Bush 'open to any idea' on Iraq

[ed316]

[/URL]Bush 'open to any idea' on Iraq




Story Highlights

•NEW: Bush says he is open to suggestions on Iraq policy
•NEW: Source says GOP is urging Sen. George Allen to concede Virginia race
•Allen and opponent James Webb to hold news conferencesthis afternoon
•Bush invites Democrats to White House, promises "new era of cooperation"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush told reporters Thursday that he respected the results of this week's elections that propelled Democrats to power and said he was "open to any idea or suggestion" that will help the U.S. achieve its goals in Iraq.
"Whatever party we come from we all have a responsibility to ensure that these troops have the resources and support they need to prevail," he said.
Bush was flanked by his Cabinet members with whom he met earlier in the day. He also met with outgoing GOP leaders and planned to lunch with House speaker-to-be Rep. Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer later, he said. (Watch Bush urge his party to "put the elections behind us" -- 3:10 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/)http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/main/icon_video.gif (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2006/11/09/sot.bush.cabinet.agenda.cnn','2006/11/16');))
The president also said he will meet with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin on Friday.
Bush said he was eager to discuss with Democrats "the way forward for our country" and has instructed his Cabinet to provide the new congressional leaders with any information they need to do their jobs.
"The American people expect us to rise above partisan differences, and my administration will do its part," he said.
The president also outlined some issues he'd like to see Congress address before year's end.(Transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/bush.transcript.ap/index.html))
Among those issues are the federal spending bill, the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, bipartisan energy legislation, trade legislation and an agreement with India on civilian nuclear technology.
The Terrorist Surveillance Act is likely to face the stiffest opposition, as both parties have criticized the measure that would authorize the administration's surveillance program, which allows wiretapping on phone calls between people in the United States and suspected terrorists overseas.
On Iraq, Bush said, "I'm open to any idea or suggestion that will help us achieve our goals of defeating the terrorists and ensuring that Iraq's democratic government succeeds."
The meetings with Democratic leaders come two days after the Democrats trounced Republicans in the House elections and as a power shift in the Senate appears likely. (Watch to see what Bush's first bipartisan act was after the election -- 2:44 (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2006/11/08/sot.bush.election.defeat.cnn','2006/12/31');))
Though the fate of the Senate hinges on the official outcome of the Virginia Senate race between Democrat Jim Webb and GOP incumbent George Allen, Webb's victory appeared likely. That would give Democrats a 51-49 advantage in the House, if you count two independents who have said they will caucus with the party.
Allen is scheduled to hold a 3 p.m. ET news conference in Alexandria, Virginia. A source close to Allen told CNN that the senator "has heard from Republican leaders in the Senate and the party who are encouraging him to concede."
Webb is scheduled to speak at 4:15 p.m. ET.
(http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/)Working together

In what the president has called a "new era of cooperation," Bush is already looking for areas of common ground with Democrats. (Watch top Senate Democrat Harry Reid discuss the future -- 2:33 (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2006/11/08/zahn.harry.reid.intv.cnn','2006/11/15');)http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/main/icon_video.gif (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2006/11/08/zahn.harry.reid.intv.cnn','2006/11/15');))
"We can work together over the next two years," the president said Wednesday.
But he added that he knows Pelosi is "not going to abandon her principles, and I'm not going to abandon mine."
Pelosi, who would be the first female House speaker, told CNN: "Democrats are ready to lead, prepared to govern and absolutely willing to work in a bipartisan way." (Watch Pelosi talk of breaking the 'marble ceiling' -- 12:45 (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2006/11/08/blitzer.nancy.pelosi.intv.cnn','2006/11/15');)http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/main/icon_video.gif (javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2006/11/08/blitzer.nancy.pelosi.intv.cnn','2006/11/15');))
She has previously said a Democratic-led Congress will not be a rubber stamp for the White House. On Wednesday, she said she hoped there would be cooperation with congressional investigations -- part of the checks-and-balances system built into the Constitution.
Pelosi also has said that in the first 100 hours of her speakership she will push for action implementing all 9/11 Commission recommendations on national security, raising the minimum wage to $7.25, eliminating corporate subsidies for oil companies, allowing the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices, imposing new restrictions on lobbyists, cutting interest rates on college loans and supporting embryonic stem-cell research.
On Wednesday, she repeated a call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to go, and just hours later the president announced his loyal aide was resigning -- a decision Bush said was made before the election.
"The president got themessage, thank heavens," Pelosi said. "I think it signals a new change, I hope for the better, in Iraq."
Bush nominated Robert Gates to fill Rumsfeld's vacancy. Gates is an ex-CIA chief who also worked on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that is making recommendations to Bush on how to proceed in Iraq. (Full story (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/rumsfeld/index.html))
(http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/)Counting continues

Democrats could learn Thursday whether they will take control of the Senate, as a canvass of votes in Virginia shows no significant change in the small lead held by Webb, sources told CNN.
Though the Senate's fate was still pending, a victory by Webb would put the lineup at 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who have said they would caucus with the Democrats.
That would give the Democrats the 51 votes they need to claim a majority for the first time since 2002.
Wednesday night, with Webb leading Allen by about 7,200 votes and the canvass about half complete, The Associated Press declared Webb the winner.
CNN does not declare a winner when race results are less than 1 percent and the potential loser may request a recount vote. (Full Senate news (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.senate/index.html))
If the Virginia result is confirmed, Democrats will take over the Senate and the House of Representatives in January, and Bush said he would work with whomever was in charge.
CNN's John King, Dana Bash and Ed Henry contributed to this report.

http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/election.main/index.html

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Be seated, join hands and attend to my words...
(putting on ceremonial turban and gazing into political crystal ball) I see...I see a paper ...a white paper in Nancy Pelosi's hands...it's...it's one of her many talking points bulletins she prepares for Democrats...and it says...it says...it says (hands on temple, straining to psychically read the paper) it say "make no suggestions regarding Iraq"...and "try to sit at the back of the room" and "if they ask what we should do, claim you have "woman problems" and excuse yourself to the rest room". And I see Henry Waxman asking how the hell he's supposed to get away with claiming to have "woman problems". And I see Nancy replying...in a very shrill voice with that skeletal, overly-made-up Baby Jane face of hers - "do as I say you fat sonofabitch or I'll have your nuts".

It's too much, swami must rest for now.

[kinsella]

This is an interesting move. On the one hand, he is humble, seeing the nation has spoke and now opens to suggestions from the majority. On the other, maybe its a shrwed political move. Ask the Dems what they would do, do it, and if it fails, it wont be his fault (as much anyway).

This could just prove the saying "Carefull what you wish for, you just might get it".

Swami 2Sheds very wise.

[MaydayJohnson]

yeah heres how you solve it, you move everyone out of iraq and filter them and clean the place out. let them back in 2 weeks later and mission accomplished in under 3 weeks. should begin trying it on smaller cities though first and see how it works.

