But Bush talks the ‘democracy and sovereignty’ talk while walking this walk: globalsecurity.org/military/ … y/iraq.htm
:which everyone on the ground in Iraq is seeing firsthand.
Even I’m skeptical about Bush’s intentions in Iraq and I’m about as 
unbiased as they come.
I truly don’t understand how the perennially skeptical Bush supporters can fail to see the credibility chasm they’ve created in the minds of the people they expect and need cooperation from.
Spook:
What is your point? That we have bases in Iraq and that we planned on leaving them there a long time. Yup. So what’s your point? I have been saying this for 2 years. You didn’t remember? You think no one else knows? This is supposed to be a secret? No.
Why will there be bases in Iraq? Because the nature of the country and the region is that with 35K to 50K troops, we provide the important counterweight so no one group can sabotage the country’s political levers and by having our troops there, no Syria or Iran invasion or infiltration (though for the latter we still have our work cut out for us don’t we?)
What is so difficult to understand about this and if we did not loot Germany, Japan, South Korea or the Philippines despite our bases, why would we do so in Iraq? Did we in Saudi Arabia? Did we in Qatar or Bahrain? Leave the conspiracy theories alone for a while and realize that the presence of US troops has often meant stability both internally and regionally and has led to improved human rights and democracy within the countries where America and Americans have been most involved. No?
[quote=“fred smith”]Spook:
What is your point? That we have bases in Iraq and that we planned on leaving them there a long time. [/quote]
"At an April 2003 press conference, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said any suggestion that the US is planning a permanent military presence in Iraq is “inaccurate and unfortunate.”
CSMonitor, 30 September 2004
[color=blue]You see the problem here, Fred? I’m having to spoon feed you so be a good boy and eat your pudding.[/color]
Where’s the whole link Spook:
Second, Rumsfeld may have made that comment but I would have to see the context. I have always known that we would make a long-term commitment to Iraq akin to South Korea, Germany and Japan. To me that meant bases with 35k to 50k troops over the long haul. If Rumsfeld is saying something different than I would like to see the whole article.
Finally, what is your worry? I thought you felt you had been lied to about our commitment in terms of troops and time to Iraq? Do you still feel lied to? Perhaps you should read more. And do you think that the US is going to “loot” Iraq when we had every opportunity to do so with regard to Germany, hell all of Europe, and Japan and South Korea and … Why would we suddenly start doing it with regard to Iraq? Do we control its oil? Do we take the money? What?
Note the terminology “enduring” bases. That’s Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It all suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil that will cost US taxpayers for years to come.
The actual amount depends on how many troops are stationed there for the long term. If the US decides to reduce its forces there from the 138,000 now to, say, 50,000, and station them in bases, the costs would run between 5 billion to 7 billion a year, estimates Gordon Adams, director of Security Policy Studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Nonetheless, several military experts in Washington assume Iraq’s new government will need the support of American troops - and thus “permanent” bases - for years, perhaps decades, to come.
Another fear, however, is that without US bases, the various Iraqi factions - the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds - would fall into civil war. In turn, this conflict could drag in Iran, Syria, and Turkey, leading to a widespread conflict in the Middle East. Hope of establishing a democracy in an Arab nation would fade.
The US can afford maintaining bases in Iraq, he argues. US defense spending now amounts to a bit more than 4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation’s output of goods and services. It might rise as a result of Iraq bases to 5 percent of GDP, still less than the 6.5 percent of GDP in the cold war or the 10 percent during the Vietnam War.
I have highlighted various areas to show that this is something that we have “known” about and “discussed” all along. Notice the 50K number? I was called on this repeatedly earlier when asked if I knew that the US would stay for the long haul and that there was skepticism that I was not just making up the numbers to account for the greater difficulties in Iraq. Nope. 35K to 50K was the originally envisioned number and lo and behold this article spells out exactly as I did why we would want to keep them there for the long term and let’s face it. We will be there for 60 years just like Japan, Germany and South Korea. It will neither cost us more nor less and it will be something that benefits the people of that nation as well as that region. This is not to say there were never protests many massive against US forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea, but overall, we will win, the world will be better and Iraq will be better. In the meantime, the useless left and various European nations, chiefly France, will belly ache and foment trouble but at the end of the day, what will they contribute? how will they help?
Main Entry: permanent
Function: adjective
: continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change.
Merriam-Webster
(My, my, what have we here?)
[color=red]Wheet!
Shameless sophistry, red team! Ten yard penalty.
Fourth down and eighty-seven yards to go.
