1. Welcome to TRD Forums! A community for Toyota, Lexus, and Scion Enthusiasts. To enjoy all the benefits of the site, we invite you to signup.

News Article: Senate Rebukes Bush on Iraq Policy

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Ninety Four, Nov 15, 2005.

  1. Offline

    Ninety Four New Member

    Message Count:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Article: Senate Rebukes Bush on Iraq Policy

    The tide is starting to turn...
  2. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Keeping Congress in the loop. Nothing wrong with that
  3. Offline

    corollarider19 New Member

    Message Count:
    3,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i think people are finally starting to get sick and tired of the war
  4. Offline

    Ninety Four New Member

    Message Count:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why it took this long, I don't know. I knew once Bush weaseled his way from Afghanistan to Iraq, things were going down the shitter.
  5. Offline

    Barnacules 100101101011011

    Message Count:
    2,933
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Duvall, WA
    Get in, Get the gas, Get out. Why does it have to be more complicated then that :):):)
  6. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Get the gas....lol
  7. Offline

    corollarider19 New Member

    Message Count:
    3,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thats what iam thinking just take over the oil fields just get it done with
  8. Offline

    Cuztomrollaz98 MAD VLAD!

    Message Count:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Littleton, CO.
    yea sound so easy man..... come on people let's get realistic here, that won't happen, no way no how. It's been what 3 yrs since the military is been in there and all this war has caused is the death of innocent people and create more hate on the terrorist world against the U.S so pretty much we aren't safe at all thanks to all this.
  9. Offline

    Fgca_rolla milky cocopuffs

    Message Count:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    Here's my issues with the subject:
    A-Bush says his ground leaders haven't advised him of the necessity to pull out troops, but last week on of his Generals in Iraq submitted a proposal for withdrawal from Iraq to Mr. Rummy.

    B-Pulling out early will supposedly fuel the insurgency. I'd say we are doing a damn good job fueling the insurgents just being over there. Not to sound like a dick, but they are taking pride in trying to blow up US troops. If you take the oxygen away from a fire it goes out. I don't know, I'm just sick of us being target practice.
  10. Offline

    Ninety Four New Member

    Message Count:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you in the armed services?
  11. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Another Uncle of mine just left the US on Friday, and will eventually end up in Iraq. He spends roughly 10 days in Germany, then hops over to Afghanistan, and then into Baghdad

    Ill talk to him on the phone though when he gets there....I have another uncle thats already there, and hes gone over to our news studio and talked to me via phone.

    This uncle will be in the blackhawk helicopters on the gun
  12. Offline

    Ninety Four New Member

    Message Count:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why aren't you for an immediate pull out considering you have more than one member of your family over there?
  13. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Because my uncle that is over there, in addition to the Iraqis that I talk to every day, say that what they are doing is for the good of the citizens. They ARE living a better life, no matter what you think. No matter what you think the REAL reason that Bush made that decision to send troops....regardless, theyre leading a better life. My uncle that is on his way has been in the services for almost 18 years, and hasnt been in battle. (He has done some cool things like aerial support with the DEA and stuff like that) Hes been looking forward to this oppurtunity, and its not rare for long time soldiers to feel this way.

    I am all for Bush to outline a TENTATIVE schedule to start pulling troops out....theyre in the process right now of swapping out a large majority of the troops that are over there. Pulling more out than theyre replacing them with.
  14. Offline

    Ninety Four New Member

    Message Count:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it really depends on who you're talking to. Just like we're divided on what the US's position should be, Iraqis are also divided as to whether the US being there has helped them. I agree most probably wanted Saddam gone, but they fell they really aren't much better off than they were before due to all of the political turmoil that has been created in the wake of Saddam's departure.
  15. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Yeah, but its a different kind of fear. And of course the citizens are split.

    I would like to see a tentative schedule for pull out though
  16. Offline

    Fgca_rolla milky cocopuffs

    Message Count:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    In America our voter turn out for the 2004 presidential election was approximatly 54%. In Iraqs elections the average turn out (for the previous two elections *interim gov and constitution*) has been over 80% for both elections. I think that alone shows that what we are doing in Iraq is beneficial to the people themselves. I think we just need to step up training the Iraqi forces to make them capable of handling the situation. I know thats what we are doing now, but it seems to be a slow process. If we had to bump more soldiers into the area for a few months to get the process done considerably quicker I'd be all for that. Like andree says we need some sort of exit plan.
  17. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    And we didnt have to worry about polling stations being bombed.
    And WOMEN being allowed to vote.....unheard of during Saddams reign
  18. Offline

    Ninety Four New Member

    Message Count:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well why are groups targeting US troops so heavily? I don't think it's because they want to thank us for setting up such great elections...
  19. Offline

    Cuztomrollaz98 MAD VLAD!

