"Quit talking about, 'Did the surge work or not work,' or, 'Did you vote for this or support this,'" Hagel said Thursday on a conference call with reporters.

"Get out of that. We're done with that. How are we going to project forward?" the Nebraska senator said. "What are we going to do for the next four years to protect the interest of America and our allies and restructure a new order in the world. ... That's what America needs to hear from these two candidates. And that's where I am."

Hagel, too, opposed the troop increase strategy, though he acknowledged Thursday it brought about positive changes. "When you flood the zone with superior American military firepower, and you put 30,000 of the world's best troops in a country, there's going to be a result there," Hagel said.

Whether the surge worked, though, can't be measured, Hagel said, arguing the small gains came at a high price. He said President Bush's decision last year to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq has cost more than 1,000 American lives and billions of dollars.

Thank heaven for the only Republican speaking common sense these days. While John McCain keeps talking about the "wonderful shade of lipstick" that he, and only he picked out for our pig in Iraq, Hagel has moved on to the obvious considerations of what comes in the immediate future versus McCain breaking his good arm patting himself on the back.

The fact that John McCain stood front and center in advocating that the US take its focus off the enemy who struck this nation on 9/11 to chase after the former love-child of today's neo-conservatives, when he was both warring with Iran and gassing the Kurds with the complicity of our military-industrial complex and that of our allies, is all that millions of Americans need to know about the judgment of a proud ex-warrior who's turned into a doddering old man, repleat with misstatements and absolute gibberish to boot.

Good point Oohrah. Just wondering if you've noticed that the MSM has become obsessed with McCain's latest talking point and completely unconcerned with the facts that Afghanistan is burning and our troops are dying at the highest rate since we invaded the country. Obama speaks to this current and near-future need, while McCain and his surrogates dredge for 'attaboys" because the surge lowered violence in Iraq.

For those of us who actually followed the progression of the Iraq War, the fact that ethnic cleansing and the re-segregation of Baghdad neighborhoods, along with the stand-down of the Shiite militias and the Sunni-uprising in Anbar are all far greater factors of importance than our insertion of 30,000 more war-weary US troops as uber-police in a near lawless land. Not to diminish the troops role in any way, the table was set for a downturn in violence nominally because so many prone to violence had already died in Iraq and the influence of AQI was waning to insignificance again, like it was before our invasion.

The worst strategic blunder in the history of this great nation isn't going to be re-evaluated merely because McCain and his surrogates have found the one positive military tactic in a sea of failure and unneeded misery that destroyed a former viable nation and turned it into a wasteland for its remaining inhabitants while creating a humanitarian crisis for many of its neighbors in the region dealing with the millions of displaced Iraqis. The only positive about the entire endeavor was that Saddam and his henchmen are no longer in control, although a 6th grader could have devised a more effective means to bring about this result without sacrificing the innumerable lives lost due to Bush's and McCain's mind-numbingly poor judgment.

Bush was right in some aspect of Iraq. Frankly, I don't see what. I think we're back to the fallacy Bush thinks.

Or the fallacy Bush feels. Yes, he's human, but an ass. The stories are out concerning his truculent, bullying behavior even in the presence of US Senators immediately prior to invading Iraq.

Me? I think the story of why the seige of Fallujah was delayed eight months until immediately after the presidential election of 2004 has yet to be fully told. This is the sort of thing, had Bush been a liberal, would have labeled him a traitor to his nation.

I have to agree, what is past is past. As "Da Coach" says, "The past is for whiners and losers".

As far as Iraq, I believe that you will find that Obama and McCain are not that much different. Both want out, both will keep a "presence" in the area. The differences will be subtle.

I also thing Afganistan needs attention. Didn't I read that Obama mentioned this in his speach yesterday? Europe needs to step up and help with this.

How do the anti-war folks feel about Afganistan? Does it bring out the same feelings as Iraq? It will be interesting to see their reaction and how Obama handles it.

It will be even more interesting to hear their reaction when they figure out that Obama, McCain and for that matter Bush are not that far apart (at this point) in their going forward strategy for Iraq.

Considering that while Iraq became somewhat more peaceful but at the same time Afghanistan became more violent it seems that the surge can be viewed either as a plus for Iraq or a minus for Afghanistan. Considering that Afghanistan is the location of the real war on terror the surge can realistically be described as another diversion of forces away from the real war on terror. The fact that it helped in Iraq is great but it is too easy to forget that Iraq was the unnecessary and most expensive part of this war and it had nothing to do with the war on terror. Republicans seem to want to conveniently forget that one little detail.

That Iraq has zero to do with the war on terror is the glory of hindsight rearing its ugly head. Sure. No WMD's found. Sure the intelligence was faulty and their was even grumblings that it was faulty as it was being used.

BUT. It doesn;t change the fact that Iraq as a terrorist supporting nation was generally accepted as a fact by the vast majority of the worlds governments. That Iraq possessed WMD's was generally accepted as FACT by the vast majority of the worlds governments. That Iraq had ignored the sanctions imposed by the WORLD (yes the world not America) for nearly two decades.

Finally someone stood up and decided to make them answer for their ignoring of the sanctions and investigate them for the alleged ties to terrorism, possession of WMD's, and depose a viscious dictator in the process.

How again is this a bad thing?

Just because some of the assumptions turned out false doesn;t mean the underlying premise is the devil incarnate.

Here is a translation of what he is saying.

'Let's quit talking about the surge and if it worked or not before everybody realizes that the action we took had no effect whatsoever on the situation on the ground. Everybody knows that Zawahari telling his troops to cease and desist was the real determining factor. So let's just not talk about it anymore.'

"How again is this a bad thing?"

Over 4000 dead American soldiers

Eventually the cost will be aroung 3 trillion

Removing Saddam strengthened Iran

Al Quaeda is a Sunni Muslim group, Iraq is primarily a Shia nation which had NOTHING to do with 9-11 and had never attacked the United States.

Whats your point Danni?

I was a soldier for over 10 years so I have been one of those that VOLUNTEERED to defend this country and uphold it's ideals throughout the world.

Your argument of strenghtening Iran is disingenuous at BEST becuase it is irrelevant. Your point of helping AQ is again irrelevant. This war was about punishing a rogue nation thumbing their nose at the world. It NEEDED to be done. The fact that we thought we were helping to rid the world of terrorism was a side benefit....that turned out false.

So what. it was a secondary consideration. The primary objective was achieved.

Before you get all self righteous about me and not "caring" for the dead soldiers...I pour through the pages of those wounded and killed everyday hoping to not see the names and faces of friends and former battle buddies. You use them as a political punch-line.

**** It doesn;t change the fact that Iraq as a terrorist supporting nation was generally accepted as a fact
.....Posted by ABH ****

......this is one of the lies was used as a pretext for the Iraq war......

......and you are still propogating it despite it having been disproven over and over......

......Saddam ran a strictly secular country that was just as opposed to Al Qaida as America was....as a matter of fact....Al Qaida had more operatives in the U.S. or Saudi Arabia, than they did in Iraq......

"It NEEDED to be done."

No it didn't. Saddam was completely confined within Iraq unable to harm anyone.