[Freedom06]

Well... just heard Ken Adelman being interviewed for Channel4 news here in the UK- apparently the mess in Iraq is all our (british) fault because we brits are too 'polite' and don't know 'how to speak to americans'-referring to the british ambassador to Iraq (who was Bremers' No.2) and how he failed to speak out forcefully enough (even though he had a 'grandstand seat to all the mistakes that were made in the early days'......)

Now that is some fancy footwork-you've got to have some barefaced cheek to come out with stuff like that- and he didn't even bat an eyelid..There were we in Britain thinking the US doesn't give a rats arse to what Britain says, we were wrong all along! Hopefully this means that the british will have some say in what comes next in Iraq (not that it will help at all...)

[Createdeemcee]

Oh Now change all of a sudden.

[California Joe]

Hahahahaha f*ckin' 2Sheds cracks me up.

She is rather Norma Desmond isn't she....:)

I think the open to ideas is more of a nod to James Baker and Brent Skowcroft to make a few suggestions on an viable extract. Seriously, I think everyone would agree that it is getting to the point where the situation is untenable and sooner or later we are going to have to get out of there. It's the when and how part that I can't figure.

In fact, I'm going to start a thread like Hellfish did about taking over a Banana Republic, and see if any of the genius armchair types can put together a viable plan for getting us out of there. Timetable, political ramifications, international responses, military redeployment, civil war, all that good stuff. It's easy to be critical but really hard to come up with a workable occupation/exit strategy......

[kinsella]

In fact, I'm going to start a thread like Hellfish did about taking over a Banana Republic, and see if any of the genius armchair types can put together a viable plan for getting us out of there. Timetable, political ramifications, international responses, military redeployment, civil war, all that good stuff. It's easy to be critical but really hard to come up with a workable occupation/exit strategy......

That sounds like a jolly of an idea. I'm sure there are lots in here that could put together a pretty good coesive plan of attack.

Who knows, if Rice listens to those emails sent to him, he might listen to a plan as well.

I say let the games begin California Joe.

[Alan]

I can make up two suggestions.

Both of them will be victory for the americans, and carry no consequences. However, before I say anything, I'll preemtively ask..

"Dear mods, may Alan say his suggestions, even if they are not politically correct, but pro american?"

Now, if I get a yes, I'll say them, if no, no biggie, I respect the decision.

[dangerclose]

Can you say lame duck President who's only goal is to establish a legacy ala Bill Clinton?

Go out like a man Mr. President and use that veto pen. They're going to hate you regardless. Just veto everything that comes down the pike regardless if it makes sense or not.



Us not being attacked since 9/11 is a good enough legacy for me.

[Riot5]

Us not being attacked since 9/11 is a good enough legacy for me.
I second that!

[dj_1911]

I second that!

Quoted for truth!

Oh, wait. You forgot this:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=96261

That's what I'll always remember Bush for. p-)

[annihilation]

Hahahahaha f*ckin' 2Sheds cracks me up.

She is rather Norma Desmond isn't she....:)

I think the open to ideas is more of a nod to James Baker and Brent Skowcroft to make a few suggestions on an viable extract. Seriously, I think everyone would agree that it is getting to the point where the situation is untenable and sooner or later we are going to have to get out of there. It's the when and how part that I can't figure.

In fact, I'm going to start a thread like Hellfish did about taking over a Banana Republic, and see if any of the genius armchair types can put together a viable plan for getting us out of there. Timetable, political ramifications, international responses, military redeployment, civil war, all that good stuff. It's easy to be critical but really hard to come up with a workable occupation/exit strategy......

Well look im not paid to go invade and then flee from countries its not my f'n job. I wouldn't have gone in there at all as I don't see Iraq as a threat. But we can agree that the current plan is not working and has some major shortfalls. What are the solutions besides building a time phone to crack call the past (south park) to warn us not to invade, i have no clue.

[annihilation]

Quoted for truth!

Oh, wait. You forgot this:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=96261

That's what I'll always remember Bush for. p-)

Define attack please? Because AQ has been active, just not on US soil. But then again between the attack of the first twin towers and 9/11 was about 10 years. So they are patient bastards.

[Fargin]

I think we need to undodgyfy this current conflict.

The dodgy reason to invade.
The dodgy change of reason to invade.
The dodgy: 'We don't believe in body counts..."
The dodgy interrogation methods.
The dodgy disappearance of billions.

I'm not saying I could do any better, but could I do any worse?

[dj_1911]

Define attack please? Because AQ has been active, just not on US soil. But then again between the attack of the first twin towers and 9/11 was about 10 years. So they are patient bastards.

Thank you. That's exactly what Republicans have been saying. We moved the fight from the streets of NY to the streets of Baghdad. Sounds like a good deal to me.

[Secret Squirrel]

Thank you. That's exactly what Republicans have been saying. We moved the fight from the streets of NY to the streets of Baghdad. Sounds like a good deal to me.

are you seriously ****ing retarded? Go look back at some attacks over the last couple years (feel free to go back further if you need to once you get the initial point). It didnt start in New York and it hasnt ended in Baghdad. The whole fly paper theory was thrown out a long time ago. Why do I keep getting the feeling that a forum is missing it's retard.

[Fargin]

I thought the guys you were fighting in Bagdad where the guys you retired from the Iraqi army. The guys with 10 years of experience, who prepaire for insurgency before the invasion.

[dj_1911]

are you seriously ****ing retarded? Go look back at some attacks over the last couple years (feel free to go back further if you need to once you get the initial point). It didnt start in New York and it hasnt ended in Baghdad. The whole fly paper theory was thrown out a long time ago. Why do I keep getting the feeling that a forum is missing it's retard.

Perhaps the all-knowing, educated liberal would like to tell us poor, redneck conservatives where it started and where its gonna end, since apparently he knows.

[Secret Squirrel]

Perhaps the all-knowing, educated liberal would like to tell us poor, redneck conservatives where it started and where its gonna end, since apparently he knows.

you see I know that it didnt start in New York and hasnt ended in Baghdad. So I guess this means you're ready to abandon your earlier comment?:D

[James]

Perhaps the all-knowing, educated liberal would like to tell us poor, redneck conservatives where it started and where its gonna end, since apparently he knows.

Nice move. Report Secret Squirrel a few minutes ago, and try to lure him into getting another infraction. I think you need one instead.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Define attack please? Because AQ has been active, just not on US soil. But then again between the attack of the first twin towers and 9/11 was about 10 years. So they are patient bastards.

So...not to fan the flames here...but let me see if I have this straight.

During the Cold War, when Europe sought US protection under it's umbrella, Europe towed the US policy line at the UN, in exchange for that protection. We recognized our common interests, voted as a block, took action together and things got done.

The Cold War ends, the US needs Europe's help in Iraq, Europe no longer needs the US protection so Europe tells the US to get stuffed.

But our President is still to be held accountable for securing Europe against AQ? Presumably Europe has it's own leaders and governments for that.

[bluffcove]

you see I know that it didnt start in New York and hasnt ended in Baghdad. So I guess this means you're ready to abandon your earlier comment?:D

Hold that thought _ answer in laptop!

