Great interview. In response to the question as to whether we’re rushing to write off this policy before it has a chance of succeeding, Levin says that adding forces “takes the Iraqis off the hook” when we should be forcing them to achieve a political solution.
And check out Biden’s response to Cheney:
Biden’s response:
For further ino on the need for a political, rather than military solution in Iraq, this is also a pretty good commentary…
[quote]…so long as any American troops remain in Iraq, Mr. Bush must put serious pressure on Mr. Maliki to support the troops’ efforts with a genuine program of national reconciliation. That must include, at a minimum, ridding the police and other security services of killers, torturers and criminals and disarming all sectarian militias.
The government must also assure that Iraqi oil revenues are fairly shared out among the entire Iraqi population. And it must move quickly to offer an amnesty to Sunni insurgents willing to put down their weapons, and narrow the legal restrictions on former Baath Party members so that Sunni professionals can once again fully participate in Iraqi national life.
These benchmarks should be accompanied by fixed timelines. And they must be accompanied with a clear message that the United States is prepared to withdraw its troops if the Iraqis continue to refuse to take responsibility for their own future. Mr. Bush and other American officials need to make clear that as much as the United States will suffer from a complete collapse in Iraq, Iraq’s leaders will suffer far worse from the loss of their American protectors.[/quote]
[quote=“NYT”]Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, one of Congress’s leading authorities on the military, presented a bipartisan proposal on Monday that soundly rejected President Bush’s plan to send more American troops to Baghdad and urged the administration to find a new course in Iraq.
“Mr. President,” Mr. Warner declared, “go back and look at all the options.”
[…]
While details of the competing Iraq plans varied, one point could not be mistaken: a growing number of senators in both parties find the president’s strategy flawed. While some Republicans still vow to back the White House, the tough language from Mr. Warner, a former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a onetime Navy secretary, dealt a blow to administration officials trying to salvage the Iraq plan.
“The American G.I. was not trained, not sent over there — certainly not by resolution of this institution — to be placed in the middle of a fight between the Sunni and the Shia and the wanton and just incomprehensible killing that’s going on at this time,” Mr. Warner said. “We don’t lessen importance of that mission, but it should be performed by the Iraqi forces and not the coalition forces.”
[…] Under a plan announced Monday by Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, and other senior Republicans, Mr. Bush would be required to provide monthly reports on progress in meeting goals in Iraq beginning this month.
Among the new “benchmarks” proposed by Republicans would be the level of cooperation by the Iraqi government in military efforts as well as Iraqi troop deployments and spending on military equipment. [b]Republicans said they have also asked the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to establish a bipartisan committee to monitor Mr. Bush’s new strategy.
“The new majority has two choices,” Mr. Boehner said. “They can either try to stop the president’s new strategy and block funding for our troops, or they can join us in aggressively holding the Bush administration and the Iraqi government accountable for achieving success.”[/b]
That comment hit a nerve with Democrats, who said Republicans failed consistently in their duty to scrutinize the administration’s conduct of the war when they held majorities in the House and Senate.
“Where were the Republicans the last four years?” said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi. [/quote]
George doesn’t have a clue on the war, an international program that extends beyond… Iraq? Iran?.. nor a hope in New Orleans of developing a viable domestic agenda. Time to head back to the ranch.
haha. Where was the “viable plan” before Bush? Seems that we spent an awful lot of time dealing with Saddam from 1990 to 2003 with many Democrats screaming for action. Oh what short memories most people have. Tigerman is probably tired of posting for the 50th time all the direct quotes from Democrats and world leaders about the need to deal “forcefully” with Saddam. I guess those 23 votes all of which were proved by nearly unanimous levels even among Democrats were because Bush “lied?” haha and you wonder why given this written record, people do not take your comments seriously? Just because you either do not know or “forgot” does not mean that the rest of us are automatically as “stupid.”
Iran? Okay. What’s your plan? Depend on the UN to keep Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons? Or are these not a problem? or is Iran not really trying to develop them? What? What do YOU think we should do? Sneer.
Finally, Katrina destruction in New Orleans resulted from primarily bad local governance. Ask anyone in New Orleans. What you “think” does not count. We “know” what happened down there and we know what will happen again if the federal govt does not take care of it. BUT now all other 49 states will suffer from increased bureaucracy because the authorities in one state were criminally incompetent. Welcome to Africa! or Haiti! or some other mismanaged shithole where patronage and corruption reign supreme. Maybe Bangladesh? haha but it is not really a laughing matter is it?
