Mission Accomplished? What was the mission again?

Politics aside, I respect the soldiers for their work and hope they all return home safe and soon.

The Sunni are coming. The Sunni are coming.

Wait a while and if the U.S. does not interfere, we'll return to the status quo ante with the Sunni in control.

The Sunni are coming. The Sunni are coming.

Wait a while and if the U.S. does not interfere, we'll return to the status quo ante with the Sunni in control.

Fortunately the Shia outnumber them 2 to 1.

They are leaving the cities but not the country. BHO, how is your war doing? I thought you were going to pull out before you came.

Sorry Snipe - This is, and always will be bush's illegal war.

Sorry Snipe - This is, and always will be bush's illegal war.

Until the 16 month mark. Then it's all his.

The decision to withdraw US forces was made my Bush and Maliki. The only thing that Obama did was finish developing the timeline. He is only following through on a previous committment so he does not get credit for the withdrawal decision. On the other hand, the right wingnuts can't really be too critical of Obama following a decision that their boy blunder made in the first place.

Its time for the Iraqis to take off the training wheels and graduate to a big boys bike.

Sorry Snipe - This is, and always will be bush's illegal war.

#5 | Posted by HLAY2009 at 2009-06-

okay sure

in that case then it is also HIS SUCCESS STORY

or will liberal fucks make up something in order to keep from admitting that.
my bet is on the left being thier usual self...
telling us that its bush's war but then giving barry the credit.....ITS WHAT THEY DO

Bush wanted them pulled, Barry is simply moving them. I thought he was going to simply sit down and make everyone love us. WTF?

We give Johnson the blame for Vietnam and Nixon gets credit for ending it, so yes, the same will happen with Bush and Obama.

We give Johnson the blame for Vietnam and Nixon gets credit for ending it, so yes, the same will happen with Bush and Obama.

#10 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-06-30 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Different time, different war, different outcome.

Not everyone is an uninformed idiot like "We"(you) are?

Slickster,
Just type "duh." It will achieve the same end result in half the time.

Over recent weeks the deathtoll in Iraq has been increasing dramatically. As the US pulls out, that toll will seemingly continue to rise. The fundamental divisive problems which confronted Iraq before the war still exist, - GWB's excellent adventure notwithstanding. The fact is, we should never have invaded in the first place. (And Bush/Cheney deserve to be prosecuted for war crimes.)

Good. Now let's get out of the rest of the Middle East and let these hotheads eat one another up with endless wars.

The Iraqis, including Maliki are claiming a great victory over the invaders.

Is that the same as being greeted as liberators? And Johnson-the sunnis won't be back in control. Now that the American military is no longer protecting sunni jihadists, Iraqi shia and kurds will go back to whacking sunnis who don't toe the line.

Iran will continue it's proxy invasion of Iraq now via the Iraqi Shia. More and more we realize Saddam was the best ally we had in the region.

Saddam was a monster. The ONLY good to come of the invasion was his ouster, trial and execution.

That was far from good. Iran went nuclear the very moment Saddam hung. The Middle East exploded from the power vacuum he absence left. In a land of religious zealots, he was the only one secular. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, but it is alway a tool that can be used.

Mission Accomplished? What was the mission again?

#1 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce

The mission was to protect the American Empire.

Sorry Snipe - This is, and always will be bush's illegal war.

#5 | Posted by HLAY2009

Of course it was illegal, but it keeps your G.D. Wal-mart open so low-class morons like you have a place to shop.

Slickster,
Just type "duh." It will achieve the same end result in half the time.

#12 | Posted by kanrei

Ouch

Saddam was a monster. The ONLY good to come of the invasion was his ouster, trial and execution.

#17 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-06

yes but other things are implied and apply because of that
iraq has a chance to be the country that all of the iranians are giving thier lives to become..

and its no wonder that this thread only has twentysomething hits to it
libs are avoiding it for the most part because it has a "hint" of success by bush to it

iraq has a chance to be the country that all of the iranians are giving thier lives to become..

