Can't have Maliki saying that Iraq wants US troops out, and that Obama's timetable is a good baseline.

Noooooo! The Bush admin. had to make some phone calls. It is their war, after all.

..........Maliki must be counting the days till Bush is gone and he can deal with a sane American president......

Skizziks-
Bush is scrambling around trying to save is legacy of failed policies. Notice that we're now talking to Iran without Bush's pre-conditions being met prior to talks. If I were Obama or McCain I'd be pissed off that Bush was finally negotiating from a position of such obvious weakness.

I think low-road theories often explain odd behaviors. Bush may be allowing his narcisscism to erupt again. The idea is the steal the thunder of two people you think may do better than you.

Having said that, I think if Bush can find a reason to attack Iran in the next six months, he will.

Because, as you know, if you are a narcisscist you are also crazy. And nothing draws that old attention like napalm.

Figures. The timing on the CENTCOM release was enough to make a thinking person realize the game being played.

Having said that, I think if Bush can find a reason to attack Iran in the next six months, he will.

If that right there isn't enough of a reason to keep George otherwise occupied with other things, like impeachment hearings, I don't know what is.

Gotta love it. The transcripts in the original languages have been released, and there's no doubt what al-Maliki said. No wonder the WH got on the phone right away. CYA in full swing.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Maliki's comments by The Times: "Obama's remarks that if he takes office in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

Backoff Accomplished?

Make the guy look even more like a puppet to his own people. Kind of shows that the Bushies really have no desire for the Iraqi government to take control over there.

But after the Spiegel interview was published and began generating headlines Saturday, officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad contacted Maliki's office to express concern and seek clarification on the remarks, according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Can't have Maliki endorsing the evil librul plan. A few billion in taxpayer money funneled directly to Al Maliki's personal bank account solved the problem.

the clarification?

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010.
Ali al-Dabbagh made the comments following a meeting in Baghdad on Monday between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day.

The timeframe is similar to Obama's proposal to pull back combat troops within 16 months. The Iraqi government has been trying to clarify its position on a possible troop withdrawal since al-Maliki was quoted in a German magazine last week saying he supported Obama's timetable.

Of course, not to forget the funniest part of this whole saga is that it was the White House that originally released Maliki's comments when they inadvertently sent an E-mail out to the WH PRESS CORPS instead of the WH STAFF.

Insert bullet into chamber, take direct aim at foot, fire.

Bush must be pulling his hair out and I would watch out if I were going hunting with Cheney.

last month it was the rejection of the Bush Maliki agreement over occupation, now this. A year ago Maliki wanted Petreaus replaced, maliki sucks up to Iran, attacking Basra without consulting the US, etc.

good return on our investment.

"Hello Prime Minister Maliki, this is George, change your story or die".

"Maliki Backs Off Obama Timetable Comments...calling his remarks in Der Spiegel "misinterpreted and mistranslated"

"Backs off" makes it sound like it was true. Too Funny.
Next flip flopping will be called poor phrasing or misspeak. Now that's change we can believe in.

I think McBush is beginning to regret complaining that Obama hadn't been to Afghanistan and Iraq.
So far the trip has made Obama look like the one with the ideas and Bush and Maliki look dazed and confused.

We report you decide:

Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany's experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.

Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

Truth: The fact that maliki didn't actuallt say he wanted to bear Obama's children is taken by the Reality-challenged Rightys here to say he loves John McSame and his hundred years' war plan.

Many if not most americans want us out of iraq, iraqis want us out of iraq, al queda wants us out of iraq, iran wants us out of iraq.

4100+ americans
$3 trillion

for what?

"4100+ americans
$3 trillion

for what?"

Where there's $3 trillion involved do you really need to ask?

"for what?"

So George could work out his Oedipal conflicts.
Sad really, when you consider the complex and the mother involved....OMG!!!! That's scary.