    Message Count:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Littleton, CO.
    they should just pull out, from my point of view I don't see a purpose of being there but for death man... correct me if I'm wrong on this but well that's what I think.
  20. Offline

    Ninety Four New Member

    Message Count:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, you're right.
  21. Offline

    Cuztomrollaz98 MAD VLAD!

    Message Count:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Littleton, CO.
    okay and well doesn't Iraq have their own army? let them handle that shit, why would we need to get stay there longer.
  22. Offline

    Fgca_rolla milky cocopuffs

    Message Count:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    We are building up their Army as we speak. They had a "well trained" army during the Saddam regim, but obviously we can't let those guys be in charge of the military or else our efforts will be in vain. If you look at the war from a political stand point we are actually doing good over there and I think thats why the insurgents hate us so badly. We've threatend to over run any regime that doesn't take our stance on terrorism as well as our hope for the spread of democracy/free trade. We used Iraq as basically as a lesson to the other countries. We invaded, toppled the regime, and set up a democraticly ran government. Since then Syria has pulled out of Lebanon. In Egypt, in the past election they had, more than one 'political party' was allowed to run in the election. There are other cases of how we are getting our way with the Middle East, but I'm uber exhausted and don't have all of them in front of me.

    So while 2000+ soldiers have now died, at least its not in vain and their was actually a purpose to what they did since America is slowly becoming a safer place.

    I'm not necessarily for the war, but I understand it I suppose. I think we just need to get our jobs done and move on.
  23. Offline

    Cuztomrollaz98 MAD VLAD!

    Message Count:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Littleton, CO.
    well I do agree with the part of building the army and what not, makes sence. I also am not for the war but what I do know is that they need to pull out.
  24. Offline

    Ellada New Member

    Message Count:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    DID YOU KNOW...

    Today's did you know tip:
    Bush administrator has borrowed more money from outside resources than ALL previous presidents combined. approximation of 1.3 trillion dollars.
  25. Offline

    Cuztomrollaz98 MAD VLAD!

    Message Count:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Littleton, CO.
    pfff hell if we did know man, of course we know lol but well aside that I think he's borrowed more and it's gonna finish his presidential period and leaving the U.S with such debt that I feel sorry for the next president lol
  26. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    The INSURGENTS are targeting US troops. Which is a small percentage. Do you know who Al Zarqawi is?
  27. Offline

    Ninety Four New Member

    Message Count:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    These insurgents of which you speak seem to kill a good number of US troops per week. Do you agree?

    At this point I think the US is trying to avoid the image of being beaten in Iraq. I understand America has to keep its image as the premier superpower, but at some point, you have to have compassion for the people who are risking their lives on the front lines and send them home.
  28. Offline

    ob1murry New Member

    Message Count:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At some point you have to respect their wishes. THEY put their lives on the line, not you and not me, if they want to go, or they want to stay and fight for what they believe in, as many do, who are we say no? Like you said, it's them putting their lives on the line.
  29. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD
    Bush opposers, please explain:

    STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

    Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

    Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

    The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

    My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

    In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

    On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

    The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

    WILLIAM J. CLINTON

    THE WHITE HOUSE,

    October 31, 1998.


    And this:

    This war cannot be stopped by a loyal opposition
    The refrain of the Democrats about being misled into supporting the invasion of Iraq has become really tired. And someone other than the White House smearmongers needs to say it: The Democrats cannot be allowed to use faulty intelligence as a crutch to hold up their unforgivable support for the Iraq invasion. What is DNC Chair Howard Dean’s excuse? He wasn’t in Congress and didn’t have any access to Senate intelligence. Still, on March 9, 2003, just days before the invasion began, Dean told Tim Russert, on NBC’s Meet The Press, “I don’t want Saddam staying in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed.”

    During the New Hampshire primary in January 2004, which I covered for Democracy Now!, I confronted Dean about that statement. I asked him on what intelligence he based that allegation. “Talks with people who were knowledgeable,” Dean told me. “Including a series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.”

    A series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.

    How does that jibe with the official Democratic line that they were misled by the Bush administration? Sounds like Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, was misled by….the Democrats. Dean’s candor offers us a rare glimpse into the painful truth of the matter. As unpopular as this is to say, when President Bush accuses the Democrats of “rewriting history” on Iraq, he is right.

    None of the horrors playing out in Iraq today would be possible without the Democratic Party. And no matter how hard some party leaders try to deny it, this is their war too and will remain so until every troop is withdrawn. There is no question that the Bush administration is one of the most corrupt, violent and brutal in the history of this country but that doesn’t erase the serious responsibility the Democrats bear for the bloodletting in Iraq.