DAMN thats a good line...

"iraq has a chance to be the country that all of the iranians are giving thier lives to become.."

DAMN that's a stupid line....

Since there's more suicide attacks in Iraq than Afghanistan - I think imho we should stay in Iraq for a couple of more years. Especially because we have this anti-war president who hasn't been in office but 6 months. Not to mention the exact countries in the "Axis of Evil" are making headlines.

This new sense of neutrality is dangerous for moderate Muslims and American interests.

I find joy in Iraq having total sovereignty; I just think it's a bit premature.

iraq has a chance to be the country that all of the iranians are giving thier lives to become..

DAMN thats a good line...

#23 | Posted by afkabl2

An America-hating islamic theocracy? Judging by maliki and other Iraqis' comments, I think that's one Mission Actually Accomplished.

You righties do realize that if the moderates do succeed in Iran, its just more proof that democracy in the ME can be self-organizing, blowing a hole in the last "reason de jour" for Bush's Excellent Iraqi Adventure?

OTOH, a Mission NOT Accomplished. It would have been so much easier if Bush just got his way and auctioned the fields off to his buddies:

BAGHDAD, June 29 -- Iraq's first major attempt to woo foreign oil companies to help resurrect its ailing oil fields appeared doomed Tuesday, as most companies balked at the financial terms the government offered.

During a day-long live auction for eight 20-year service contracts, the Iraqi oil ministry was able to nail down just one -- for the Rumaila field in southern Iraq. The ministry accepted a joint bid submitted by British Petroleum and the China National Petroleum Corp. to boost output there.

Iraq offered to reimburse the companies for costs and pay them a per-barrel fee. But it did not offer a more attractive type of contract, which would have given the companies a stake in the crude. It also demanded nearly $3 billion in loans for the six oil fields, which are active, but under-producing, and two largely undeveloped gas fields.

Slickster,
Just type "duh." It will achieve the same end result in half the time.

#12 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-06-30 11:33 AM

Funny response, kanrei continues to play the role of the public school educated idiot.

While Eddie is simply the uninformed fool.

DAMN that's a stupid line....

#24 | Posted by danni at 2009-06-30 12:32 PM |

DAMN Danni is an idiot.

DAMN that's a stupid line....

#24 | Posted by danni

Yes, your reply was.

Sorry Snipe - This is, and always will be bush's illegal war.

#5 | Posted by HLAY2009

Authorized by congress and most of your lib buddies voted for it.

Have you seen this?

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
Bla,bla,bla
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

So, you can stuff your illegal war right up your sorry ass.

I find joy in Iraq having total sovereignty; I just think it's a bit premature.

#25 | Posted by phys_ill

I agree with this!

And our troops who number about 130,000 will take a couple of years to leave.

This is great to see that through all the mismanagement and wrong decisions-the blood and treasure---the Iraqi people have prevailed with the help from our great troops.

And the army and police are trained sufficiently enough so they have taken over about 30 bases from the US military.

We will always have a base and will pay the Iraqi gov't just like we do in Japan and Germany.

"...if the moderates do succeed in Iran.."

Can't be done w/o the Rev. Guard taking over(wouldn't that be a right-wing coup?) or the help of the international community.

LOL, we'd still be patrolling the "No Fly Zone" if our leaders had that train of thought on Iraq.

The sanctions didn't work for Saddam, why do you think the Mullahs in Iran will succumb? Or, are you smoking Obama's Pall Mall?

Or, are you smoking Obama's Pall Mall?

#34 | Posted by phys_ill

That's some good shit manard.

Through all the snide comments and innuendo, it apparently seems that the rightwingers on site advocate a US invasion of Iran. But being wusses they are reluctant to just come out and admit it.

But being wusses they are reluctant to just come out and admit it.

LOL

"They won't say this, so I'll say it for them then criticize them for not saying it"

You're sump'n else, m8

Through all the snide comments and innuendo, it apparently seems that the rightwingers on site advocate a US invasion of Iran. But being wusses they are reluctant to just come out and admit it.