*RRRRING*
*RRRING*
*RRRRING*

"Hello?"
"Hey Noory, it's President Bush."
"Ah, Mr. Bush. Just a moment.(Where are my glasses?) Oh, it's 2 AM!"
"Never you mind that, you listen here. What's this shit about you talking about, and more importantly, AGREEING with Senator Obama about a withdrawal? Hell, you ain't supposed to be agreein' with him about ANYTHING! Keep your fucking mouth shut and don't forget who's bankrolling your retirement and who put your sorry ass in office in the first place! You understand me?"
"Yes, Mr. President."
"Good. Good. Now, how's the wife and family?"
"ah...sleeping until now."
"haha. Good (chuckles). Well, you get back to sleep and call another press conference right away, got it, compadre?"
"Ah, what is 'compadre', Mr. Bush?"
"Never mind. Good night, now."

From Politico:

The Times, noting that the interpreter was Maliki's, not Der Spiegel's, gets the tape and offers a very literal translation that backs up the German magazine:

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Malikis office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Malikis interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obamas position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Malikis comments by The Times:

Obamas remarks that if he takes office in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.--

He continued: Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.--

TAXMAN the correct translation is...."we want the US to keep their troops in Iraq for 100 years."

the clarification?

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010.

That's 17 months. Not 16. Let's be clear. 17 is vastly different from 16.

Obama's timetable was 16 months.

Iraq's time horizon is 17 months.

See?

That's 17 months. Not 16. Let's be clear. 17 is vastly different from 16.

Obama's timetable was 16 months.

Iraq's time horizon is 17 months.

See?

Thanks for clearing that up. Totally different. In gnat's time, a month is just like a century, so the Iraq's and McSame are on the same page, gnat-wise.

Clearly John McSame, being shot down 40 years ago would make him a great mititary stratificationer. He also learned us the the gates of Hell is on the Pakistan/afgahnisatn border, so he's a great geographier too.

he was for it before he was against(maliki)
jasman

Jas,

Actually he was for it before he was threatened by Bushco.

Why isn't NANC's version sitting here on front page?

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Malikis comments by The Times:

Obamas remarks that if he takes office in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.--

He continued: Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.--

I wonder if Maliki asked Obama if he regrets his shortsighted legislation he wrote 19 months ago? If it was real or just political? Would he be able to visit Iraq today had all the troops been home by March 2008?

"Would he be able to visit Iraq today had all the troops been home by March 2008?"

Who cares? Our only goal in Iraq should be to make Iraq not our problem anymore.

"Would he be able to visit Iraq today had all the troops been home by March 2008?"

Yup.

Only he wouldn't have to do the Bushsneak in. He could go visit like a welcomed hero, like Iranian President Amandapajamas. You Bushies should be proud he could sneak into the Green Zone and not have to sneak into some airbase north of Goatfuck, kurdistan like Bush has to do.

Who cares? Our only goal in Iraq should be to make Iraq not our problem anymore.

So you agree and support Obama's bill which would have begun the withdrawal immediatly in May 2007? According to the Bill they would have been home by March 2008. Regardless of the situation. He also promised no more US military will be embedded with Iraqi troops. All prior to the only success in years. Has anyone asked Obama about his obvious policy gaff?

CRISPEE how many American soldiers would still be alive???
How many billions of dollars would we have saved???

Personally though, if we are going to go back in the past I would go back befoe the invasion and not do it at all, me and most Americans.

"So you agree and support Obama's bill which would have begun the withdrawal immediatly in May 2007? According to the Bill they would have been home by March 2008. Regardless of the situation."

Yes. The situation is that we never had any reason to be there in the first place and that staying has a very high price.

"All prior to the only success in years. Has anyone asked Obama about his obvious policy gaff?"

How do you define "success"? Americans gain nothing from this. Assuming that people who hate us and who don't want demcoracy will turn into Jr. Americans when we force a government on them at the point of a gun is childish. Iraqis can kill each other all they want and as long as they leave us alone I could care less. They weren't bothering us before our Traitor in Chief decided to exploit 9/11 for his own purposes.

How do you define "success"?

I guess the same way you all define defeat. Something your candidate has been saying and running his campaign on for sme time. Which is why he wrote the witdrawal legislation. Just another free pass? Or does his only attempt at a real policy change not news worthy?