"The fact that we thought we were helping to rid the world of terrorism was a side benefit....that turned out false."

Maybe you thought that but the people who made the decision did not. They lied to get us into Iraq, it had nothing to do with WMDs and the truth of the matter slowly leaks out through folks like McClellan etc. Believe your nonsense if you want but some of us are adults and recognize what has really occurred here.
Tell your story of freedom etc. to the approx. 1,000,000 dead Iraqis. The two million refugees.

Going into Iraq was not just a mistake but a disaster of monumental proportions.

...and to this day....Saudis are funding Al Qaida ...

....but Bush blacked out those parts of the 9-11 Commission report that traced the funding to Saudi......

.....if we really wanted a war on Islamic terror...we would have attacked Saudi......

Ears was wrong about it so shut up. We don't want to hear about it.

"I have been one of those that VOLUNTEERED to defend this country and uphold it's ideals throughout the world."

I have no problem with someone who volunteers for military service being proud of that service. But I'm weary of hearing that by joining up a person is authomatically involved, as you've put it, in defending this country and upholding its ideals throughout the world. If that's what you did, good. How, exactly, did you go about achieving, or attempting to achieving, those two goals?

There's more than a little sophistry showing here. How do you know you were upholding America's ideals---which ones, by the way?---throughout the world? If you were serving in Iraq---I don't know whether you did or not---do you think I'm supposed to believe you're engaged in upholding this country's ideals? Basically, what we see here is another act of wheeling out pat phrases that give of the aroma of old chestnuts.

Talk about self-righteous posting. Sheesh.

Sure it was Danni. I like how you make statements with little substance.

The dead civiians in Iraq? Killed by Iraqi's. No US Soldiers. The refugee's? displaced becuase of their own efforts.

The government never lied about anything in Iraq. They revealed intelligence information that was accepted as FACT by many. many governments in the world..... Just becuase it was ultimately proved false does not make it a lie.

We THOUGHT Saddam had WMD's. we KNEW he was ignoring every effort to find out if he had them for real.

Why is the fact he was "contained" the least bit relevant? Do you think his SCUDS couldn't go beyond his own borders?

quit arguing about the surge and talk about the future? geez, the GOPpers are running their Presidential campaign on a war that ended 40 years ago. With a nominee who wakes up every morning surprised that he's still breathing, the future is the LAST thing the GOPpers want people to think about.

ABH I am not going to go through all your foolish arguments. We've been through all this many times before. I believe, along with millions of others, that Bush lied us into war, you believe whatever your little right wing mind wants to believe, I honestly don't give a crap.

" the future is the LAST thing the GOPpers want people to think about."

Because, thanks to them, it appears somewhat bleak.

Hegel and Obama want to get beyond the surge because Flop Ears was wrong about it. How does that qualify him to run his mouth about the future?

"We need change, ah ah uh uh, change I tell you, ah ah ah change in the future ah ah ah ah ahhhhhhhhh"

"Posted by ABH at 2008-07-25 09:58 AM"

US forces haven't killed cilivians in Iraq? Now, there's some news.

The refugees have become such because of their own "efforts"? Guess you never heard of the Pottery Barn Principle.

The Bush Admin. never lied about Iraq? Putting out uncomfirmed information---you've heard about Curveball, yes?---as "fact" is lying. Think about it.

After 1991, did Saddam shoot any SCUDs beyond Iraq's borders? Don't you think he probably figured out that if he did he'd get wacked? All the Iraqis had to do to loose some assets was light up the radar on the US and UK planes flying patrols over the country.

Come on, get up to speed.

Hagel is a Republican for Christ's sake,

If only 51% of Washington were as honest as Hagel we could have a functional Government.

Hagel has a great point.
Get over it and move on.

ABH, sir (or maam) you are an idiot. You should refrain from higher level conversations until your IQ increases significantly and you develop a habit of thinking for yourself.

I'm just trying to help.

Oh please Doc. I truly believe that I DID do those things and don't find it the least self righteous.

I volunteered to do what my country asked me to do. The things they asked me to do is help bring the concept of freedom of the individual to places that needed it.

To answer your question: I was in Iraq in 1991, I got out of the army in 2000 and was activated to go to AF in 2002.... I have NOT served in Iraq in this latest iteration.

Nice job Lip. way to really interject some intelligent thought and discourse.

US forces haven't killed cilivians in Iraq? Now, there's some news.

The refugees have become such because of their own "efforts"? Guess you never heard of the Pottery Barn Principle.

The Bush Admin. never lied about Iraq? Putting out uncomfirmed information---you've heard about Curveball, yes?---as "fact" is lying. Think about it.

After 1991, did Saddam shoot any SCUDs beyond Iraq's borders? Don't you think he probably figured out that if he did he'd get wacked? All the Iraqis had to do to loose some assets was light up the radar on the US and UK planes flying patrols over the country.

Come on, get up to speed.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Have Soldiers killed innocent civilians? of course it happens.... it is a horrible event and I feel terrible for those ppoor soldiers it happens to. But the overwhelming and vast majority have been killed by idiotic suicide bombers and terrorists blowing up their own people in crowded markets...

And yes I am unfamiliar with the "pottry barn" principle... The refugee's are displaced becuase of the actions of their own people acting as terrorists. If they cooperated with us, everything would be fine and we would leave.

The fact that Saddam didn't shoot any SCUD's is again, immaterial. He COULD have. And he continued to derfy all efforts to investigate the coutnry for the offenses as judged by the WORLD.

" the future is the LAST thing the GOPpers want people to think about." Because, thanks to them, it appears somewhat bleak.

Posted by danni

I guess it was the republicans that closed off vast oil reserves. I guess it was the republicans that only want congress to investigte professional sports and let the country slide into income redistribution.

What is so bleak? I don't know of any engineers looking for work but I know of a lot of companies looking for engineers. I know of heavy construction jobs looking for fitters and electricians.

We need to get rid of some of our over-achieving environmental laws and worker protection laws and start manfacturing stuff here in the US again. We can't survive in the world by just being consumers.

"We need to get rid of some of our over-achieving environmental laws and worker protection laws and start manfacturing stuff here in the US again."

Yeah, we have to learn to be more like China....riiiight!
We need to renogiate trate treaties that give us "fair trade" not free trade. most of the countries where we are outsourcing jobs protect their own industries with tariffs and subsidies while we don't. WE need to protect our jobs and industries the same as other countries are doing but we do not need to lower our standards to be more like them. We need to tell them, if you want to export to us then you raise your standards or keep the stuff you make.

"I guess it was the republicans that closed Scwartzenburger off vast oil reserves." Jeb Bush and Arnold are Republicans, Sniper. good eye!

btw, when will the oil companies start drilling in the 33,000,000 offshore acres they are sitting on?
And do you agree with john Mcsame that the offshore oil will immediately drop the price of gasoline, and not, as the oil industry says, in 7 -10 years?

###
"We need to get rid of some of our over-achieving environmental laws and worker protection laws and start manfacturing stuff here in the US again."
Cause we don't have near enough dead coal miners and child slave labor. Sniper, you are the weakest link today.

