against Saddam Hussein's army. That mission was accomplished - and in a mighty fine way, to boot. That's because the Pentagon excels in state vs. state fighting, which is what this war was.

    What the Pentagon does not excel in - because it's a new concept - is nation building. But in the last two years, we've allowed Iraqis to hold elections, build infrastructure, and begin to join the rest of the civilized world, which Saddam had kept them out of for decades.

    Our commitment to Iraq is similar to what our commitment to post-WWII Japan and Germany was. I will not be surprised in 30 years to see Iraq as the economic powerhouse of the Middle East.
     
  6. ThomasPaine
    Offline

    ThomasPaine Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    I would think 1-2 more years because A. The media harping will cause the American people to tire of the effort, this being despite the fact that Iraq now IS the war on terror; i.e. terrorists from around the Muslim world are converging on Iraq and this incorrectly labeled "insurgency". It's no insurgency. Hangers on from the Bathist party and outside agitators are not "fighting" American troops they are commiting acts of terrrorism against Iraqis and our troops. B. Bush politically knows that he cannot saddle the Republican candidate for President in 2008 with an ongoing war and expect to win. Whether successful in training the Iraqis to do for themselves or not, they will take over their own defense and we will be out of there late 2007, early 2008, at the latest..
     
  7. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    They won the war, but not the peace. But that can be chalked up to piss poor planning on the part of the Bush administration...not the troops.

    And as I recall, Dubbyuh stated that he wouldn't be engaging in any nation building when he debated Al Gore in October 2000...

    <blockquote>I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations.</blockquote>

    In other words, the Iraqi's should have been the ones to take Saddam out...Not our troops.
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Bully, I thought they DIDN'T HAVE A PLAN?
     
  9. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    They didn't, and don't dear lady. Piss poor planning...no planning...same thing.
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

Share This Page