Apparently, the US does not have sufficient force to deal with Iraq, even with British help. Sure would help if there were a real international force in place to share in the heavy lifting; you know, like there is in Afghanistan. Oh, right, that job was left undone to run off chasing phantom WMDs. So, one job left incomplete, another unnecessary piece of work taken on without the necessary means at hand. Where’s George I’s grand coalition? Where’s the infrastructure, the necessary alliances, for this generational war/ war that does not end against the enemies of civilization? Surely a man who’s a uniter, not a divider, who’s the guiding hand of freedom on the march will have marshaled the force necessary for such a great enterprise. So? Deal.
Iran? I don’t need a plan. If I did, it wouldn’t be written in the blood of others, nor filtered through Dick’s ideologically-fuel blood lust. What’s your plan… ha. I don’t even care. Tell you what. Show me your chops and come up with a health care plan for 47 million uninsured Americans. Not George’s goof ball bs. Yours.
Katrina? Yes, yes. Great response, and true, it’s not the authorities there alone who are criminally incompetent. [quote]Welcome to Africa! or Haiti! or some other mismanaged shithole where patronage and corruption reign supreme. Maybe Bangladesh?[/quote]Maybe Washington?
Smirk. Yeah that international force has been absolutely key to managing security in the secure areas.
phantom? Okay, if you say so but we have so many quotes from so many Democrats and world leaders about the danger that Saddam presented and even worse calling for military action. How do you feel emphasis on feel about that?
Why would more troops help in Afghanistan? Why was it wrong to go after Saddam? Why is it wrong to look to Iran as the next threat?
Oh please. The sad fact is that it makes about the same amount of difference to the real military effort (invasion) whether the Marshall Islands or Germany signs up. Ditto for most of the rest of the world, including France and UK though they are admittedly somewhat more effective.
Well, let me ask you again… Is Iran a threat or not? If it is, then the fact that we have no support from, burp, Canada means what? That the US is wrong or that Canada should be doing more to provide for preserving the world order? As usual, you are thinking with warped logic. Just because the forces are not available does not mean that the threat is not real. You see? Can you understand that?
Bush could be a uniter or a divider or anything in between and the sad fact remains that it would not increase the military support from Canada by one soldier or from France by one gun. These nations are always hiding behind the skirts and are loath to send troops to areas with real military threats. If they are deployed to such areas, they are held in special concentrated camps to minimize possible deaths. What use is this to anyone?
Because it is not a problem? haha. You are so stupid. Iran is a real problem.
Cute. I see now that the other thread on the rightness of supporting a military conflict being based on your willingness to personally fight it has now filtered through your tired, feverish little brain. Meanwhile, back on planet earth, real people are engaged in real policy-making that does not take into consideration your esoteric nuances of morality. Thank God.
Sure all about blood lust. So Afghanistan was not a problem? Should not have been invaded? Is not better off for the invasion? Iraq was not a problem? Saddam could be reasoned with? The Iranians should be left to develop nuclear weapons? In the meantime, all this fighting, all of this terrorism was the result of Dick Cheney’s ideologically fueled blood lust? Pathetic.
No. No. You have got it wrong. No one cares what your plan is. YOU are supremely irrelevant. You do see that don’t you? You can adopt whatever precious policies you want but they are never going to be the ones to be implemented so any discussions you have on the subject are moot so why talk at all?
Why should I? Bit off topic isn’t it? There is a thread for that. Go there and see who is interested in your brilliance, smirk smirk.
You have no idea. But then mentioning that fact is to engage in redundancy…
God, I hope I get to go another trip soon. I had no idea how little I missed these “stimulating” conversations.
The veil of ignorance has truly evolved into the burqa of stupidity but it looks like you are adding a burnoose of boring bloviating blundering blather. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ever see Team America? Why I think of you whenever I read your posts is beyond me… You remind me of the one from Berkeley who “senses” the things that are obvious to everyone else. What was her name? Lisa? or was that one the blond bimbo? Anyway, take your pick.
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Apparently, the US does not have sufficient force to deal with Iraq, even with British help.[/quote]So?[/quote]So dealing with the issue forcefully doesn’t seem to be working all that well. Duh.