**** The government never lied about anything in Iraq.
Posted by ABH ******

.......don't tell me......you are about 10 or 11 years old ??.......

**** The government never lied about anything in Iraq.
Posted by ABH ******

I know cuz Santa told me.

"I volunteered to do what my country asked me to do. The things they asked me to do is help bring the concept of freedom of the individual to places that needed it.
Posted by ABH at 2008-07-25 10:14 AM"

You've just earned yourself an "I Speak Jingo" Flag.

Have Soldiers killed innocent civilians? of course it happens.... it is a horrible event and I feel terrible for those ppoor soldiers it happens to. [What about the victims? Oh, right, they're not Americans.]But the overwhelming and vast majority have been killed by idiotic suicide bombers and terrorists blowing up their own people in crowded markets...

It's good to hear the bombing and shellfire that accompanied the Bush-ordered invasion of Iraq didn't result in many casualties. Now you've got a "Dunce" Flag to go with the "I Speak Jingo" banner. Buddy, you're on a roll.

And yes I am unfamiliar with the "pottry barn" principle...

"Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel,... "What are we going to do for the next four years to protect the interest of America and our allies and restructure a new order in the world?,"

Did he just say "A New Order in the World?"

This will be out in every conspiracy site on the net. New World Order.

Slip of the tongue.

Kind of like saying, "Pull it" and down came #7.

Yeah, we have to learn to be more like China.... riiiight!

Posted by danni

Did I say that or you putting words in my mouth again?

"We need to get rid of some of our over-achieving environmental laws and worker protection laws and start manfacturing stuff here in the US again."
Cause we don't have near enough dead coal miners and child slave labor. Sniper, you are the weakest link today.

Posted by northguy3

Once again you are taking things to an extreme. Nobody is in favor of killing coal miners or putting your 10 year old child to work in a factory.

You would rather export all of our dollars to some foreign country than even talk about relaxing some of our most restrictive laws.

"I volunteered to do what my country asked me to do. The things they asked me to do is help bring the concept of freedom of the individual to places that needed it.
Posted by ABH at 2008-07-25 10:14 AM

You've just earned yourself an "I Speak Jingo" Flag.

.......don't tell me......you are about 10 or 11 years old ??.......

ABH, sir (or maam) you are an idiot.

Talk about self-righteous posting. Sheesh.

Consider the sources ABH. Remember they don't care about honor or doing whats right for the Country. They couldn't care less what you have to say or the fact you served.

since obama was so popular in Germany, maybe he should ask them to contribute more troops to Afgan. Afgan is not a US problem, we have plenty of troops on the ground. Its a NATO problem. Not all of the countries are doing their share. Ask the guys on the ground and they will tell you the US, Brits and French will fight. The Germans will not.

It also presents the US with a great time to remove all troops from Europe. The war has been over for 60 years. How many trillions of $ have US taxpayers put in to Europeans pockets. And they don't even have oil.

I agree with pulling our troops out of Germany. All we've gotten from it is a bunch of beer snobs. Let them drink Bud.

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL, R-NEB.: I don't think things are getting better. I think things are getting worse. We're not going to be able to sustain the policies that we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even though our military is doing a spectacular job everywhere, we've so overloaded them, we've so overburdened them, they can't do it all.

March 2008

Is there any doubt why this POS accompanied the other two on this fact finding trip? Because all three have been WRONG about surrender and withdrawal. If it was up to these military geniuses we would have been out with our tail between our legs. Now they all understand we are there? Now it doesn't matter how we got in? Does that mean they acknowledge they were wrong and give Bush the smallest amount of credit.

"Let them drink Bud."

I'm pretty sure there is something in the Geneva convention preventing that kind of cruelty to our troops.

Nobody is in favor of killing coal miners or putting your 10 year old child to work in a factory.

Our competition is Sniper. Or is your position, screw safety laws and prsy God doesn't let the ceilings fall?
Please list the changes you'd make in environmental laws and H & S laws that you'd accept and still have your child work in a factory they affect.

You've just earned yourself an "I Speak Jingo" Flag.

I guess in your world having pride and faith in your country and taking steps to show that pride by serving is something to be mocked and ridiculued? Or is it only to be ridiculed when it is expressed. Excuse me mister Patriot please take your thoughts and put them into the closet...we can only voice hatred of country round here....

And dunce? Care to compare knowledge of bombs and missiles? do you know the difference between the two? or the accuracy rates?

I am guessing not. Everything the US military does is designed to minimize civilian casualties to the absolute limits of human possibility. The same can not be said for the zipperhead terrorists killing their own citizens...

And "occupiers? No we are absolutely NOT occupiers. If the ridiculous terrorist knotheads would not blow each other up and concentrate on forming a nice stable country ...we would ensure things were runing smoothly and take our toys and ggo home. We are still there as a result of THEIR choices. not our own.

Northguy. The only thing that SHOULD be done: rid ourselves of that useless appendage of weighted iron hanging around our necks: UNIONS.

They are the clowns responsible for businesses fleeing overseas. They are the one's responsible for saying unskilled labor in factories like people ensuring only unbuned pop-tarts get into the packages deserve to earn 25 bucks an hour, huge pensions, and overwhelming healthcare packages.

It is these demands that force companies to go overseas to save money. Nobody doing such menail labor deserves that much money...and yet they demand it which raises prices since the companies have to transfer that cost to the product cost to consumers and then make the huge salary irrelevant because they just lowered the buying power of the dollar....

oh and also the job no longer exists because it is being done for a third the cost in Mexico.....

Posted by ABH at 2008-07-25 12:04 PM Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e
MoronicBeyondRedemption

"It (war in Iraq) NEEDED to be done...."

No. No. A third time no. "Need" for war comes in under circumstances where an enemy fleet is attacking a nation at peace on Sunday morning.

Iraq is an elective war. There was no urgency for it. Most issues could have been solved by paying-off Saddam and assuring him safe passage out of country.

You kids may not recall this, but war in Iraq was assured the instant Bush denied Saddam the ability to leave his country and not be killed.

As an elective war, you assess Iraq on a cost-benefit basis. I say "you assess", because Bush never would, stoking one major reason for opposition to war.

On a cost-benefit basis, Iraq sucks big time. In fact, it will suck for decades and perahps generations to come.

Uh, we invaded their country. We're the occupiers. There terrorists wouldn't be running around if we hadn't broken into their country, shattered the infrastructure, and trashed the place. Now you're into "Rank Sophistry" Flag territory.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Is that why most of the terrorists there were from other countries in the middle east?

You have quite a view of what has happened.

"We are still there because of their (Iraqi) choices, not our own...."

Well, gee whiz---Welcome to hell, ABH. You have a leadership in this country that forgot other people make choices.

The same people that lectured you forever about how evil and irrational people are just freaking clueless when that concept really starts to bite.

Jeez. It's enough to make you pull your teeth out.

"Nobody doing menial labor deserves much money...."

Not that long ago, this would have included professional soldiers and sailors.

"Is that why most of the terrorists there were from other countries in the middle east?"

That is bull, most of the insurgents were/are Iraqis.