Wheet![/color]
(Fred, you’re an important guy but you don’t outrank Rummy just yet.)
Fine. Sophistry it is. Funny hearing the left complain about what enduring is when they had so much trouble deciding what is is, but I take your point. Rumsfeld may outrank me but I predict that we will be in Iraq like we always planned… for the long haul and that means 60 years. Get used to it.
fred smith wrote
fred,
If Bush gets back into office, and if the USA is in Iraq for even another full year, I predict that we are going to experience another 9/11 type tragedy because our troops simply can’t be in Iraq while they are also out attacking other nations (which is Bush’s plan), and also protecting America.
MR. BUSH, PROTECT THE USA! BRING HOME THE TROOPS!!
[quote=“fred smith”]Where’s the whole link Spook:
Second, Rumsfeld may have made that comment but I would have to see the context. I have always known that we would make a long-term commitment to Iraq akin to South Korea, Germany and Japan. To me that meant bases with 35k to 50k troops over the long haul. If Rumsfeld is saying something different than I would like to see the whole article. [/quote]
By providing a brief bit of the text of the article and the name of the publication, it is quite simple to find not only the article mentioned, but also commentary about the article. For example, the yahoo search for “inaccurate and unfortunate” Christian Monitor gives the top source as: csmonitor.com 2004 0930.
It’s like a lesson on searching the internet. You can’t always find what you want in a hurry, but in a situation like this you can get what you need.
Meanwhile, in the alternate universe where the invasion of Iraq is going much better . . .
Alternate Universe News
George Bush and the entire Neocon team were convicted of crimes against humanity today and will serve their life sentences in the same prison where Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, Yassir Arafat, Ariel Sharon and Saddam Hussein are also serving their life terms.
Upon his conviction, former vice-president Dick Cheney immediately began referring to former president Bush as “my bitch” in an apparent attempt to preemptively establish a Neocon prison pecking order.
Saddam Hussein, who has become the de facto head of the Islamic Brotherhood prison gang, reportedly responded to the convictions as “good news” and said he’s “looking forward to a little white meat” for a change.
Former secretary of state Colin Powell who had turned against his former colleagues by becoming a government witness will escape prison time but has been sentenced to write the entire Rise and Decline of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbons five-hundred times in long-hand.
Meanwhile, in other news, former socialite and papparazi Fred Smith has been convicted of domestic terrorism for stalking his neighbors who were prominent members of the Democratic Party and will also serve his time in the same prison where the Neocon Brotherhood and Islamic Brotherhood members are incarcerated. Saddam Hussein was reported to have responded to the news of Mr. Smith’s conviction by playing “The Bitch Is Back” at top volume on his boombox until it was order confiscated by prison warden Spook.
How can one be a socialite and a papparazi at the same time? Funny in a general sense but sad in the kind of moral relativism that the message seems to wallow in. Saddam and Rumsfeld the same? Ask the 3 million dead in Iraq and Iran if they would agree. Currently, the number of dead total in Iraq from all causes since the invasion is 24,000. A far cry from the 3 million dead under Saddam or the 500,000 to 1.5 million dead under the Oil for Food program because of UN, French, and Russian complicity but hey. Each Iraqi death is ONE TOO MANY right? Yeah, heard that before but not until the US got involved.
Tell Saddam to play the Bitch is Back at Top Volume. He won’t be able to hear it with his face down in the pillow anyway…
P
ARALLEL
U
NIVERSE
N
EWS
[color=blue]Worm Hole Opens Between Parallel Universes![/color]
"Before the war, in a speech in Atlanta, Georgia, in September 2002, Rumsfeld said the CIA had “bulletproof” evidence demonstrating “that there are in fact al Qaeda in Iraq.”
"In his speech Monday, Rumsfeld said the U.S. intelligence analysts have changed their assessment:
“I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
October 4, 2004: New USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds “that 42% of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington. In response to another question, 32% said they thought Saddam had personally planned them.” 
[color=blue]Paging Dick Cheney. Paging Mr. Dick Cheney.[/color]
[color=blue]Rumsfeld doppelganger from parallel universe apprehended and rightful Donald Rumsfeld restored to power:[/color]
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he was misunderstood when he stated hours earlier that he knew of no “strong, hard evidence” linking Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda.
“I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq,” Rumsfeld said in a Web site statement issued following remarks he made to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York Monday."
[color=blue]The “real” Secretary Rumsfeld also quoted as saying his doppelganger didn’t look anything like him and “was way older than me” and claims he had been held prisoner in alternate dimension “inside some disgusting gooey substance that may have been Saddam’s missing chemical weapons stockpile.”