[dj_1911]

you see I know that it didnt start in New York and hasnt ended in Baghdad. So I guess this means you're ready to abandon your earlier comment?:D

You stated that it didn't start in New York and it didn't end in Baghdad. This would lead one to assume that you know where it started and where it will end. And I'm curious. p-)

[Secret Squirrel]

You stated that it didn't start in New York and it didn't end in Baghdad. This would lead one to assume that you know where it started and where it will end. And I'm curious. p-)

Actually it doesnt.:) You see, there were attacks carried out in the name of religion long before 9/11. It only depends on how far you want to go back. And it hasnt ended in Baghdad since every terrorist in the world isnt sitting in Baghdad, sipping tea and waiting in line to blow themselves up. You see when you open your mind to the possibility that talk points arent the "end all be all" of reality, you can see the world in a clearer light.

[dj_1911]

Actually it doesnt.:) You see, there were attacks carried out in the name of religion long before 9/11. It only depends on how far you want to go back. And it hasnt ended in Baghdad since every terrorist in the world isnt sitting in Baghdad, sipping tea and waiting in line to blow themselves up. You see when you open your mind to the possibility that talk points arent the "end all be all" of reality, you can see the world in a clearer light.

I'll give you your point. However, I believe that we would have seen another terrorist attack in the States after 9/11 if we hadn't intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sitting here in the US and waiting for them to stream over is not a winning strategy. I you want to stop them, you must attack the source. And that source (or sources I should say) are training camps all over the Middle East. Oh and the NYT reported that Saddam Hussein was very close to creating a nuclear weapon. 9/11 could have looked like Shirley Temple's birthday party.

[Secret Squirrel]

I'll give you your point. However, I believe that we would have seen another terrorist attack in the States after 9/11 if we hadn't intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sitting here in the US and waiting for them to stream over is not a winning strategy. I you want to stop them, you must attack the source. And that source (or sources I should say) are training camps all over the Middle East. Oh and the NYT reported that Saddam Hussein was very close to creating a nuclear weapon. 9/11 could have looked like Shirley Temple's birthday party.

You see thats the problem isnt it. Some people are so desperate to lump Iraq into the war on terror that they draw as many lines, whether they're realistic or not, to get to their goal. Its like watching a pessimist comment on their life. They whine and moan about how bad things are and how they'll never be better that they simply turn what was fantasy or their future into reality. The same has happened with Iraq since it's a nice breeding ground for terrorists now and probably needs to be ruled with an iron fist to end the violence (kind of the ultimate irony). And besides, if you're going to declare war on a tactic, shall we try to end nose picking next? Maybe we should attack murder and try to remove that from the world?

The NYT said that Saddam was close to an atomic weapon (a year away I believe) shortly after the FIRST gulf war (see early 1990s;))

[dj_1911]

You see thats the problem isnt it. Some people are so desperate to lump Iraq into the war on terror that they draw as many lines, whether they're realistic or not, to get to their goal. Its like watching a pessimist comment on their life. They whine and moan about how bad things are and how they'll never be better that they simply turn what was fantasy or their future into reality. The same has happened with Iraq since it's a nice breeding ground for terrorists now and probably needs to be ruled with an iron fist to end the violence (kind of the ultimate irony). And besides, if you're going to declare war on a tactic, shall we try to end nose picking next? Maybe we should attack murder and try to remove that from the world?

The NYT said that Saddam was close to an atomic weapon (a year away I believe) shortly after the FIRST gulf war (see early 1990s;))

And I'm sure after GW1 ended and we had a kinder, gentler, more huggable Saddam, he gave up all such silly notions of nuclear weaponry.

[Secret Squirrel]

And I'm sure after GW1 ended and we had a kinder, gentler, more huggable Saddam, he gave up all such silly notions of nuclear weaponry.

so I assume since you didnt respond to anything else, you agree with me. Nope he wasnt kinder or anything. But he was on the same side as us when it came to dealing with religious radicals. I guess terrorism makes for strange bed fellows.

[dj_1911]

so I assume since you didnt respond to anything else, you agree with me. Nope he wasnt kinder or anything. But he was on the same side as us when it came to dealing with religious radicals. I guess terrorism makes for strange bed fellows.

Odd, considering he was the only world leader to support the 9/11 attacks.

[James]

dj,

You're losing this... I often disagree with SS, but you're arguments are becoming increasingly feeble.

Iraq in 2003 had no links to terrorism. It's become involved since then, because the U.S. fumbled in the first few months after "major combat" had ended. It's got nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

[annihilation]

So...not to fan the flames here...but let me see if I have this straight.

During the Cold War, when Europe sought US protection under it's umbrella, Europe towed the US policy line at the UN, in exchange for that protection. We recognized our common interests, voted as a block, took action together and things got done.

The Cold War ends, the US needs Europe's help in Iraq, Europe no longer needs the US protection so Europe tells the US to get stuffed.

But our President is still to be held accountable for securing Europe against AQ? Presumably Europe has it's own leaders and governments for that.

What I meant to say just because AQ hasn't attacked on american soil since 9/11 that doesn't mean they are not planning. AQ has been very active around the world and they have showned that they have patience. Only history will tell if we have been really effective against AQ. Just to assume that 5 years after 9/11, there has been no attacks everything is going great is a bit short sighted. They will attack us, its not a if but a when. When they decided to do it.

[annihilation]

And I'm sure after GW1 ended and we had a kinder, gentler, more huggable Saddam, he gave up all such silly notions of nuclear weaponry.

No but he wasn't the same threat as the terrorists. Saddam could have been dealt with in time and with the world support. We didn't have to go it alone and we didn't have to setup a democratic democracy.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

What I meant to say just because AQ hasn't attacked on american soil since 9/11 that doesn't mean they are not planning. AQ has been very active around the world and they have showned that they have patience. Only history will tell if we have been really effective against AQ. Just to assume that 5 years after 9/11, there has been no attacks everything is going great is a bit short sighted. They will attack us, its not a if but a when. When they decided to do it.

I can agree that 5 years is a short time in the scheme of things. At the same time who could have guessed on 9/12 that we wouldn't see another major attack on US soil for 5 years and counting? It was so easy, so simple - most of us envisioned a much worse prognosis. So I think one must acknowledge positive results, even if they don't like the medicine and they think the Doctor is a jackass.

As for AQ around the world - you betcha, they'll hit where ever it makes sense to, and where they can. But that's not for the US to prevent. Let those governments do what's required and take the political fallout...we've got our hands full.

[Gibby]

dj,



Iraq in 2003 had no links to terrorism. It's become involved since then, because the U.S. fumbled in the first few months after "major combat" had ended. It's got nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Thats about it. People on this site will answer with "well what about Ansar"? Ansar al Islam was a kurdish born fundementalist group whose sole purpose was to bring there form of Islam to the Kurdish region. We had plenty of intel that Hussein was none to happy with them too.

Hussein was not at all protecting them, on the contrary. Most believe he would have or was in the beginning steps of moving against them. Some intel supports that. Remember we still had people in the kurdish regions before the invasion. Hussein was not a fundementalist. He viewed them as a threat.