It is bull, Danni. You have people that, even after five years, seriously think THIS COUNTRY wouldn't be better of had there never had been a war with Iraq.

"You have quite a view of what has happened.
Posted by Sniper at 2008-07-25 12:14 PM"

I'd imagine you'd think so, given that yours appears to be missing a key ingredient: an underpinning of historical reality.

See, Sniper, it works like this: The US invades an Arab country. Its troops become tempting targets for anyone who (a) hates the US, (b) is a terrorist, (c) thinks the Westerners are Crusader types, or (d) any and all of the above.

"Is that why most of the terrorists there were from other countries in the middle east?"

You know where the terrorists came from, how many there have been over time, and their numbers in comparison to the homegrown insurgents/terrorists?

How, exactly, did you determine all that?

So, the rest of us are invited to "move along" when it comes to Iraq? What do we do about the place now, never mind warrants being issued at the Hague?

Well, fine. Just to point this out, though----Iraq and Osama are both being left by Bush for someone else to sort out. He couldn't or wouldn't do it.

"THIS COUNTRY wouldn't be better of had there never had been a war with Iraq."
====================

This country is the GREATEST country in the whole WORLD and is greater NOW than it was 5 years ago.

FACT!

You almost had me zed. But no, this is NOT an elective war. The edicts of the world MUST carry consequences. If they don;t their is no point in making them, and the end result is anarchy. It NEEDED to be done for no other reason than to end his thumbing his nose at the endless string of finger shaking and tongue clucking the UN was doing in their direction.

Nobody doing menial labor deserves much money...."

Not that long ago, this would have included professional soldiers and sailors.

to this day soldiers (and sailors and marines and airmen) are paid FAR too little...

"We are still there because of their (Iraqi) choices, not our own...."

Well, gee whiz---Welcome to hell, ABH. You have a leadership in this country that forgot other people make choices.

The same people that lectured you forever about how evil and irrational people are just freaking clueless when that concept really starts to bite.

Jeez. It's enough to make you pull your teeth out.

Posted by Zed

I am not going to argue the fact that this war was carried out with a POOR plan. this is true. However, that is a wholly seperate issue from the WHY of us being there.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with a debasing of a word, "necessity".

Yes, there have been wars over things like severed ears. Can't think of any that are fondly remembered. Can't think of any that were really very useful.

Our competition is Sniper. Or is your position, screw safety laws and prsy God doesn't let the ceilings fall?
Please list the changes you'd make in environmental laws and H & S laws that you'd accept and still have your child work in a factory they affect.

Posted by northguy3

Why are you worried about every sub-species that we have in this country? Why are wolves still on the big list? The damn things are taking ove the west. The same with the brown bear in MT. The park service is trapping the problem park bears and turning them loose in other national forrests. They are everywhere now. They have recovered quite well after the park service killed most of them off in the early 70s. We don't need all the silt fences everywhere that are left in place for many years.

Workers need to take responsibility for their own safety. We don't need thoes stupid orange caps on all the rebar. We don't need all the temporary handrails. We don't need big brother watching every step we take at work. We need laws to protect workers but we have gone overboard.

Our city air is cleaner now than it has been in a long time. Stop passing more clean air laws.

We need to log our forrests instead of just letting them burn every summer. That smoke isn't good for anyone. Our country air is full of smoke all summer because of it. We never had this many big fires when I was a kid.

How, exactly, did you determine all that?

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

The same way you determined that they were all home-grown.

"Quit talking about, 'Did the surge work or not work,' or, 'Did you vote for this or support this,'" Hagel said Thursday on a conference call with reporters.

"Get out of that. We're done with that. How are we going to project forward?" the Nebraska senator said. "What are we going to do for the next four years to protect the interest of America and our allies and restructure a new order in the world. ... That's what America needs to hear from these two candidates. And that's where I am."

While Hagel is correct, it's important because we are trying to understand the judgment and character of Obama. That can only be done by looking at his positions past and present.

"While Hagel is correct, it's important because we are trying to understand the judgment and character of Obama. That can only be done by looking at his positions past and present."

Fine with us Obama supporters because then we get to go back and consider the judgement of those who voted to invade Iraq in the first place. In that type of comparison Obama wins by a landslide.

the MSM has become obsessed with McCain's latest talking point ....

Posted by tonyroma at 2008-07-25 07:27 AM | Reply

Tony,

You do realize that "talking point" is a trademark of Danni Drivel(tm). Everytime you use the phrase "talking point" you have to send Danni 9 cents

the future is the LAST thing the GOPpers want people to think about.

Posted by northguy3 at 2008-07-25 10:00 AM | Reply

The future is a conquered and subservient Canada.

Get used to it bitch

You owe me $.18 Vernon.

Hagel is a Republican for Christ's sake,

Posted by nutcase at 2008-07-25 10:07 AM | Reply

Translation: Hagel says what I want to hear, so he's a GOOD Republican. Lieberman says what makes me mad, so he is evil

Lieberman says what makes me mad, so he is evil

Not evil, Israeli.

Let's forget about Hagel and Obama being wrong in th epast and focus on them being wrong in the future.

"...let the country slide into income redistribution."
Good observation, Bush tax cuts and breaks for the rich, very good redistribution there, enjoy if that's your income bracket.

as for me, I would like a tax break, call it redistribution if you wish, but I perfer it to Bush's redistribution to the rich!

**** The government never lied about anything in Iraq.
Posted by ABH ******

.......don't tell me......you are about 10 or 11 years old ??.......******
Posted by skizziks

*****And "occupiers? No we are absolutely NOT occupiers.
Posted by ABH...******

.......I guess that answers my question..........

ABH I am not going to go through all your foolish arguments.

Posted by danni at 2008-07-25 10:01 AM | Reply

ABH, this is DanniSpeak(tm) for saying she doesn't want to discuss the truth because it spoils all her arguments.

Just last week she was praising Osama for voting in favor of FISA because it was politcally expedient: anything to win.

When Dems say they don't want to dwell on the past it's only because they hate the truth: Just post a few comments from Hillary! Edwards or Kerry in favor of the Iraq resolution and watch their heads pop off.

The exception is when they want to screech about Bush. Then everything from the past is considered fair game.

**** The future is a conquered and subservient Canada.
Get used to it bitch
Posted by vernon ******

....can't resist the impulse to spread democracy, Vern ??......

You owe me $.18 Vernon.

Posted by danni at 2008-07-25 01:20 PM | Reply

Nope. When I cite your chronic use of "talking points" to try and blow past positions you cannot defend it's part of the Fair Use doctrine

"Just last week she was praising Osama for voting in favor of FISA because it was politcally expedient: anything to win."

Praising??? Not hardly, I said I thought he may have miscalculated on that.

"When Dems say they don't want to dwell on the past it's only because they hate the truth: Just post a few comments from Hillary! Edwards or Kerry in favor of the Iraq resolution and watch their heads pop off."

Funny when you consider that the reason I cited for switching from Hilary to Obama was that vote for the Iraq war, I said at the time I didn't think we should ignore the most important vote she has cast since she has been in the Senate.