Iraq echos Obama pullout timeline

Or does...

Sorry "is"....

Iraq echos Obama pullout timeline

Which one? 10 months? 16 months?

Ought to change this headline to:

Iraq backs Obama timetable. Again.

"BAGHDAD Iraq's government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010.

The statement by Iraq's government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, followed talks between Obama and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki _ who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq's position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team."

"I guess the same way you all define defeat. Something your candidate has been saying and running his campaign on for sme time. Which is why he wrote the witdrawal legislation. Just another free pass? Or does his only attempt at a real policy change not news worthy?"

He isn't my candidate. Chances are, I won't vote for him.

My only limits for how quickly we should pull out of Iraq would center around doing so in such a way as to minimize the danger to our troops. Other than that, I could really care less. There is no reason to believe a democratic Iraq will be an ally or even anti-terror. A demcoracy comprised of people who hate us can easily vote in a an anti-US, pro-terror cleric.

The whole project was a scam. Bush's war profiteering buddies got a nice payday and the rest of us got screwed. We learned that none of the reasons we were given for going in there applied. Then we were given new reasons for being there. And instead of being outraged, we played along because we didn't want to admit to being bigtime suckers. I don't see any reason for continuing the charade.

Iraq echos Obama pullout timeline

Which one? 10 months? 16 months?

Posted by crispee_oc

Clear answer in the line right under the headline in the linked article....

Iraq echos Obama pullout timeline

Which one? 10 months? 16 months?

Posted by crispee_oc

Clear answer in the line right under the headline in the linked article....

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-07-21 01:07 PM

The one where Maliki denies he said that? Or do we only believe the one that suits the Boy Wonder? Like 10 months in his own legislation or 16 months as his political position?

Obama is traveling as part of a congressional delegation that includes Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), both critics of the war. But in many ways -- from the red carpet rolled out for the group at Maliki's residence to his seat of honor next to Maliki during a brief photo opportunity -- he is being treated like a visiting head of state.

Maliki met Mcsame in a baghdad flea market.

CRISPEE

All you gotta do is click that little link up there and you can read Maliki's statments from .... today....

12:50 pm post

He's a steamroller baby
He's bout to roll all over you
He's a steamroller baby
He's bout to roll all over you
He's gonna inject your soul
With sweet rocknroll, poor heaven

can you feel it yet?

Poor Rightie Tighties! Poor Mr. Poopypants!

So clueless.

CRISPEE

All you gotta do is click that little link up there and you can read Maliki's statments from .... today....

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-07-21 01:51 PM |

This one?

But after the Spiegel interview was published and began generating headlines Saturday, officials at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad contacted Maliki's office to express concern and seek clarification on the remarks, according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

"We want people to focus on is why are we even talking about troop withdrawals,--"

What he says is true CRISPEE, but going farther back it was Barrack Obama who said we shouldn't go into Iraq in the first place, that's when John McCain got it completely wrong. An awfully expensive case of bad judgement. Without that invasion no talk of a "surge" would ever have occurred.

BTW, I think it is pretty consistent on my part considering that Hilary Clinton's vote for the invasion was one of the main reasons I supported Obama over her.

..........Maliki must be counting the days till Bush is gone and he can deal with a sane American president......

Posted by skizziks

lets see........this obama guy is the same one who wouldnt be able to get into iraq today if we had listened to him........SURGE WONT WORK......and all that.....the place would be crawling with taliban and women in chains and probably mas genocide.
but liberal fucks dont give a rats ass about any of that.......

"This one?"

Stop living in the past Crispie. The text of what Maliki said has been released and the original translation confirmed by multiple sources.

Its also been confirmed that he received a call from the US Gov't after he said it, and before they tried to retract it. Odd, that.

They've also released another statement today, after meeting with Obama, that says essentially the same thing.

What he says is true CRISPEE, but going farther back it was Barrack Obama who said we shouldn't go into Iraq in the first place, that's when John McCain got it completely wrong.