I agree with Cali Joe. Bush's comment was more directed to Baker and company. For that matter Pelosi, who Ive tried to hold out any feeling towards till I get to know her, seems less than impressive thus far in her speeches.

Remember folks. The summer of 2001 we recieved warnings from just about every major intel orginization. From Jordan to Egypt and all the other heavy hitters. We didnt take them to heart. We could have stopped that attack had we. Since then we do take warnings very seriously. Thats really all that has changed, the rest is cosmetic. We owe our friends around the world more than we owe this admin. Infact we owe them a ton.

[Avary]

dj,

Iraq in 2003 had no links to terrorism.

You forget one detail.

[Clarsachier]

Can you say lame duck President who's only goal is to establish a legacy ala Bill Clinton?

Go out like a man Mr. President and use that veto pen. They're going to hate you regardless. Just veto everything that comes down the pike regardless if it makes sense or not.

Us not being attacked since 9/11 is a good enough legacy for me.

Democrats hold the majority in both Senate and Congress!

So for the issues that are defined along partisan boundries, Bush's signature is almost meaningless. Anything he doesn't feel like signing
will simply go back to the Senate and Congress for approval.

But the presidency still has tremendous power ; Putting it in perspective, by taking a look at another Repub presidency who was also 100% percent oppossed by Congress and Senate, Reagan ; Congress passed a law (vetoed in vain, of course) making it illegal to attack Niqueragua.

But that didn't stop Reagan as history shows. But Ollie took the fall ,and Reagan got away with promoting his own private war by saying 'I don't recall' any of it.

I'll bet Bush's already 'failing to recall' the events that led up to the Iraq war. ;-) he knows he can probably get away with anything and he's quite willing to 'press his luck'. (If the Bolton re nomination is any indication.)

His proven capacity to harm the nation is not totally diminished - That's why he needs to be impeached.

[dj_1911]

dj,

You're losing this... I often disagree with SS, but you're arguments are becoming increasingly feeble.

Iraq in 2003 had no links to terrorism. It's become involved since then, because the U.S. fumbled in the first few months after "major combat" had ended. It's got nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/

[martinexsquaddie]

partition and get the hell out not victory in any meaning full way
kurdistan is going to do ok
shia part is going to become a surburb of iran
sunni part is going to hell

[Secret Squirrel]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War


A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.

The newly declassified intelligence report provided administration critics with fresh ammunition, less than two months before midterm elections and in the middle of President Bush's campaign to refocus the public's attention away from Iraq and toward the threat of terrorism. Senior Senate Democrats immediately seized on the findings, using some of their strongest language yet to say the president continues to willfully and falsely connect Hussein to al-Qaeda.

As recently as Aug. 21, Bush suggested a link between Hussein and Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed by U.S. forces this summer. But a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to the report.

"The president is still distorting. He's still making statements which are false," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), an intelligence committee member.

The partial release of the report came after nearly three years of partisan wrangling over what is to be a five-chapter analysis of the use of prewar intelligence in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The heart of the report -- a detailed comparison of administration statements with the intelligence then available -- is far from release. But the committee voted Thursday to release two chapters, one on the role that Iraqi exiles played in shaping prewar intelligence, the other on the accuracy of the prewar analyses of Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities and his suspected links to al-Qaeda and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

White House spokesman Tony Snow dismissed the findings as old news. "If we have people who want to re-litigate that, that's fine," he said.

But Republican attempts to paint the findings as a partisan rehash were undercut by intelligence committee members from the GOP. The committee report's conclusions are based on the Democrats' findings because two Republicans -- Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) -- supported those findings.

"After reviewing thousands of pages of evidence, I voted for the conclusions that most closely reflect the facts in the report," Snowe said in a written statement. "Policy-makers seemingly discounted or dismissed warnings about the veracity of critical intelligence reports that may have served as a basis for going to war."

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) was emphatic this week that Iraqi exiles did not fundamentally shape the critical assessment of the Iraqi threat in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

But, as Snowe emphasized in her statement, the report concluded that information provided by an INC source was cited in that estimate and in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's February 2003 speech to the United Nations as corroborating evidence about Iraq's mobile biological weapons program. Those citations came despite two April 2002 CIA assessments, a May 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency fabrication notice and a July 2002 National Intelligence Council warning -- all saying the INC source may have been coached by the exile group into fabricating the information.

Democrats and Republicans agree that analysts and politicians of all political stripes were wrong about the prewar assessments of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But the committee report indicates that intelligence analysts were substantially right about Hussein's lack of operational links to al-Qaeda. And Democrats compared the administration's public statements with newly declassified intelligence assessments to build their case that efforts to link Iraq to al-Qaeda were willfully misleading.

In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat." But one day after that conclusion was published, Levin noted, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

Intelligence reports in June, July and September 2002 all cast doubts on a reported meeting in Prague between Iraqi intelligence agents and Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Yet, in a Sept. 8, 2002, appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press," Cheney said the CIA considered the reports on the meeting credible, Levin said.

In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that "Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical and biological weapons] knowledge or assistance." A year later, Bush said: "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), an intelligence committee member, said it was unfair for Democrats to compare the intelligence assessments in the report with the administration's statements. He said such comparisons go beyond the scope of the chapters released.

But Democrats were unequivocal in asserting that the chapters chronicle an indisputable pattern of deception.

"It is such a blatant misleading of the United States, its people, to prepare them, to position them, to, in fact, make them enthusiastic or feel that it's justified to go to war with Iraq," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the committee's vice chairman. "That kind of public manipulation I don't know has any precedent in American history."

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777_2.html)

Just because Rice said it, doesnt make it real.:D

[hell]

Just because Rice said it, doesnt make it real.:D

I'd like to broaden that statement; just because it was stated by a member of the White House staff, doesn't make it real.


I like the whole back-pedal on "stay the course". Hell, now the WH is stating that was not their goal, and they never said that, and blah blah blah.

[dangerclose]

dj,

You're losing this... I often disagree with SS, but you're arguments are becoming increasingly feeble.

Iraq in 2003 had no links to terrorism. It's become involved since then, because the U.S. fumbled in the first few months after "major combat" had ended. It's got nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.


You know that Saddam Hussein was implicated in the first world trade center attack in 1993 right? And had those bombs done what they were supposed to we would've been looking at tens of thousands of deaths. That in and of itself would classify as an act of war nevermind the Gulf War cease fire violations. But of course, it was just a law enforcement matter to be dealt with in our courts. Fast forward to 8 years later.

[dangerclose]

I'd like to broaden that statement; just because it was stated by a member of the White House staff, doesn't make it real.


I like the whole back-pedal on "stay the course". Hell, now the WH is stating that was not their goal, and they never said that, and blah blah blah.


He's not back-pedalling he's "evolving" .. c'mon you libs like that nuance right?

[Secret Squirrel]

You know that Saddam Hussein was implicated in the first world trade center attack in 1993 right?

really? I could have sworn that it was only Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and 4 followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.

[dangerclose]

Democrats hold the majority in both Senate and Congress!

So for the issues that are defined along partisan boundries, Bush's signature is almost meaningless. Anything he doesn't feel like signing
will simply go back to the Senate and Congress for approval.