But hey, Vernon has his own version of reality, no wonder he is so skewed on his views about the world.

But hey, Vernon has his own version of reality, no wonder he is so skewed on his views about the world.

Posted by danni at 2008-07-25 02:18 PM |

Let's see... Vern's reality world? Or danni's reality world? Bahahahahahahhahahahahahaha. That is a classic. Thanks.

No WMDs found. How stupid are you people. They found 5+ tons of yellow cake that was removed a couple of weeks ago. They found nerve gas. Their own generals admitted that they shipped most out to Syria under the guise of earthquake relief. To those who don't think this war was right, explain that to the people whose relatives died due to the failure of Clinton and his cutting the military, FBI and intelligence community. How about his not doing anything every time we were attacked. You say Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. How about the thousands of pages of intelligence documents that were found by a British journalist showing links between Sadaam and Al Qaeda? It amazes me how many of you have bought into the lies of the liberals/socialists/Dumbocrats and their press agents the mainstream media. You can't even converse intelligently on any of this because you are totally ignorant, meaning lacking knowledge, on the whole subject. You have bought into all their lies and deceit and use it to try and take down this country. Hagel is a disgrace as is every Democrat in Congress. You people wouldn't know patriotism if it hit you in the face, much less truth. If you can't speak and produce facts, then shut off you computers and spare us your ignorance.

"How, exactly, did you determine all that?
Posted by Doc_Sarvis"

The same way you determined that they were all home-grown.
Posted by Sniper at 2008-07-25 12:39 PM

Please point out where I've said the terrorists in Iraq are all homegrown. Or admit you've attributed a view to me that I've never expressed. Surely you're mature enough to do that. Aren't you?

"Posted by Ozark_Sunshine at 2008-07-25 02:23 PM"

Are you posting from a summer school for remedials classroom, or did your parents let you use the computer at home?

**** If you can't speak and produce facts, then shut off you computers and spare us your ignorance.
Posted by Ozark_Sunshine *****

......take your own advice......

Nice job Lip. way to really interject some intelligent thought and discourse.

Posted by ABH

How about this; Get the fuck off your sanctimonious ass. You think you're the only one that has pain because of that illegal war?

My oldest son is an MP in Iraq as we speak. His vehicle was blown up a couple of months ago by an ied, but he was unharmed. Every fucking time the phone rings my asshole squeezes up so tight you could slice washers off it, because i'm afraid i'm gonna get 'that call'.

I know nothing about you sir, but if you have a son (or if you don't), you probably understand me when i say I would rather be there than him.

And don't give me any 'oh, how proud to be serving my country' bullshit either, because it ain't about that.

It's about the fact that our country in involved in illegal, and what is worst, immoral activity.

Killing people for oil, period. You can wrap it the flag and the bible and put bacon and swiss cheese on it and it still comes down to a war for oil.

My son, and i as well, look at it like he has a very exclusive and dangerous job. that is all. not that he is over there trying to make the world safe for democracy.

I would like to see some more democracy over here, why don't you fight for that?

Vernon,

Republican or Democrat makes no difference. Honest or corrupt HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Israeli & BushCo History A TOTAL FUCKING LIE.

LIPZ, Now that was a powerful post IMHO.

My prayers, for what they are worth, are with you and your son Lipzaoidial.

Well zip., let me say thank you to you and your son for serving. Regardless of how you look at it, I look at it as an honorable thing to do.

Dangerous? of course it is.

And to answer your question.. yes. I have a 1 year old son and I KNOW I would rather be anywhere involving anything dangerous than him. I can not even fathom the stress on you given how every time he bumps his head I can feel my throat clench and my heart skip.

The real point, however, is that he raised his hand and volunteered to be there as an adult. He should be proud of his service.

I am not rightly sure how you mean the war is "illegal." It was requested by the Commander in Chief, ratified by the Congress....pretty much exactly how it is supposed to be done.

You may not agree with the reasons behind it, but hey no one ever agrees with anything the government does 100%. In this case, I DO agree witht them. But this is what makes the country so great and what makes serving in the military so honorable: Fighting to keep that ideal alive.

Oh an to say I didn;t fight for that over here is ridiculous...becuase why don;t you try and guess wht job I left the military for?

"Most issues could have been solved by paying-off Saddam and assuring him safe passage out of country.

Posted by Zed at 2008-07-25 12:11 PM |"

To the Halls of Tripoli.

The only problem with the "War for Oil" argument....is you have not ONE shred of proof for those allegations...while their are endless amounts of evidence supporting the search for WMD's, enforcing the UN sanctions, and the support of terrorism.

I prefer to believe the evidence in front of me, not the blinded by emotion grasping you are doing by screaming "war for oil."

"why don;t you try and guess wht job I left the military for?"

Nucleuhr Phyisicsist?

becuase why don;t you try and guess wht job I left the military for?

Rocket surgeon?

Former "Bush Puppet" Iraqi PM Calls for US Withdrawal

"Bush puppet," voiced his strong support for a US withdrawal timeline during a Wednesday Congressional hearing.
www.truthout.org

Posted by Doc_Sarvis"
=====================

^^^Doc's drinking the truthout KOOLAID again!

FACT!

It's a quote from the article, nimrod.

James Dean, DR Touretter . . .

DUMBASS!

Alan Greenspan: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

www.mohammadmossadegh.com

I think old Alan probably knew more than you or me about it.

Posted by danni
=========================

Danni? OH DANNI? (Caddieshack reference.)

I would NEVER trust the web site you referenced or CLICK on it!

FACT!

Funny. The article is about not getting stuck on did the surge work (and I assume should we have gone in or not in the first place) but about the present and future. What now and where are we going. No one seems to be discussing the future but only the past on this thread. Chuck Hagel would be soooooo disappointed.

I wonder if the Republicans will go after Hagel the way the Democrats went after Lieberman.

***** Oh an to say I didn;t fight for that over here is ridiculous...becuase why don;t you try and guess wht job I left the military for?
......Posted by ABH ******

.....I'd say cleaning out the barn.....judging by the amount of shit you shovel......

***** Oh an to say I didn;t fight for that over here is ridiculous...becuase why don;t you try and guess wht job I left the military for?
......Posted by ABH ******

.....I'd say cleaning out the barn.....judging by the amount of shit you shovel......

Posted by skizziks

Aright that one was pretty funny.

Would like for you to attempt to prove me wrong with something other than:

"Bush lied!"

"It's war for oil!"

sure sound like great tag line's, but very short on substance.

When you have already decided not to believe something regardless of the evidence it becomes tedious arguing. The war was for oil, get over it.
That doesn't mean that the soldiers weren't courageous and good intentioned, it only means that the politicians in charge weren't as decent and honest as those soldiers.
The worst part is they failed miserably, they didn't get the oil. The Iraqis refused to privatize it and let the big oil companies have the 30 PSAs they wanted. That is the embarrassing part for the neocons. We already knew they were evil, they didn't even really try to hide it, but incompetent too??? That's whay Gates had to be brought in as Sec. of Def. because the neocon Rummy had fucked things up so badly. Amazingly, when Gates took over things improved.

danni,

The war for oil arguement doesn't seem to work for me either. I would understand it in years past when nations could control the resources of other countries and take the oil for themselves. But that was never going to happen. The only thing would be us showing up in Iraq and getting them to upgrade their operation to pump more oil. I think Saddam would have agreed to do this and would have been happy to produce more oil. Just don't understand the arguement.