Smirk. Yeah that international force has been absolutely key to managing security in the secure areas.[/quote]Yep, too many countries are keeping their forces in the safe neighborhoods. As I’ve said elsewhere, I know the chief of staff of the Canadian contingent, and they’re not hunkered down away from the fights. And even if they were, there’s more to be done than chasing Taliban through the hills.
phantom? Okay, if you say so but we have so many quotes from so many Democrats and world leaders about the danger that Saddam presented and even worse calling for military action. How do you feel emphasis on feel about that?[/quote]:lol: Before going out before the UN, Powell was told by a friend, “Don’t say anything you aren’t sure of.” Powell’s response was: “One day when we’re both out of office, I’ll tell you why.” Am I surprised that nearly all the clerics and members of the choir were singing out of the same hymnal? Nope. Never play poker, fred, never tried to bluff someone out of the game? I feel no more surprise than I do reading your talking points or useless insults.
Why would more troops help in Afghanistan? Why was it wrong to go after Saddam? Why is it wrong to look to Iran as the next threat?[/quote]Finish one job before moving on to another.
Oh please. The sad fact is that it makes about the same amount of difference to the real military effort (invasion) whether the Marshall Islands or Germany signs up. Ditto for most of the rest of the world, including France and UK though they are admittedly somewhat more effective. [/quote]Uh-huh. Cake walk, right? Does it matter in the political dimension? Is James Baker on crack when he dreams up all that stuff on statesmanship?
Why should I? Bit off topic isn’t it? There is a thread for that. Go there and see who is interested in your brilliance, smirk smirk.[/quote]
Because I’m curious how much you can produce when not peddling war, or spewing insults. You’ve had fun with welfare and school vouchers, again liberally laced with the seemingly obligatory insults. In the process, you may have stimulated a couple of people to (re)consider the issues. Health care is going to be a major issue in the US over the next couple of years… why not do a piece of public service and give the issue an honest effort? It’s an issue that directly affects 47 million Americans, and indirectly the rest. It’ll have a major impact on the structure of the economy… if the boys at GM and Ford are to be believed. Gee, that’d be… important. Something your war fetish is not. Come on, an honest effort.
I can understand intelligent, well-intentioned people being duped by those unsubstantiated accusations neoconservatives made against Iraq when so many people in high places were cheerleading those false claims. Being duped again by unsubstantiated claims made against Iran by those very same people would be proof of stupidity though.
Oh, I guess you forgot about the Powell Doctrine, a plan put together by Colin Powell and Cap Weinberger as a way to avoid the quagmire problems of the Vietnam War. If Bush had wanted to understand the Powell Doctrine a bit better, I suppose he could have lifted his head up at anytime during any one of several hundred meetings and simply asked his own Secretary of State Powell. If Bush were truly determined to go to war in Iraq, no matter what the facts about WMDs running contrary to his oil dreams, there was a maker of “viable” war plans sitting right across the table from him.
A nuclear Iran is a problem, and the UN probably won’t be able to do anything. I’ll agree with you here.
But look at the lesson Iran’s learned. Pakistan developed, tested and built nukes (not to mention possibly being al-Quada and the Taliban’s closest ally even now) and they not only don’t have to worry about invasion, the US make them a close ally in the WOT.
North Korea developed, tested and built nukes, and military action is not really being considered. It’s diplomacy and 6-party talks all the way (even though recent history shows that NK lie through their teeth).
India developed, tested and built nukes, and now, less than 10 years after they tested, not only have the sanctions been removed, but the US is helping India with nuclear technology.
And I won’t even mention Israel, China etc and their nukes.
So what lessons can Iran take from this.
Don’t have nukes, and face the same situation as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or have them and face sanctions and diplomacy at worst, or be made an ally and receive aid nuclear aid at best.
If I were Iran, I’d be doing my best to build some nukes, because it seems to make it less likely that I’d be invaded.
If you really want to deter nations from going nuclear, send a few cruise missiles into Pakistan, NK, India, Israel, China etc. Do it without warning. As soon as a country goes nuke, drop a few bombs on their presidential/parliament buildings. Bomb the politicians/decision makers. Then tell those remaining that nukes are unacceptable and verifiable disarmament needs to take place. (And in the meantime, the US, France, Russia, UK take steps to disarm themselves instead of merely mothballing).
It may be too late to deter Iran with this approach, but it might deter future states.