The democrats don't hold near the majority to override a presidential veto.

[dangerclose]

Define attack please? Because AQ has been active, just not on US soil. But then again between the attack of the first twin towers and 9/11 was about 10 years. So they are patient bastards.


Or maybe they are "occupied" elsewhere.

[annihilation]

Or maybe they are "occupied" elsewhere.


Couldn't they have been "occupied" in afghanistan, what was the need for Iraq.

[hell]

He's not back-pedalling he's "evolving" .. c'mon you libs like that nuance right?

Can't be, Bush doesn't believe in evolution, it was cooked up by that God hating asshole Darwin.

[dangerclose]

Can't be, Bush doesn't believe in evolution, it was cooked up by that God hating asshole Darwin.


Darwin is a creationist ... now.

[Freedom-Fries]

And I'm sure after GW1 ended and we had a kinder, gentler, more huggable Saddam, he gave up all such silly notions of nuclear weaponry. You saying charges will be dropped and Saddam will be back on the throne ? Keeping Hirohito alive was a good idea, MacArthur and team did a very good job of putting Japan on the right track for democracy http://unhold.ifrance.com/images/bush_saddam.jpg

[XShipRider]

No change here. The President has been asking Democrats for any
ideas short of leaving. They haven't put forth a single idea that
wasn't withdrawal.

It makes me wonder what exactly our troops can expect in the
form of support from the newly aligned Congress.

[PeoplesPoster]

No change here. The President has been asking Democrats for any
ideas short of leaving. They haven't put forth a single idea that
wasn't withdrawal.

It makes me wonder what exactly our troops can expect in the
form of support from the newly aligned Congress.

Not any worse than they've been getting under the old Congress.

[Hyllus]

Not any worse than they've been getting under the old Congress.

x2.... It was the republicans that put them in deepsh*t and now like always the Democrats have to fix everything.

[sferrin]

x2.... It was the republicans that put them in deepsh*t and now like always the Democrats have to fix everything.



Funny, that's exactly what the republicans said after Carter and Clinton butchered the military.

[XShipRider]

Not any worse than they've been getting under the old Congress.

Yeah. I hope the troops don't suffer just because the Congress has
switched leadership.


and now like always the Democrats have to fix everything
Now that's funny.

[timetraveller]

Has to be one of the most amusing comments ever made by a US president as it scream volumes ... !!!!!!!!

Seriously he is not goin to take advice from joe public , the current situation is all his and his counterparts fault .

They all presumed it would be a walk in the park like the previous efforts funnily enough it didn't turn out like that , it turned into Vietnam part 2 ..

And with Saddam out of the way it was a green light for those wanting Power .. which is why the current situation is the way it is ..

[XShipRider]

it turned into Vietnam part 2 ..

The only similarity to Vietnam is John Kerry was for both before he was
against both.

[Clarsachier]

The democrats don't hold near the majority to override a presidential veto.

No, not by themselves. They will need a few more votes ; a 2/3rds majority vote is required to over ride a presidential veto on legislation.

[Hot Lips]

Be seated, join hands and attend to my words...
(putting on ceremonial turban and gazing into political crystal ball) I see...I see a paper ...a white paper in Nancy Pelosi's hands...it's...it's one of her many talking points bulletins she prepares for Democrats...and it says...it says...it says (hands on temple, straining to psychically read the paper) it say "make no suggestions regarding Iraq"...and "try to sit at the back of the room" and "if they ask what we should do, claim you have "woman problems" and excuse yourself to the rest room". And I see Henry Waxman asking how the hell he's supposed to get away with claiming to have "woman problems". And I see Nancy replying...in a very shrill voice with that skeletal, overly-made-up Baby Jane face of hers - "do as I say you fat sonofabitch or I'll have your nuts".

It's too much, swami must rest for now.

rofl .......................

[Durandal]

•NEW: Bush says he is open to suggestions on Iraq policy

Huh? I thought he a roadmap to victory. I thought he wanted to "stay the course".

Maybe he doesn't have an actual plan....hmmmmm...

[Secret Squirrel]

Huh? I thought he a roadmap to victory. I thought he wanted to "stay the course".

Maybe he doesn't have an actual plan....hmmmmm...

Dont forget, he's "the decider" and he "decide[s] what is best". He's just "turning another corner" to avoid anymore "catastrophic Successes". And dont worry because soon, good people everywhere will be able to put "food on [their] famil[ies]."

[sferrin]

Huh? I thought he a roadmap to victory. I thought he wanted to "stay the course".

Maybe he doesn't have an actual plan....hmmmmm...

Sounds like the Democrats don't either. No suprise there just more "we can do it better" until they're asked to put their money where there mouths are then it's just a whole lot of "uh..." Dumbasses.

[California Joe]

^ now that's a sound bit of logic. The old "oh yeah, I know you are but what am I" defense.

Didn't W say he was going to stay the course and do things the way he wanted even if his wife and dog were the only ones still supporting him? Yeah.

Maybe now that his Dad and the old guy posse are riding in things will get better. Which is rather hilarious because all of our elected officials of both parties seem to be sitting around with their thumbs up their collective arse waiting for a report from a bunch of guys no one elected to do anything.

[sferrin]

By asking for ideas W's already saying essentially "I'm out of ideas, let's hear what you (the Dems) have to say". All he's hearing is chirping crickets. Like I said, contrary to what the Dems would have had you think before the election, they don't have a clue either.

[Red]

By asking for ideas W's already saying essentially "I'm out of ideas, let's hear what you (the Dems) have to say". All he's hearing is chirping crickets. Like I said, contrary to what the Dems would have had you think before the election, they don't have a clue either.


Stupid Dems,the started this war and had not a clue on how to plan long term for it.The Dems are stoopid.

[Durandal]

Sounds like the Democrats don't either. No suprise there just more "we can do it better" until they're asked to put their money where there mouths are then it's just a whole lot of "uh..." Dumbasses.

Actually, I never said anything about political parties. People tend to forget that even though there is a political division in the House and Senate, they are "A" Branch of the U.S. Government as is the Executive Branch a separate entity within itself and regardless of parties often times locks horns with Congress regardless of who is control....as it should be. However, considering the number of Democrats that signed on with the Executive Branch giving a single man and his staff a single hand in current events, they share equal blame.

People like you, honestly, make me sick. Rather than admit a wrong they try to shift blame to something or someone else. The person you support (as I did) ƒucked up. Get a pair and call a spade a spade.

The last time I checked we are still waiting from the Bipartisan group trying to help out in deciding what to do with this mess we are in....and it is a mess, make no mistake about that. THe group includes some good people liberal and conservative that have the history to prove they might, just might be able to put a plan together that MIGHT work...maybe not.

Politics are not an issue here any longer though most of us can see that. Things are horribly wrong and fortunately we are seeing Republicans running contrary to the party line of "Everything is fine and everything will work out....hey look at that shiny thing" and hopefully they and the new people coming in (both Dem and Rep in both the House and the Senate) will reign in the out of control Executive Branch...

[Durandal]

^ now that's a sound bit of logic. The old "oh yeah, I know you are but what am I" defense.