Don't confuse Danni with facts. She seems to be immune to them.

You say "The war was for oil, get over it."

Where is your evidence?

I have mountains of evidence to support why i KNOW we went to war. You only fervently believe/hope we went to war for oil.... you got nuttin.

Sorry bout yer luck.

since obama was so popular in Germany, maybe he should ask them to contribute more troops to Afgan.

Posted by midtowncowboy at 2008-07-25 11:45 AM | Reply

That's why Osama went to Europe.

Germany France and other Euroweenie countries have already promised to increase their troop levels in Afghanistan.

It was a shrewd, cynical and clever political move for Osama to go now.

He gives a blathering speech in Germany and in a few months more troops arrive; to most of the sheep in America, it looks like he had somethng to do with it.

Just wait for the TV commercial that implies he did something (shaking hands with soldiers, speech in Berlin, headline about troop increases -- hell, it writes itself) -- when the fact is that it was already done.

BTW here is another web site with the same story:

ABH,

Our presence in the middle east is intimately tied oil and more specifically propping up weak tyrannical fiefdoms (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) nations designed to be dependent on us for defense.

Bush has spent considerable time and effort trying to shove an "oil sharing agreement" down the Iraqi's throats. They don't want it, but can't afford to have us leave tommorrow either, its such a fucking mess. So they finally agreed to a "temporary" oil sharing agreement.

Any denial of oil supply control (not price) being the underlying reason is absurd, except for one other factor. AIPAC practically owns Washington, which is unusual when you consider that we supply Israel with $3 billion in foriegn aid each year. We invaded Iraq and continue to threaten Iran for Israel's sake as much as anything. We are the puppets and they are the puppetmasters and the puppets pay the puppetmaster and tell them what to do.

ABH let me ask you a question, why did we invade Cuba in the Spannish American War???

"Any denial of oil supply control (not price) being the underlying reason is absurd, except for one other factor. AIPAC practically owns Washington"

Oh, I'll completely agree with you there, that was the other reason.

ABH let me ask you a question, why did we invade Cuba in the Spannish American War???

We did not approve of Spanish activities there. Which led to the USS Maine incident and the rest is history

I think Saddam would have agreed to do this and would have been happy to produce more oil. Just don't understand the arguement.

Posted by laj at 2008-07-25 03:59 PM

Seeing as he was skirting the UN sanctions and keeping the oil for food money, I think you have a point. If Bush wanted their oil, why didn't we just take it? We had troops and equipment there and easily could have taken over the oil fields and shipping routes. Why did Bush need to invade when he simply could have taken it. Since it was all for oil. What happened to the Cheney and Bush cronies making money argument?

Danni what does your question have to do with the topic at hand?

If you CHOOSE to believe that drivil nutcase, be my guest.

We have been asking for the oil sharing agreement because we believe we deserve one. We certainly did not invade with the ultimate goal of obtaining one no matter who you think "owns" washington....an absurd concept by the way.

You are drawing conclusions about Israel that are completely false. They are an ally. Nothing else. Trying to ensure Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons to threaten or destabilize the REGION is not the same thing as saying they are doing it to protect Israel....

We did not approve of Iraq's activities. Which led to the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Of course, WMD's disappeared between 1998 and 2001, Iraq was became totally compliant with all UN resolutions as of 2001, and Iraq stopped paying families of suicide bombers.

"We have been asking for the oil sharing agreement because we believe we deserve one."

But WE wouldn't be the one to get one, the oil companies would be. WE would not be included in the profits.

"You are drawing conclusions about Israel that are completely false."

Oh please.

Too much kool aide. Way too much.

"We did not approve of Spanish activities there. Which led to the USS Maine incident and the rest is history"

The only reason I posted the question was because that war, like the Iraq war, was an unnecessary war sold on false pretenses to the American public.
William R. Hearst was well aware that the Spanish had not blown up the USS Maine but still published in his newspapers headlines that they did because he wanted a war there. The public believed it and the rest is history.
The similarities pretty much end there but it is the same principle.

Why Danni, must all big business be evil? So what if they make profits? Business can't operate profit free, which means they couldn't hire people to work so they can support their families and such....

make all the money ya like I say. Oil sharing would ensure supplies for the country by allowing the companies access.... and therefore a steadier supply and maybe just maybe...cheaper prices.

Keep on arguing without offering anything of substance. Seems to be going well for you.....

My weekend begins.....right now!

No danni it is NOT the same. We ALONG WITH THE ENTIRE WORLD believed Iraq had WMD's.... in your example they knew the info was false...

Not even remotely the same. Try again.

ABH-
The Committees report cites several conclusions in which the Administrations public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qaida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qaida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraqs chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence communitys uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

The Secretary of Defenses statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

I have read most of that Betel. Excellent reading.. however, to say that "it didn't reflect
uncertainties" or "never confirmed" is ridiculous.

Intelligence is a nebulous area and nothing is EVER known 100%. At best you can get the best guess. the best guess by the entire world is that Iraq had WMD's.... and it was a certainty they had ignored over a decade of UN resolutions and sanctions to make thier WMD programs open and inspectable.....

ABH-
The "best guess by the entire world" was not that Iraq had any connection to 9/11, or that Iraq had an active WMD program, or that we needed to worry about a "mushroom cloud" in an american city from Iraq, or that the aluminum tubes were suitable only for centrifuges, or that Iraq had an underground system for their WMD, etc, etc.

No.

But that's what was sold to you, and you bought it, and you don't seem to care.

What is to care about? that is EXACTLY waht the world thought. Sure there was gray area, but there ALWAYS is.

I still very and truly believe, that even if NO intelligence information existed for WMD's.. the fact that Saddam told the UN to f off for over a decade in spite of how many resolutions and how much tongue clucking? we needed to provide the teeth. Otherwise, anarchy results.

The edicts of the UN and NATO need to have consequences for ignoring them, otherwise they are meaningless.

The edicts of the UN and NATO need to have consequences for ignoring them, otherwise they are meaningless.

Posted by ABH at 2008-07-25 05:03 PM | Reply

Tell Israel.

BetelG,

Your points:
"was not that Iraq had any connection to 9/11" - I say you are correct

"Iraq had an active WMD program" - incorrect, most intelligence agencies believed they did.

"worry about a "mushroom cloud" in an american city" - subjective

"that the aluminum tubes were suitable only for centrifuges" - yes and no. I believe the agency that felt the tubes wouldn't be used for WMD didn't base it on conventional weapon use but that Saddam would use a material he was previously success with for WMD development and not a new unproven material.

ABH-
What "the world thought", if that can even be discerned, is that Saddam had some stockpiles of battlefield bio and chem weapons from over a decade before we invaded in 2003. "The world" certainly didn't think that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or that we had to worry about a "mushroom cloud" (as both Bush and Rice stated) from Iraq.
Your implication that Bush invaded Iraq to bolster the UN would be comical were it not that you seem to believe it.