So because he was against the war it qualifes him to be his Party's nominee? So anything he said, wrote or believed after 2003 has no bearing on his campaign? Should not be discussed or challenged? I would like to know about the now. Unless he thinks he can turn back the clock, his anti war stance doesn't mean shit today. Nor does it show anything that qualifies him as CiC.

CRISPEE

This is from 1 hour and 57 minutes ago as of when I'm posting:

Iraq appears to share Obama's pullout hope

Statement on U.S. troop withdrawal by 2010 follows meeting with al-Maliki

SURGE WONT WORK

the surge is bullshit and you know it.

yea go ahead and make it about the "surge". You forget that if we had listened to Obama there would be NO need for a "surge".

poor Mr Poopypants... a day late and a dollar short!

If it's bullshit then why did Obama remove all references to it? He sure does seem to be running pretty fast from that "bullshit".

But his judgement is rock solid...

I'll bet you're yet another Tard for Obama that isn't aware he wasn't even in the Senate when the vote was taken.

So what he said or any legislation he wrote, wrong as it may have beeen means nothing today?

Seems to me Obama is echoing the obvious. Everyone wants the troops out. Obama has always said immediate withdrawal. The 16 months came after the conditions on the ground warranted any type of reduction. I believe he also said no US bases will be in Iraq. What does Maliki say about that?

No.

What he's always said was he'd immediately begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq when he is elected president - taking into consideration current conditions and the advice of military commanders on the ground.

"So because he was against the war it qualifes him to be his Party's nominee?"

No his victory in primaries and caucuses qualified him to be the nominee, the election will qualify him to be CinC.

"the place would be crawling with taliban and women in chains and probably mas genocide."

BLT is having a McBush moment, he needs Liberman to whisper in his ear that the Taliban are in Afghanistan and Pakistan not Iraq. they are Sunnis not Shia.

No.

What he's always said was he'd immediately begin withdrawing combat troops from Iraq when he is elected president - taking into consideration current conditions and the advice of military commanders on the ground.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-07-21 03:13 PM

Before or after January 2007? You know when he tried to write legislation bringing all the troops home in 10 months? Which had how many sponsors? Before or after he stated no more US troops will be embedded with Iraq troops. Before or after he and his party said the war is lost and it is time to come home now????

Even as an Obama supporter, I have to admit that the withdrawl legislation is inconsistent with the current announced policy from the Obama Campaign. However, isn't the Right always saying that current conditions need to be evaluated in any decision regarding troops? Can't Obama be given a little credit that may be the driving force of his timetable?

Whether you call it political theatre or just solid policy, it seems that given the success of the surge (gasp, I do admit that it is a success) early 2010 seems to be the date that everyone is pointing to.

After all, isn't the goal to get Iraq stable enough to get our combat troops home?

Whether you call it political theatre or just solid policy, it seems that given the success of the surge (gasp, I do admit that it is a success) early 2010 seems to be the date that everyone is pointing to.

After all, isn't the goal to get Iraq stable enough to get our combat troops home?

Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2008-07-21 03:40 PM

Not accroding to Obama. His entire campaign and policy has been againt it from the beginning.Regardless of the success or failures. He wantd to leave the Iraqi's hanging like George Bush Sr. Nobody can question that fact. No matter what sudden light he now sees. Or political opening.

See: McCain on Somalia 1994

Before or after January 2007? You know when he tried to write legislation bringing all the troops home in 10 months?

I thought the line from the right was the Democrats didn't do anything to end the Iraq War when they were elected....

Which is it?

Before or after January 2007? You know when he tried to write legislation bringing all the troops home in 10 months?

I thought the line from the right was the Democrats didn't do anything to end the Iraq War when they were elected....

Which is it?

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-07-21 04:28 PM |

Which is what? The dems including the Boy Wonder who have said for years the WAR IS LOST. Then when their savior writes legislation to bring the troops home, all these so called leading dems suddenly dummy up? They don't sponsor or bring his bill to the floor? Is that a reflection on Obama's naive thinking? Or the dems as a party?