Meanwhile, second wormhole opens inside CIA headquarters . . .[/color]
Interesting Spook:
What then was Zarkawi doing in Iraq? Do you think he could just happen to be there along with Abu Sidal? Who just miraculously offed himself before the invasion? Right. So Zarkawi is or is not al Qaeda. That is really what the question boils down to. Does he have connections with Osama bin Laden? We apparently do not know anymore, though would you argue that his objectives are any different? A horse is a horse is a horse of course…
So at the end of the day, this is more about how the government lied to us again. Yadda yadda yadda. But then if these are the standards that you hold the Bush administration to, who exactly is living up to your expectations? the media? the Kerry campaign? previous US administrations?
The one thing that I think needs to be cleaned up fast is the rebellion against the Bush administration going on in both the CIA and the State Dept. These people need to remember who they work for and all these little “leaks” like Joseph Wilson (whose reputation is now trashed) along with his CIA wife Valerie Plame should be raising some major flags about loyalty to the commander in chief. Can anyone seriously imagine the armed forces allowing this kind of insubordination? Fire these fuckers and find someone who is willing to work under the guidelines presented to them. These policies are not open to democratic debate and interpretation. These are orders and the CIA and State Dept should try to fulfill them. Clean house!
And until this house is cleaned, I imagine there will be many more such “revelations” and “reinterpretations” coming up, though I imagine that like Valerie and Joe, they will eventually peter out after being given huge credence by a willingly complicit media.
It is true that we have never identified a link between Saddam and al Qaeda in connection with the 911 attacks. And, Bush has never stated that Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda in connection with the planning or carrying-out of the 911 attacks.
However, to claim that there was no contact or connection between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda seems like the osterich hiding his head in the sand.
The CIA stated that it has solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade and that credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Subsequent Operation Enduring Freedom, we have obtained solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. The CIA has stated that it has credible evidence that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq that could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq under Saddam provided training to al Qaeda leaders in the making of conventional bombs. The CIA also stated that Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with a growing relationship with al-Qaeda, suggested that Saddam’s links to terrorists would increase absent US military action.
Additionally, the 9/11 Commission reported as follows:
There is abundant evidence of connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Husein’s regime.
This is what Bush explained consistently prior to the invasion of Iraq… his concern that this relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime would someday … if we didn’t act pre-emptively … develop into actual support from Iraq to al-Qaeda.
Where do so many of you get the idea that Bush claimed or asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks? One of you on the left keeps posting stats that show how ignorant Bush supporters are for believing that Saddam was somehow behing the 911 attacks. Perhaps someone should run a poll to ascertain how many of you flok ignorantly believe that Bush asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks.
That’d be interesting. I wonder which media outlets would be to blame for that misperception?
It is true that the US has never identified a link between Saddam and al Qaeda in connection with the 911 attacks. And, Bush has never stated that Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda in connection with the planning or carrying-out of the 911 attacks.
However, claiming, as some have done, that there was no contact or connection between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda seems rather like the osterich hiding his head in the sand.
The CIA stated that it has solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade and that credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Subsequent Operation Enduring Freedom, we have obtained solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. The CIA has stated that it has credible evidence that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq that could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq under Saddam provided training to al Qaeda leaders in the making of conventional bombs. The CIA also stated that Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with a growing relationship with al-Qaeda, suggested that Saddam’s links to terrorists would increase absent US military action.
Additionally, the 9/11 Commission reported as follows:
There is abundant evidence of connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Husein’s regime.
This is what Bush explained consistently prior to the invasion of Iraq… his concern that this relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime would someday … if we didn’t act pre-emptively … develop into actual support from Iraq to al-Qaeda.
Where do so many of you (not you, spook, but so many others) get the idea that Bush claimed or asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks? One of you on the left keeps posting stats that show how ignorant Bush supporters are for believing that Saddam was somehow behing the 911 attacks. Perhaps someone should run a poll to ascertain how many of you flok ignorantly believe that Bush asserted a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks.
That’d be interesting. I wonder which media outlets would be to blame for that misperception?
Preemptive war is being launched against Iraq today in order[color=blue] “to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”[/color]
President Bush in written notification to Congress on March 18,2003 on why he was authorizing invasion of Iraq on that date
Just to keep the record straight:
Preemptive war is being launched against Iraq today in order [color=blue]“to take the necessary actions against . . . those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”[/color]
President Bush in written notification to Congress on March 18,2003 on why he was authorizing invasion of Iraq on that date.
(Sorry, Tigerman, just doing my job. Nothing personal.)