LAJ-
As one who was against the invasion of Iraq from the get go, surely you can understand that when the President of the United States states that we must invade or face the ineluctable result of a "mushroom cloud", it ain't "subjective" anymore.
As far as the "aluminum tubes" are concerned, please name an "agency" that currently holds that they were in any way suitable or even possible for use in centrifuges?

Bush invaded Iraq because he had a "grand" strategy that just didn't pay off. They believed they could kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

1st -Get rid of Saddam which would get US troops our of Saudi Arabia. This was one of the things that the Islamic extremist go nuts over more than anything.
2nd - By bring democracy to the Middle East, you will defeat the terrorist groups who rely on un-elected govts to justify their actions.

"But he sits on a ton of oil and his nation is in a prime location in terms of, well, location in the Middle East."

That's not what we were told. In the wake of 9/11 we were told about "mushroom clouds" over an American city from Iraq. In fact, the statement of yours I just quoted was considered extreme and marginal at the time. A war for oil?????

"So for a variety of reasons, eliminating Saddam and establishing a freedom-based government would help ensure stability in the region... would give us a major toe hold against Iran... and a second ally (if you only count Israel) in the region."

That's worked out really well, with Iran marginalized in the region and all...

When do you hold your representatives accountable? (only when they are democrats and lie about a blowjob?)

BetelG,

aluminum tubes - CIA actually built a centrifuge with the aluminum tubes. This is still an open issue because they didn't run it for long enough. Second, it doesn't matter what the opinion is now, what was it at the time.

"mushroom cloud" - hasn't Obama stated that Iran is a grave threat and all options are on the table. If if isn't because of a possible "mushroom cloud", then what exactly is this grave threat?

"Bush invaded Iraq because he had a "grand" strategy that just didn't pay off."

Oh, bummer. That Bush inflated the threat, to say the least, is all water under the bridge and it's just too bad that Bush's real motives weren't presented and were even heresy while he was lying to us, and it's just too bad....

After all, it's the (UNEXPRESSED)thought that counts to Republicans, but not the results or the methods.

laj-
RE: "aluminum tubes - CIA actually built a centrifuge with the aluminum tubes. This is still an open issue because they didn't run it for long enough. Second, it doesn't matter what the opinion is now, what was it at the time."

At the time, the DOE thought it laughable that anyone would think that rocket tubes marked as rocket tubes could be mistaken for even possible use in a centrifuge...until they heard Bush and Rice and Powell actually claim it.

(If you wish to seriously hang your hat on that bullshit, I'm quite capable of kicking your ass around the block several times)

BetelG,

My definition of a lie is saying something you know to be untrue. Not that something you say turns out to be untrue. Otherwise, the weatherperson lied to me everytime he/she said it would rain and it didn't.

LAJ-
Has the "weatherperson" ever claimed that we must invade Iraq or face the immediate possibility of a "mushroom cloud"?

Why Danni, must all big business be evil? So what if they make profits? Business can't operate profit free, which means they couldn't hire people to work so they can support their families and such....

Posted by ABH at 2008-07-25 04:28 PM | Reply

Because Danni thinks her life and the life of all Americans sucks, I've offered to help her move to the last equitable society on Earth: North Korea.

But she has never taken me up on it.

Probably because they wouldn't let her keep her foreign car, not made by Americans

BetelG,

"aluminum tubes" - The DOE conceded that the view of the CIA at the time was valid but they thought that Saddam would use a material he had used in the past, he wouldn't try to re-invest the wheel. They didn't dispute the other views. They also conceded that using the aluminum tubes in question was over engineering for rocket launchers.

What no one new in the US was that the head of the Iraq rocket launcher program was order by Saddam to improve their range and performance. Since he had all the other material on hand, he tried to improve it by getting the higher grade aluminum tubes.

The contractor who reviewed and came up with the idea that they were for WMD said so because the number of tubes wouldn't last a week in battle. The supply was simple too small. What he didn't know was that this wasn't the first batch Iraq tried to get. The CIA had flagged that other information as a need to know and he didn't need to know the different number of shipments (CIA protecting its information).

Does anyone remember when "blood for oil" was a crazy statement by unhinged moonbats who just hated both 'W' and America?

It now seems to be the fall-back pragmatic defense of every failure of the seriously lacking in fairy dust Bush administration's actions and words in 2002/2003.

BetelG,

The subject doesn't impact whether a statement is a lie or not. You might have other issues about being more careful about what you say based on the impact but a lie is a lie or it isn't.

Fine with us Obama supporters because then we get to go back and consider the judgement of those who voted to invade Iraq in the first place. In that type of comparison Obama wins by a landslide.
Eventhough he said in effect: "The surge will not work" and "The war is not winnable".

Other than being wrong on both of these issues he seems like a nice guy. But its hard to tell because he hasn't been in the senate very long.

"The DOE conceded that the view of the CIA at the time was valid"

No, they didn't.

Furthermore, there is now no one anywhere (aside from fringe editorials) who claims that there was any basis for the conclusion that rocket tubes (marked as such!) totally unsuited for use in centrifuges were for that purpose. (See "mushroom cloud", and the retraction of the "sixteen words" and the resignation of George Tenet for further information)

LAJ-
re: "The subject doesn't impact whether a statement is a lie or not. You might have other issues about being more careful about what you say based on the impact but a lie is a lie or it isn't."

Very well: the incompetence and willful misdirection most common in unscrupulous used car salesmen who have been successfully sued thousands of times for similar deception not involving an action as great and serious as a matter of war.

Is that better?

"War for oil? I think people have to be naive to think Iraq's location (on top of oil... and being in the Middle East) had NOTHING to do with a decision."

It takes some real gall for you to say that now.

Anyone who so much as mentioned that motive was an anti-american freak in 2002, while you cheered for a war.

LAJ-
re: "The subject doesn't impact whether a statement is a lie or not."

No, which is why I use terms such as incompetence, misdirection, willful misconduct, etc. Perhaps your semantic fixation with the word "lie" is from the Clinton blowjob years, but it certainly didn't originate with my comments on Bush's flagrant failures and authoritarian manipulation of patriotism and fear.

October 2002 NIE "DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program."

April 2001 DOE "Based on the reported specifications, the tubes could be used to manufacture gas centrifuge rotor cylinders for uranium enrichment." Gave reasons why they felt it was for another use but still felt it was prohibited material for Iraq to purchase. Same report, "While the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application..."

LAJ-
re: "While the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application..."

I'm so glad that Bush and Condi shared this information from the department that actually understands the subject with us in 2002/2003.

Here's what they said:

"mushroom cloud!!!!"

LAJ, and to a much lesser degree, Oohrah-

At what point do you put aside your domestic partisanship and understand that you've been taken for a ride?

Oohrah-
I'll take you at your word, but certainly you have a functioning memory and remember that there was zero attention paid to the notion that our actions had anything to do with oil. In fact, that most evident observation was considered traitorous.