Didn't W say he was going to stay the course and do things the way he wanted even if his wife and dog were the only ones still supporting him? Yeah.

Maybe now that his Dad and the old guy posse are riding in things will get better. Which is rather hilarious because all of our elected officials of both parties seem to be sitting around with their thumbs up their collective arse waiting for a report from a bunch of guys no one elected to do anything.

Quoted for the reality check that is...

[sferrin]

Actually, I never said anything about political parties. People tend to forget that even though there is a political division in the House and Senate, they are "A" Branch of the U.S. Government as is the Executive Branch a separate entity within itself and regardless of parties often times locks horns with Congress regardless of who is control....as it should be. However, considering the number of Democrats that signed on with the Executive Branch giving a single man and his staff a single hand in current events, they share equal blame.

People like you, honestly, make me sick. Rather than admit a wrong they try to shift blame to something or someone else. The person you support (as I did) ƒucked up. Get a pair and call a spade a spade..

Where have I said otherwise a$$hole? Pointing out the fact that the Democrats don't have a clue either is hardly saying that the Republicans are on top of things. I've thought Rumsfeld has had his head up his a$$ since day one.

[Red]

Where have I said otherwise a$$hole? Pointing out the fact that the Democrats don't have a clue either is hardly saying that the Republicans are on top of things. I've thought Rumsfeld has had his head up his a$$ since day one.

You don't need to call him an asshole just cause he is making a public show of your faulty reasoning.You can disagree but keep the insults down,Durandal is a good fella albeit a gun crazy good fella.

[Fargin]

Does 'open to any idea' mean SNAFU?

If he were a real and elected politician, he'd take a good look at his own creation, resign and call for a new election, so he or the democrats could get a clear mandate to 'stay the course' or save what's left of America's reputation.

[sferrin]

You don't need to call him an asshole just cause he is making a public show of your faulty reasoning.You can disagree but keep the insults down,Durandal is a good fella albeit a gun crazy good fella.

What "faulty reasoning" would that be? All I said is that the Dems don't have a plan either (contrary to what they lead the nation to believe before the elections) and they don't. If I'm wrong and they do in fact have a plan let's hear it. Yeah, 'bout what I thought. As for insults, if he can dish them out he should certainly expect a few in return.

[Stolly]

So...not to fan the flames here...but let me see if I have this straight.

During the Cold War, when Europe sought US protection under it's umbrella, Europe towed the US policy line at the UN, in exchange for that protection. We recognized our common interests, voted as a block, took action together and things got done.

The Cold War ends, the US needs Europe's help in Iraq, Europe no longer needs the US protection so Europe tells the US to get stuffed.

But our President is still to be held accountable for securing Europe against AQ? Presumably Europe has it's own leaders and governments for that.

Europe isn't a monlithic block, some European nations are in Iraq, and most of the ones who are not are in Afghanistan having answered the call to stand with America against those who attacked her.

If we are going to be all lazy and all, i'll amuse myself by saying all American Christians are pole smoking meth addicts, since we know at least one of them is.

[Secret Squirrel]

the whole thing is like watching a suicide negotiation in progress. One negotiator tried, made a lot of mistakes, the person decides to jump and while in mid-air the negotiator turns to another negotiator and says "well if you can do better, lets see it".

[California Joe]

Haha, that was pretty good for a liberal commie freak.

I think it's hilarious that a week and a half ago if the Dems would have made a proposal for the end of the conflict W would have said "Get the f*ck out of my office you pussy liberals" Now he's open to ideas. Maybe someone should call General Shinseki at the forced retirement home "Sh*tlist Acres" and see what he thinks.

[ElHombre]

^ now that's a sound bit of logic. The old "oh yeah, I know you are but what am I" defense.

The Dems released a plan a while back. It contained quite a number of things that this Iraq Study Group has adopted.


Maybe now that his Dad and the old guy posse are riding in things will get better. Which is rather hilarious because all of our elected officials of both parties seem to be sitting around with their thumbs up their collective arse waiting for a report from a bunch of guys no one elected to do anything.

It's been noted before, Junior still controls US foreign policy. The last chance to change that was in '04, so now we get to ride out that decision. I have a feeling that the ISG is less about presenting foreign policy options to the White House (because all the proposals I've heard have been bouncing around for years now) and more to do with keeping those responsible for this mess from having to accept responsibility for it.

On a related note, how pathetic is it that a 60+year-old man who is the POTUS has to have his Daddy's friends come bail him out one more time?

[sferrin]

the whole thing is like watching a suicide negotiation in progress. One negotiator tried, made a lot of mistakes, the person decides to jump and while in mid-air the negotiator turns to another negotiator and says "well if you can do better, lets see it".

That one made me laugh :) I don't know that it's THAT bad but if it isn't it's still going the wrong direction fast. They don't have a whole lot longer to pull a rabbit out of their hat.

[sferrin]

The Dems released a plan a while back. It contained quite a number of things that this Iraq Study Group has adopted.

Yeah "Let's ask Syria and Iran for help." F--king priceless.

[ElHombre]

Yeah "Let's ask Syria and Iran for help." F--king priceless.

Which is why thoe dummies with the ISG adopted it, huh? :bash:

[sferrin]

Which is why thoe dummies with the ISG adopted it, huh? :bash:

So you think going hat-in-hand to the two countries that are likely causing you the most grief is a good idea? Next you'll be suggesting we should pay them "protection" money :slap:

[ElHombre]

A 'good' idea? No. The problem is that there aren't any 'good' options left. Most people have grasped that reality a while ago. Those who haven't look increasingly like members of the Flat-Earth society after the Apollo 8 mission.

[sferrin]

A 'good' idea? No. The problem is that there aren't any 'good' options left. Most people have grasped that reality a while ago. Those who haven't look increasingly like members of the Flat-Earth society after the Apollo 8 mission.

There may not be any "good" options left but there's definitely "bad" and "worse" to chose from.

[budgie]

Trying to exclude Iran and Syria will only invite covert interference and dirty tricks from them. It's their region and the mess in Iraq is their security concern too. Giving them a legitimate part in the process that matches their stake and interests makes more sense in the long run than inviting them to undermine the process by exluding them. They may behave mostly in their own interests but they may also do so much more sensibly. Nobody wants a failed state in Iraq except Al Qaeda.

[Durandal]

Yeah "Let's ask Syria and Iran for help." F--king priceless.

Its inevitable. Unless you want to commit genocide.

Because that's your only other option.

[sferrin]

Trying to exclude Iran and Syria will only invite covert interference and dirty tricks from them.

Invite? They're already interfering. All begging for help is going to do is 1. reward them for their efforts and 2. show them that it WORKS. It's no different than trying to get someone to stop blackmailing you by giving them money.



It's their region and the mess in Iraq is their security concern too. Giving them a legitimate part in the process that matches their stake and interests makes more sense in the long run than inviting them to undermine the process by exluding them. They may behave mostly in their own interests but they may also do so much more sensibly. Nobody wants a failed state in Iraq except Al Qaeda.

Please. Syria and Iran do NOT want a stable Iraq that is friendly with the US.