    As disingenuous as the Administration’s claims that Iraq had WMDs is the flimsy claim by Democratic lawmakers that they were somehow duped into voting for the war. The fact is that Iraq posed no threat to the United States in 2003 any more than it did in 1998 when President Clinton bombed Baghdad. John Kerry and his colleagues knew that. The Democrats didn’t need false intelligence to push them into overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was their policy; a policy made the law of the land not under George W. Bush, but under President Bill Clinton when he signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, formally initiating the process of regime change in Iraq.

    Manipulated intelligence is but a small part of a bigger, bipartisan15-year assault on Iraq’s people. If the Democrats really want to look at how America was led into this war, they need to go back further than the current president’s inauguration.

    As bloody and deadly as the occupation has been, it was Bill Clinton who refined the art of killing innocent Iraqis following the Gulf War.One of his first acts as president was to bomb Iraq, following the alleged assassination plot against George HW Bush. Clinton’s missiles killed the famed Iraqi painter Leila al Attar as they smashed into her home. Clinton presided enthusiastically over the most deadly and repressive regime of economic sanctions in history—his UN ambassadorMadeline Albright calling the reported deaths of half a million children “worth the price.” Clinton initiated the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam with his illegal no-fly zone bombings, attacking Iraq once every three days for the final years of his presidency. It was under Clinton that Ahmed Chalabi was given tens of millions of dollars and made a key player in shaping Washington’s Iraq policy. It was Clinton that mercilessly attacked Iraq in December of1998, destroying dozens of Baghdad buildings and killing scores of civilians. It was Clinton that codified regime change in Iraq as U.S. policy. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq but he could not have done it without the years of groundwork laid by Clinton and the Democrats. How ironic it was recently to hear Clinton call the war “a big mistake.”

    It’s easy to resist war with a president like Bush in the White House. Where were these Democrats when it was Clinton’s bombs raining down on Iraq, when it was Clinton’s economic sanctions targeting the most vulnerable? Many of them were right behind him and his deadly policies the same way they were behind Bush when he asked their consent to use force against Iraq. As the veteran Iraq activist and Nobel Prize nominee Kathy Kelly said often during the Clinton years, “It’s easy to be a vegetarian between meals.” The fact is that one of the great crimes of our times was committed by the Clinton administration withthe support of many of the politicians now attacking Bush.

    Herein lies the real political crisis in this country: the Democratsare not an opposition party, nor are they an antiwar party—never were. At best, they are a loyal opposition. The Democrats ran a pro-war campaign in 2004 with Kerry struggling to convince people that Dems do occupation and war better. The current head of the DNC, Howard Dean, never met a war he didn’t adore until he realized he could exploit the energy and sincere hopes of millions of peace-loving Americans. Dean wasn’t ever antiwar. In fact, during the 2004 campaign he attacked Kerry for opposing the Gulf War while laying out his own pro-war record.

    “In 1991, I supported Gulf War. I supported the first President Bush,” declared Dean. “Senator Kerry who criticizes my foreign policy, he voted against that war. I supported the Afghanistan war, because I felt it was about our national defense—3,000 of our people were killed. I supported President Clinton going into Bosnia and Kosovo.”

    How can Howard Dean look people in the eye today and pretend to speak with any credibility as an antiwar voice?

    When the hawkish Democrat Rep. John Murtha bravely stepped forward to call for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq this week, he was quickly blasted by the White House and simultaneously disowned by powerful Democrats like John Kerry. Occupation lovers together again. The bloody scandal of the Iraq occupation has opened a rare and clear window into the truth about this country: there is one party represented in Washington—one that supports preemptive war and regime change. The reality is that the Democrats could stop this war if the will was there. They could shut down the Senate every day, not just for a few hours one afternoon. They could disrupt business as usual and act as though the truth were true: this war should never have happened and it must end now. The country would be behind them if they did it. But they won’t. They will hem and haw and call for more troops and throw out epic lies about the US becoming a stabilizing force in Iraq and blame the Republicans for their own complicity and enthusiasm in the 15 years of bipartisan crimes against Iraq.

    All of this begs for a multiparty system in this country and thee mergence of a true opposition. The epic scale of the disaster in Iraq calls for epic lessons to be learned at home. Like the Bush White House, the Democrats have lost their credibility. They are undeserving of the blank check of “Anybody But Bush” and should never be allowed to cash it again. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who heads up the House Democrats’ election campaign, criticized Murtha’s call for immediate withdrawal, saying, “At the right time, we will have a position.” It is statements like that that should result in Emanuel and his colleagues losing theirs.

    Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. He can be reached at jeremy at democracynow.org.

Share This Page