What I wonder about you, and not flacks such as LAJ, is when do you recognize that your leaders are at best incompetent.

No offense to the posters here, but I'm done with this subject. If you don't understand that not only were you misled but that the Bush parade has weakened the US in many CRITICAL ways, then there's no getting through to you.

See you on another topic.

When it comes to Iraq, the surge is a great success, right? Well, according to Ayad Allawi, Iraq's former prime minister, that depends on what you mean by "success".

In a briefing before members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, Allawi answered questions from members of he subcommittee on international organizations, human rights, and oversight. When asked by Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the subcommittee's ranking member, for Allawi's "assessment of of what's come of the surge," Allawi all but said, not much.

Reminding Rohrabacher that the original objective of the surge was to create a safe environment for a process of national reconciliation, Allawi said, "Now, militarily, the surge has achieved some of its goals. Politically, I don't think so."

Allawi rattled off a laundry list of perils that still confront the Iraqi people: internal displacement of large numbers of people, millions of refugees outside Iraq, security forces he described as sectarian militias dressed in national uniforms, no enforcement of the national constitution, which he described as a "divisive" document. [...]

"So, if you measure the surge from a military point of view, it has succeeded," Allawi said. "But I don't think this was the [prime] objective, because soon you will have reversals. Security has not prevailed, and the key element in security is reconciliation, and building national institutions for the country. If this does not happen, then the surge will go in vain."

Re "Everyone believed Saddam had WMD's"

It is amazing that Americans say this without asking Europeans and the rest of the world if it is true. I was in Europe in late 2002 and pretty much everyone I talked to basically agreed with what Dr. Gary Anderson, Lecturer of Cultural Politics at Zeppelin University, Germany wrote:

"One of the last fables - one that seems to have nine lives - is the administrations unremitting claim that America's closest European allies uniformly (or even largely) agreed on pre-war intelligence that Iraq possessed apocalyptic weapons and was ready to employ them. Each time the president makes this claim, a collective roar of laughter can be heard echoing across the Atlantic. It is finally time for this fabrication to end.

Massive European protest against the Iraq war, ranging from the man-on-the-street (millions hit the street in protest) to the upper levels of European politics, undercuts the presidents tired contention that the European governments were of one mind with Washington and the CIA that Iraq stockpiled NBC weapons. Admittedly, uncertainty existedhence the weapons inspections and offers by the French government to conduct surveillance flights. But had the Europeans believed the factualness of WMD intelligence before the war, they would not have demanded UN weapons inspectors to search for weapons they knew to exist. Moreover, had European governments earnestly believed the apocalyptic scenarios painted by the president, they would have backed the United States at the outset. No European state eagerly sought a damaging economic and political row with Washington, not to mention a nuclear-biological-chemical Armageddon in which the EU, not far removed from Israel, would have suffered the fallout. To suggest that European states agreed with Washington's WMD assessments but put their citizens at risk of nuclear-biological-chemical poisoning is too farfetched to believe.
In the weeks leading up to the war, examples of high-level European disagreement with Washington were abundant. Example: the finger-wagging sermon of German Foreign Minister Fischer to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld at the Munich Security Conference: 'Excuse me (Mr. Rumsfeld), but I'm not convinced.' Example: The refusal of the mightiest European governments to endorse then Secretary of State Powells now infamous (and embarrassing) phial-waving presentation at the UN purporting to demonstrate evidence of Iraq's WMD program. Example: Only a few Western European states joined the 'Coalition of the Willing'; traditional allies, such as France and Germany, shied away. Today we know that the Blair governments pre-war doomsday scenariothat Iraq could launch nuke-tipped Scuds launched at Israel within 45 minuteswas perfidious 'book cooking' that would even impress former Arthur Andersen accountants! Since then Spainss prime minister has been removed from office, and now even Italy plans to remove its troops."

ah more people and talking about europe.
look.........europe has been one thing for some time now and it continues to be this one thing

INSIGNIFICANT.......

Some would like to celebrate the proud achievements of the surge?? That's fine but I wish people would spend less time with pundits, politicians and commentators and more with the current facts.

According to Freedom House, an independent research group that ranks freedom around the world Iraq scores a low 6/7 for political freedom and 6/7 for civil liberty (1 is the top score e.g. US, Canada, Sweden, Germany all have 1/7 while Cuba and North Korea have the worst 7/7). Iraq's 6/7 is the same ranking as Iran, and both are classified as "Not Free" Under Sadaam Hussein Iraq was a 7/7 - is this a huge improvement?

In addition, Iraq is classified as a severe "Failed State". In fact after Sudan it is classified as the second worst failed state in the world (i.e. its FSI is second highest even higher than Zimbabwe and Somalia). That is a worse situation to the pre-invasion one under Sadaam Hussein

In the Middle East there are still 11 out of 18 countries classified as "Not free" and 6 classified as "partially free and only one (Israel) as "free" (excluding the occupied territories. This has actually worsened since the invasio

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that 2.2 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 2 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month. Roughly 40% of Iraq's middle class is believed to have fled, the U.N. said.

Iraq was ranked 178 out of 180 countries surveyed in Transparency Internationals 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index. That means it is the 3rd most corrupt nation on earth! It is estimated that 25 percent of donor funds are unaccounted for.

Iraq's press freedom is 157 out of 169 according to Reporters without Borders - which means they are 12th worst nation in the world - worse than e.g. Belarus at 151 and Venezuela at 114. [As a side not, Columbia's is 126th, Nicaraguas at 47, US at 48. Top country is Iceland, worst is Eritrea.]

Here's one for evangelical Christians who supported Bush. Iraqi Christians represent less than 5% of the total Iraqi population, they make up 40% of the refugees now living in nearby countries, according to UNHCR In 1987, there were 1.4 million Christians.[157] Total numbers have slumped to about 500,000, of whom 250,000 live in Baghdad. Furthermore, the Mandaean and Yazidi communities are at the risk of elimination due to the ongoing atrocities by Islamic extremists.

Oil prices are ... ok I dont need to say much about this issue but that's been good for Exxon, Shell etc.. Defense, security and reconstruction contractors such as Halliburton, Blackwell have seen profits rise. Just trying to remain positive here!

The war on terror? The foreign fighters who have come in, mostly from Saudi Arabia, have been investigated extensively by Saudi and Israeli and U.S. intelligence, and what they conclude is that they were mobilized by the Iraq war, no involvement in terrorist actions in the past.

According to the Brookings Institution, 87 out of 100 Iraqis want a timetable for withdrawal. Well, how grateful, despite all of the US benevolence.

So after 5 years the US has achieved what? Little to no improvement in democracy in Iraq, a more unstable country, no improvement of democracy in the Middle East, higher oil prices. Nearly one trillion has been spent on the war. Divide this by the population of Iraq 28,000,000 this works out to about 36,000 dollars per Iraqi in a country where the GDP/ capita income is $3,600 (2007 est.) That means that each citizen including children would have had enough to live on for 10 years without working if the US had decided instead to transfer that money directly to the Iraqis!!!!

All of this information is available at your fingertips. I haven't mentioned Iraqi and US lives and injuries since it seems not many people give a damn anyways.