[ElHombre]

Invite? They're already interfering. All begging for help is going to do is 1. reward them for their efforts and 2. show them that it WORKS. It's no different than trying to get someone to stop blackmailing you by giving them money.

In which case you might want to start re-thinking your support for the people whose policies put us into this unwelcome position.


Please. Syria and Iran do NOT want a stable Iraq that is friendly with the US.

We're not going to have a US-friendly Iraq. The events of the past few years have seen to that. We now have to aim for stable (and the odds for that aren't good).


There may not be any "good" options left but there's definitely "bad" and "worse" to chose from.

Dealing with Iran and Syria is bad. Ignoring them just to salve your wounded pride is worse.

[sferrin]

Dealing with Iran and Syria is bad. Ignoring them just to salve your wounded pride is worse.

It's not a matter of pride it's a matter of it won't work. All it would do is encourage them. Syria and Iran are doing everything they can to cause anarchy in Iraq and you think crying "uncle" is going to change things? Most likely all it would do is cause them to think "hmm, that worked pretty good, where to next?"

[ElHombre]

They want to make sure that 140k US troops don't make another attempt at regime change. After seeing what's happened in Iraq, their populations (even the ones who want reforms) don't want the US's help in that regard, either (and I can't say that I blame them). This was one of the consequences of the invasion which was ignored before the war. Now you see why.

Talking to them might work (and even an honest failure can be made to work to our advantage. 'We tried, but...). Staying the course guarantees failure.

[sferrin]

They want to make sure that 140k US troops don't make another attempt at regime change. After seeing what's happened in Iraq, their populations (even the ones who want reforms) don't want the US's help in that regard, either (and I can't say that I blame them). This was one of the consequences of the invasion which was ignored before the war. Now you see why.

Talking to them might work (and even an honest failure can be made to work to our advantage. 'We tried, but...). Staying the course guarantees failure.

I think it's safe to say nobody's going to be trying another regime change any time soon ;) We may bombs the sh!t out of somebody in the future but I can't imagine anyone trying this again for decades at least.

[ElHombre]

But a 'bombs away' attitude towards Iran or Syria is also off the table right now. The US troops in Iraq right now are effectively hostages. Any military action means they would be in the middle of a hostile country. This is another reason to get out troops out of there: so the next time we need a military threat as an option, we won't be laughed at.

[sferrin]

But a 'bombs away' attitude towards Iran or Syria is also off the table right now. The US troops in Iraq right now are effectively hostages. Any military action means they would be in the middle of a hostile country. This is another reason to get out troops out of there: so the next time we need a military threat as an option, we won't be laughed at.

It's definitely a sticky situation. Do you pull out all your troops to give you some options when (not if) the Iranian situation comes to a head or by pulling them out will it be removing options? Right now we have a base of operations on either side of Iran, pulling out of Iraq takes the most convenient one away. Can we rely on other "allies" in the region in either case or does one option make that less or more likely? What about Israel? It's fairly certain that even if the US does nothing about an Iranian nuke that Israel will. Iraq will be stuck in the middle whether we're there or not but if we're not will you see Iranian and/or Israeli forces move into Iraq? And if we're gone and Iraq and Iran buddy up will Syria and others decide it might be a good time to play dog pile on Israel?

[ElHombre]

Take another look at the map and study the logistics. Having to ship your supplies through hostile populations is a losing strategy. Just ask the Germans. We'd have to have another army just to keep the main roads clear. And A-stan doesn't have the roads capable of supporting a US force. Any invasion of Iran would have to come by sea. The Hormuz Straits would have ro be protected anyway. That makes any presence in Iraq a moot point and a weakness to be exploited by enemies.

Israel can't do anything by itself about Iran without US approval. Iran's too far away and the US would bear the brunt of any Iranian retaliation.

Leaving Iraq doesn't mean leaving the ME. We've got bases all around, we can always return at will. It does give us more breathing space diplomatically and militarily.

[Durandal]

But a 'bombs away' attitude towards Iran or Syria is also off the table right now. The US troops in Iraq right now are effectively hostages. Any military action means they would be in the middle of a hostile country.

Ummm, hate to point this out. They are in "A" hostile country right now.

[ElHombre]

Even more hostile, then.

[Durandal]

Even more hostile, then.

More hostile than getting nailed every day by mortar attacks, rocket attacks, snipers, and IEDs?

I doubt it. Iran doesn't have a nuke and Iran doesn't have a precision missile force capable of doing anything directly. A conventional attack would get its ass handed to them.

And that's the problem, Iran has two possible weapons, oil, which it has, and in the future a nuke, which it is trying to get. Its conventional forces would get mauled before they even got to the border.

We have three choices with Iraq. Deal, Ignore, or Nuke. We make a deal with Iran and get off their tip with the whole "pro-democracy" thing and we'll see a democratic Iran in our life time.

People can't seem to understand that Iran was a FAR better candidate for democracy than almost any other state there and we ƒucked it up, along with everything else.

Man, its like a big down syndrome kid in a glass shop.

[annihilation]

More hostile than getting nailed every day by mortar attacks, rocket attacks, snipers, and IEDs?

I doubt it. Iran doesn't have a nuke and Iran doesn't have a precision missile force capable of doing anything directly. A conventional attack would get its ass handed to them.

And that's the problem, Iran has two possible weapons, oil, which it has, and in the future a nuke, which it is trying to get. Its conventional forces would get mauled before they even got to the border.

We have three choices with Iraq. Deal, Ignore, or Nuke. We make a deal with Iran and get off their tip with the whole "pro-democracy" thing and we'll see a democratic Iran in our life time.

People can't seem to understand that Iran was a FAR better candidate for democracy than almost any other state there and we ƒucked it up, along with everything else.

Man, its like a big down syndrome kid in a glass shop.

haha nicely said

[ElHombre]

More hostile than getting nailed every day by mortar attacks, rocket attacks, snipers, and IEDs?

If Iraqi Shia turn fully against us instead of Sunnis, then what we're getting right now would be considered calm.


I doubt it. Iran doesn't have a nuke and Iran doesn't have a precision missile force capable of doing anything directly. A conventional attack would get its ass handed to them.

I'm not worried about an Iranian conventional attack. It's the unconventional part that worries me and is the biggest reason why threatening attacks on Iran makes the US look even dumber than usual.


And that's the problem, Iran has two possible weapons, oil, which it has, and in the future a nuke, which it is trying to get. Its conventional forces would get mauled before they even got to the border.

We have three choices with Iraq. Deal, Ignore, or Nuke. We make a deal with Iran and get off their tip with the whole "pro-democracy" thing and we'll see a democratic Iran in our life time.

People can't seem to understand that Iran was a FAR better candidate for democracy than almost any other state there and we ƒucked it up, along with everything else.

Man, its like a big down syndrome kid in a glass shop.

:lol:

[Durandal]

I'm not worried about an Iranian conventional attack. It's the unconventional part that worries me and is the biggest reason why threatening attacks on Iran makes the US look even dumber than usual.