Through all the snike comments and innuendo, it apparently seems that the leftwingers on site advocate a total failure in Iraq and love the deaths of our soldiers there. But being wusses they are reluctant to just come out and admit it.

:-(

Authorized by congress and most of your lib buddies voted for it.

#31 | Posted by Sniper

wrong

to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

diplomatic efforts failed? did the inspectors find any evidence? hmmmm nope

did they say they found no evidence? yep

Iraq posed no ongoing threat to the US, therefore, Bush had no authority to invade.

Invasion illegal.

and as a last resort

wow thanks for posting proof of your ignorance snipey.

LOL, we'd still be patrolling the "No Fly Zone" if our leaders had that train of thought on Iraq.

The sanctions didn't work for Saddam, why do you think the Mullahs in Iran will succumb? Or, are you smoking Obama's Pall Mall?

#34 | Posted by phys_ill

with 0 American dead and $3 trillion not spent, sounds like a bargain to me.

to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

diplomatic efforts failed? did the inspectors find any evidence? hmmmm nope

did they say they found no evidence? yep

Iraq posed no ongoing threat to the US, therefore, Bush had no authority to invade.

Invasion illegal.

sure it was. When I see democrats in jail for authorizing it then you might have something to go on.

here is the resolution language:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

continuing threat posed by Iraq

AND

Enforce ALL relevant UN Resolutions

NO UN RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED INVASION. UN Resolution required that the matter come back for discussion-meaning a second resolution for use of force. Bush KNEW he needed a second resolution, Bush DRAFTED a second resolution, Bush said NO MATTER WHAT he was going to call for a vote on the 2nd Resolution-he did not.

It was a proven FACT that Iraq posed no threat to the US in March 2003. Inspectors found NO EVIDENCE.

Therefore, UN resolutions did not call for invasion and Iraq posed no threat to the US.

Therefore, Bush did not do what he was authorized to do.

Sorry invasion was illegal.

More on Senator Clinton:

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

with 0 American dead and $3 trillion not spent, sounds like a bargain to me.

#42 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-30 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag: wishfull thinking (Candyland streets with Gumdrop smiles)

with 0 American dead and $3 trillion not spent, sounds like a bargain to me.

#42 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-06-30 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag: wishfull thinking (Candyland streets with Gumdrop smiles)

#47 | Posted by phys_ill

using precedent my knowledge challenged friend.

okay sure

in that case then it is also HIS SUCCESS STORY

or will liberal fucks make up something in order to keep from admitting that.
my bet is on the left being thier usual self...
telling us that its bush's war but then giving barry the credit.....ITS WHAT THEY DO

#8 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-06-30 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's Bush's success story?

Really?

Seems his own words would dictate otherwise;

"WE'RE not leaving, so long as I'm the President." -Bush

This is the same president who said Iraq would be left for the next president to deal with.

What a guy, that Bush. Always letting others clean up his disasters, all while boasting proudly of it.

Authorized by congress and most of your lib buddies voted for it.

#31 | Posted by Sniper

But lost by Commander-in-Chief Bush. Like afghanistan.

When, in fact, did a Republican actually win a war (excluding Reagan's great victory over some golf caddies in Grenada)?

Ike sure didn't win in Korea, Nixon flat out surrendered in Viet Nam, Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon and Herbie, at least according to the righties, didn't finish the job in Iraq.

afka bush lover 2 whatever your stupid is

"iraq has a chance to be the country that all of the iranians are giving thier lives to become.."

are you fucking stupid!

again i usually ignore you cause you are a cry baby

but get real

at least 600,000 iraqi's gave their lives willing or unwilling to get iraq the way it is now... which is still not a place you or i would live.

seriously don't talk unless you use logic

i hail the irani people, but they haven't even come close to paying the price that our bombs and bullets caused in iraq.

america was way harsher to that region then the ayatollah.

Iran will collect their prize soon and power politics in the middle east will be forever changed.

Ike sure didn't win in Korea,

Funny flag.