His entire campaign and policy has been againt it from the beginning.Regardless of the success or failures.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-07-21 03:46 PM

I think that is a fair characterization. However, now that he is a few months away from the election, he has to face a reality (or "sudden light") that there are troops in Iraq, whether he likes it or not and that something needs to be done about it.

As POTUS, people want to know what, if anything, he will do about it, which is why he is making the 16 month statement. I think that time will show that regardless of who is elected, most of our combat troops will be out of Iraq within 15-20 months.

AU-

That line comes from the Left as well, and there is a HUGE difference between writing legislation and actually accomplishing something. Let's be honest with ourselves, the Dems promised us much more then they could deliver, and it is pretty clear that they knew it. Unfortunately, those of us in the rank and file believed them, and now the Rethugs remind us at every turn.

Soooo...did anyone see the NYTs article/graph showing who WE owe money to? When does China start picking up the phone and telling us what to do/say just like W must have done to Maliki (SP?)

LCL-

It's always refreshing to see some honesty and sanity coming from the Left, especially from an admitted Obamaniac. Kudos for a good post.

I agree that our troops will be out sometime in 2010, and then all that will be left is to watch who tries to take credit for it.

"Watch who tries to take credit for it...."

I'm more interested in who takes credit for any Iraqi militias left in 2010. There are 29 of them now. Republicans say they're not responsible for their existence. That denial will continue, don't you think?

We can't stop giving away our Treasury to Blackwater and Ali-Burton! NOOOOOO!

We need WAR to enrich our political friends! Don;t stop now! There's still a few tax dollars to be swindled!

I agree that our troops will be out sometime in 2010, and then all that will be left is to watch who tries to take credit for it.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2008-07-21 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

.....because that's all that really matters to you. NOT that our troops stop dying and we stop spending countless billions per month.

CRISPEE

This is from 1 hour and 57 minutes ago as of when I'm posting:

Iraq appears to share Obama's pullout hope

Statement on U.S. troop withdrawal by 2010 follows meeting with al-Maliki

The same Maliki who was asked if it was worth removing Saddam? Care to guess what he said? Something completely opposite of Obamas position since 2003. You won't find it in the aticle. Only the skewed headline that Iraq backs Obama plan. Hell even the LA Times admitted Maliki was taken out of context. Of course it was at the back of the article on page A18....

Crispee OC-
Do you think we should replace this Maliki with someone more amenable to the way McCain sees things?

I'm sorry. I meant Bush, not "McCain". Wait....either will do. Nevermind.

CRISPEE

The entire interview with Der Spiegel is available online. What do you mean, "Out of context"?

It was Maliki's translator who translated the original interview.

The article I linked doesn't show Maliki speaking 'out of context' this morning repeating himself does it?

The facts are plain and simple.

.....because that's all that really matters to you. NOT that our troops stop dying and we stop spending countless billions per month.

Posted by COMNONSENSE at 2008-07-21 07:08 PM

Nothing of the sort, but if it makes you feel better about yourself to say it, knock yourself out.

I'm glad things are better in Iraq. It's about damn time.

-We're in the 18th month of the "6 month surge", yet with 20,000 more troops than when we started

-The Iraq Study Group's recommendation was that we start withdrawing in January 2007

-The Iraqi Government has still not achieved the political goals the surge was undertaken to allow breathing room for them to achieve

-The Iraqis want us out sooner rather than later

-The country with the 2nd most troops, Great Britain, has 4000 forces, and are planning to withdraw them ASAP

-It's time we and the Iraqis know when our combat forces are leaving, both to give us troops and resources for Afghanistan, and to jump start political progress among the Iraqis themselves. You have to let go of the training wheels at some point or a kid will never ride a bike by himself.

-Afghanistan AND Iraq would have been in better shape

-The American people by a landslide want us out of Iraq

-The Iraqi people by a landslide want us out of Iraq

-If we hadn't invaded we wouldn't even need to have these discussions

So, let's get on with it for everyone's good.

*** So, let's get on with it for everyone's good.
Posted by AMERICANUNITY ****

......yes ....yes .....of course......

.....but the withdrawal has to be on Bush's 16 month withdrawal horizon......

......not Obama's 16 month withdrawal table.......