Except that is what's happening right now. Iranian backed terrorism in Iraq. Not all of it, but some of it.

My point is, there is a threshold where Iran's involvement cannot simply be what it is right now, and the escalation crosses into conventional and easier to interdict. Getting stuff across the border right now, done in small shipments is far easier than massing a convoy or 100 mule train.

Ultimately, things are simply ƒuckered.

I mean, lets think about it. We want Iran to tow the line and come into play with our rules, yet we are the ones the backed their enemy, that invaded them and killed thousands of their people. Now we act like Saddam was bad, not when he was fighting and killing Iranians, but when now that he wasn't our whipping boy.

I am no fan of Iran, just like I am no fan of China, but the people (unlike the government) I have no qualms with, just like most of them have no issues with me.

From their viewpoint though, we are the bad guys, and I think, rightfully so.

Of course hindsight is 20/20 and looking back we probably made the call right...having supported a dictator that ran death squads wer sort of backed ourselves into a corner.

Then I see our President fly into Vietnam where there was a similar level, if different animosity, 20 or 30 years ago.

I think, also, that if my country had no nukes but three or four of the regional players AND my most hated enemy had nukes, then logically, I would want nukes.

My opinion has been changing lately about Iran. I think we have been fighting this tooth and nail and maybe giving them a little wiggle room might produce more results.

[Mastermind]

Here is exactly what I would do. I would do a quick and cerimonious "Hand over" to the present and shakey Iraq gvt and then fade out to bases in the desert with secure corridors to the sea with a buffer zone arounda good landing beach. All US and coalition forces stand to in these "secure" zones. And then we watch the resulting outcome..civil war, chaos, perpetual war...who cares what happens inside the Iraqi world...it's their self made hell...as we watch one side or faction gaining the upper hand, we support the weaker side just a bit to keep it all going....Muslims are most happy when living in hell on Earth...I say accommodate them. Keep them so busy with each other they leave us the hell alone.MM

[annihilation]

Here is exactly what I would do. I would do a quick and cerimonious "Hand over" to the present and shakey Iraq gvt and then fade out to bases in the desert with secure corridors to the sea with a buffer zone arounda good landing beach. All US and coalition forces stand to in these "secure" zones. And then we watch the resulting outcome..civil war, chaos, perpetual war...who cares what happens inside the Iraqi world...it's their self made hell...as we watch one side or faction gaining the upper hand, we support the weaker side just a bit to keep it all going....Muslims are most happy when living in hell on Earth...I say accommodate them. Keep them so busy with each other they leave us the hell alone.MM


Wow devilishly good, let them kill each other, they will just forget about us and our oil rigs pumpingout the oil.

[ElHombre]

I would do a quick and cerimonious "Hand over" to the present and shakey Iraq gvt and then fade out to bases in the desert with secure corridors to the sea with a buffer zone arounda good landing beach.

Since there aren't any secure corridors to the sea in Iraq (its only port being Basra), I presume you're talking about withdrawing to Kuwait.

[JKD]

Since there aren't any secure corridors to the sea in Iraq (its only port being Basra), I presume you're talking about withdrawing to Kuwait.

Not agreeing with MM's plan here but: Al-Faw Penninsula and the and the city of Umm Qasr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Faw

[ElHombre]

Not agreeing with MM's plan here but: Al-Faw Penninsula and the and the city of Umm Qasr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Faw

But Basra is the major deep-water port, which we'd need in order to supply any base.

[JKD]

But Basra is the major deep-water port, which we'd need in order to supply any base.
......or the deep water port at Umm Qasr.

[ElHombre]

......or the deep water port at Umm Qasr.

:oops: Okay, point conceeded. :lol:

Nonetheless, that's an awfully thin supply line he's talking about.

[jmatucd]

Here is exactly what I would do. I would do a quick and cerimonious "Hand over" to the present and shakey Iraq gvt and then fade out to bases in the desert with secure corridors to the sea with a buffer zone arounda good landing beach. All US and coalition forces stand to in these "secure" zones. And then we watch the resulting outcome..civil war, chaos, perpetual war...who cares what happens inside the Iraqi world...it's their self made hell...as we watch one side or faction gaining the upper hand, we support the weaker side just a bit to keep it all going....Muslims are most happy when living in hell on Earth...I say accommodate them. Keep them so busy with each other they leave us the hell alone.MM

like a mini iran-iraq war, yes I have thought of this possibility, but I doubt it would turn out so well. Iran would continue to push like it is now. Eventually we will have to deal with the 'soon' to be nuclear 'death to america' state that currently subsidizes killing US soldiers

[Mastermind]

Thin supply line indeed....But, not if we adjourn to the Kuwaiti border....regardless, we certainly have the ability to protect any supply line we would establish...outside the major population centers....a "death zone" is quite easily established in wide open desert. The point is, we are hampered by the "civilities" and politics of the situation. Certainly we can subdue these radical Imams. But, the price is simply too high in moral capacity...very much as in Vietnam. These people hold their own people hostage...they define the battlefiled in homes and back yards of innocent civilians. Their "dragons teeth" are women and kids. As long as we let them define the battlefield, we are at a disadvantage. The entire trick is to take back control of the fight and avoid all that. All we need anyway is to maintain a heavy military position in the theater...all the rest is crap. Iran is the real threat..."democracy" and "freedom" for Iraqis nothing but sound bite politics. If the Iraqis want those things, we can not give them to them...they have to make that happen for themselves.MM

[Satellite Weapon]

No change here. The President has been asking Democrats for any
ideas short of leaving. They haven't put forth a single idea that
wasn't withdrawal.

It makes me wonder what exactly our troops can expect in the
form of support from the newly aligned Congress.

Also some talk of a draft

[Mastermind]

Charlie Rangle, that old socialist and racist is on TV again and again demanding a draft hoping beyond doubt the turmoil we could expect from the universities and colleges, the ever present socialist swamps of the American culture. I see his eyes glass over with emotion as he recalls the destruction to the war effort that caused...the Vietnam enemy were even sending talking points via their entourage in Paris directly to the leaders of the draft riots and the burning of the ROTC buildings on campuses throughout the USA.

But, as I have said, there will be no need for a draft...Americans know when the chips are down and it's time to man the line....voluntarily!MM

[annihilation]

Charlie Rangle, that old socialist and racist is on TV again and again demanding a draft hoping beyond doubt the turmoil we could expect from the universities and colleges, the ever present socialist swamps of the American culture. I see his eyes glass over with emotion as he recalls the destruction to the war effort that caused...the Vietnam enemy were even sending talking points via their entourage in Paris directly to the leaders of the draft riots and the burning of the ROTC buildings on campuses throughout the USA.

But, as I have said, there will be no need for a draft...Americans know when the chips are down and it's time to man the line....voluntarily!MM

True, but too man those in position in power and wealth will never do so as there family will run away and come back when its all over and the first to cheer for the victory.

[Mastermind]

ah! Now you hit the essense of what a traditional liberal is. Quick and ready to condemn the efforts to save his own civilization, yet, eager to claim the victory for his own cowardly self. Liberals have been the parasites of victorious civilizations throughout history. MM