History lesson for NorthBi. Two Korea's existed before the north Korea invaded south Korea. South Korea was nearly defeated. US/UN comes to the aid of South Korea and pushs North back across the original border of the two countries. US pursues north Korean army across the border in an attempt to destroy it. China invades north Korea and push's US back to the orginal border.

How did Ike not win? The US was not attempting to occupy or claim the land of NK. We were fighting to preserve SK. Last time I looked, they are still around.

More librul revisionist history, soon it will be how the US was defeated in Iraq and Barry had to rescue the troops.

When, in fact, did a Republican actually win a war...

Oh both Bush's won wars. And Lincoln won a little war.

Nixon surrendered....hahahah

Northbi is one dumb blue gum.

america was way harsher to that region then the ayatollah.

#51 | Posted by klifferd at

spoken as a true CNN viewer. Nice assessment from your view 4,000 miles away.

at least 600,000 iraqi's gave their lives willing or unwilling to get iraq the way it is now... which is still not a place you or i would live.
do you have proof of your claims of casualties.

these guys disagree with you. But I'm sure you can provide the details of the 500,000 they missed.

iraq has a chance to be the country that all of the iranians are giving thier lives to become.

That lobotomy didn't work out well for you, did it?

Yes, so many Iranians are dying because terrorists are blowing themselves up in markets. Tons of Iranians are yearning to have their country get its infrastructure bombed out by a foreign power, descend into civil war, and then become a battleground for terrorists and that foreign power. Iraq tops the post-election body count from Iran every few days. At the height of the fighting, it was happening daily.

You know what they're shouting from the rooftops in Tehran? It loosely translates to, "America, please invade so we can be just like Iraq."

You know what, BL2, the next time you find yourself face to face with any Persians you should ask them if they'd like Iran to look like Iraq does.

Troops:You've fully earned Dick Cheney's crooked "Grin"!!!

US Forces Leave Iraqi Cities...and so the US Military "accomplished" just what in Iraq...other than killing maybe a million innocent Iraqis...or yes of course,they "Secured" the Iraqi "Oil Fields" for EXXON and the other Big American,CorpoRat Oil Companies! What an achievement! Though Dick Cheney won't bother thanking you troops still he is grinning widely - so at least you've got something for your service right!

midtowncowboy

4000 miles?

i was married to an iraqi

i have family in pakistan, india, iran, afghanistan

and in laws in iraq.

you are talking about documented numbers

ie 100,000 dead that are documented.

what about the nameless killed in bombs.

keep to one source like a true dr collegiate..

heres the washington post...

Northbi is one dumb blue gum.

#54 | Posted by midtowncowboy at 2009-06-30 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Projecting your fantasies regarding ones sexuality into their name is rather creepy.

"More librul revisionist history, soon it will be how the US was defeated in Iraq and Barry had to rescue the troops."

No need for this liberal to want to rewrite the history of Eisenhower. He would be a liberal today and was one of the first to recognize the danger of the growing power of corporations in America.

Through all the snide comments and innuendo, it apparently seems that the rightwingers on site advocate a US invasion of Iran. But being wusses they are reluctant to just come out and admit it.

#36 | Posted by moder8

I haven't seen this innuendo you speak of. And most, if not all, of the right wingers I know do not believe we should invade Iran. That includes GW Bush.

And most, if not all, of the right wingers I know do not believe we should invade Iran. That includes GW Bush.

Right...utter nonsense! Apparently you don't actually know any right wingers and especially do not know GW Bush.

Perhaps you need to read...

Still Preparing to Attack Iran
The Neoconservatives in the Obama Era
By Robert Dreyfuss

As late as July 2008 GW Bush (your right wing friend) was threatening to attack Iran.

Bush threatens Iran with military action

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Tuesday, 17 June 2008

George Bush has warned Iran that military action is still "on the table"

George Bush has warned Iran that military action is still "on the table" if it fails to respond to tightening diplomatic pressure to abandon its nuclear weapons programme.