......or Maliki's 16 month withdrawal table......

.......but it's ironic that when Obama said......

.......16 months to leave Iraq........
........negotiate with Iran........
.......add 2 divisions to Afghanistan.......

......how he was pilloried as "inexperienced", until Bush fell into lock-step with Bam's ideas....

......and now Poopypants is trying to twist himself into a pretzel explaining why Maliki wants us out in 16 months instead of a 100 years........

skizziks must not have noticed the Iranian involvement in Iraq was significantly diminished and then the negotiations started. Which was after the surge of troops that youMama said would never work. Wonder why boy genious missed on that one? Oh never mind, this is your chance to get your hands on someone elses money, so vote him in.

If your concern about Iraq at the present time is getting out then Obama's timeframe should be fine. The Iraqi troops should improve enough over the next 2+ years to maintain order within Iraq while we slowly pull out.

This would only be an issue if you envision a different long-term role for the United States in Iraq(check against Iran). I believe that Maliki/Bush/McCain see this role and that Obama's 16 months is a ploy for Maliki to get an agreement on terms he prefers.

Obama doesn't see a military role for the US in Iraq or the middle east. His timeline would make sense from his point of view or for those who share it.

Which was after the surge of troops that youMama said would never work. Wonder why boy genious missed on that one?

there we go again with that tired old lie! But, of course, when that is all you have, well, go with it!

Stay the course! Even it is bullshit, stay the course!

Even IF it is bullshit, stay the course!

****** lets see........this obama guy is the same one who wouldnt be able to get into iraq today if we had listened to him........SURGE WONT WORK......and all that.....the place would be crawling with taliban and women in chains and probably mas genocide.
but liberal fucks dont give a rats ass about any of that.......

Posted by bushlovertwo ********

.....Saddam was a secular leader, he was an enemy of the Taliban and Al Qaida........there was no Taliban or Al Qaida in Iraq during his time.......

......there were secular laws, and women were not subjected to Sharia type restrictions........

.......Saddam's govt was replaced by a Shia one that takes orders from the Mullahs in Iran...so Bush installed a hard-line Islamic state.......and women are again subjected to the type of religious mistreatment that Islam loves to torture them with.....

.......Bush installed an Islamic regime in Iraq.....

.......one that has told us to fuck off, after we gave up lives and money that can't be replaced in our lifetimes.......

.........how come you still don't understand that Bush's war came up the opposite result of what Bush wanted ?........

One thing I'm having a problem understanding is how Iraq, who had the largest and best trained military in the ME, is taking so long to muster and train a military capable of taking complete control of Iraq.

I mean, we've been there for 5 1/2 years now.

Lest we forget that Bremmer and the WH saw fit to disband the Iraqi military against the adamant protestations of Gen. Jay Garner, then head of the Coalition Provisional Government - who even had offers from Iraqi Generals for as many MP's as he needed to protect factories, munition dumps, and maintain order after the fall of Saddam. Washington said, "No way".

He was right about everything, yet he was fired and Paul Bremmer got the 'Medal of Freedom' for total incompetence while those factories were looted beyond salvage - putting millions out of work - and the country descended into chaos it still has yet to recover from.

**** One thing I'm having a problem understanding is how Iraq, who had the largest and best trained military in the ME, is taking so long to muster and train a military capable of taking complete control of Iraq.
....Posted by AMERICANUNITY ******

......the Iraqis never invited us, and consider our occupation to be on par with Germany's occupation of France.......

......they consider Iraqis who work with us to be collaborators, same as the Vichy French.......

......its not a point of pride in Iraq to be an American collaborator......

"Lest we forget that Bremmer and the WH saw fit to disband the Iraqi military against the adamant protestations of Gen. Jay Garner, then head of the Coalition Provisional Government"

It may've been in Fiasco, not sure, but I read somewhere the Bandar Bush proposed paying the military people off, thinking it was the cheapest and most effective way to avoid a catastrophic situation in Iraq. I doubt the Bush crowd actually wanted a catastrophe but they certainly acted that way. Muy, muy estupido.