White House greatly Lowers Iraq Expectations

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

How's THAT for a victory on the war on terror - the war against Islamic extremist-linked terror.

 

The White House is saying this? Please quote one White House or administration official saying anything in that article. Unnamed sources mean nothing.

 

It's strange that prowar individuals use the "unnamed sources" as validation when the "unnamed sources" say things that back up the views of prowar individuals.

 

It might; then again, it might not.

They might; then again, they might not. Or it may be somewhere in between.

There might; then again, maybe not. Assuming you can define what a self-sustaining economy is (most of the Lefty Sanhedrin on this board believe that the United STATES doesn't even qualify).

 

Do you mean that there is -- presumably from time to time -- actual lefty moonbat crap that gets spouted?

Here...and elsewhere?

Just checking to be sure.

 

So the final justification for the war after all the others were trashed is now reduced to this?

$300 billion and far too many lives on both sides, and your best shot is "it might or might not become an Islamic theocracy. Women might or might not have fewer rights."

If it had made us safer, I would still stand and cheer, but the reality is, this entire war was a flop, and one that will cost us in many ways for decades.

I gladly throw my lot with the lefty moonbats. There is so little value in "I told you so" but it is better than being wrong throughout.

 

This is a funny quote:

The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.

because I was recently thinking the exact opposite. They will pass an "easy to amend" constitution with fake democratic principles that can then be changed easily into an iranian styled government.

We are truly a great friend to Tehran.

 

This hardly defines a victory in Iraq.

Even the Bushtards are admitting defeat.

Now go run away, join the dustbin of history, along with the Soviets.

Fvcking incompetent Bushtard pieces of crap.

 

If you allow me to add quotation marks. . . "'lefty moonbat' crap," then yes, you do it all the ********ing time.

 

Ah, on cue. I put forth the proposition that there is lefty moonbat crap spouted and, voila, here we have a hunk o' steamin' helpin' of it.

First, unlike you, I don't engage in stupid ignorant and so-far unsupportable certitudes -- it's a flop, it's all over, we've lost, it's a quagmire -- that is the bankrupt intellectual currency of you and your Lefty sanhedrin brethren. Me? I like to see how things ACTUALLY develop. Of course, the great lefty unwashed expect certitude in everything -- that's why your so ineffective in so many arenas in life, -- morally, ethically, politically, and economically.

Second, unlike you, I don't presume to engage in an easy moral calculus -- though, unlike you again, I also don't subscribe to the view, as you seem to do SO easily, that "far too many" lives on the OTHER side (read:fanatical-beheading-torture-chamber-running jihadists) have been lost. No, sir, far too FEW of those lives have been lost; and everyone that is lost is quite worthwhile. But, hey, real distinctions are not the Lefty Sanhedrin's strong suit. Meanwhile, if we DO get a reasonably tolerant pluralistic democracy in Iraq...well, I am not so wise as to say whether the lives lost -- you know the GOOD ones, not the EVIL ones, just so we're clear here -- were worth it. But those good folks who did make that sacrifice are, at least to me, noble...no matter what the outcome.

Third, and finally, only someone as soulless as you, and those like you, could dissemble in the fashion that's oh-so-typical of the left...that There is so little value in "I told you so" but it is better than being wrong throughout. Because, deep down, your side being right WOULD be the tragedy -- because it would mean the return of intolerance, torture chambers, mass graves, and fascism. You know, REAL fascism.

I have said on a number of occasions that I wonder why those on the left even bother getting up in the morning -- after all, to them, it's all SOOO terrible. The US is terrible, the economy is terrible, the war in Iraq is terrible, everything is awful and hideous. Of course, the reason the lefties DO get up out of their slumber is that it gives them another bright and glorious day to indulge in their peculiar narcotic -- the unique cocktail of cynicism and pessimism that addles their brains. They love to feel the awfulness. They revel in it, though not as much as they revel in feeling that they are "right" to do so...as you do, here, so blatantly.

 

I think the news that the government is admitting that things did not turn out how they hoped and will try and make the best out of the situation based on the facts on the ground is good news. I think many of the bad decisions that the executive branch made post-mission accomplished banner were based on an overly optimistic view of Iraq. Not having enough soldiers on the ground to keep order after it was clear that Saddam was no longer in charge, disbanding the Iraqi army, and underestimating how strong Kurdish nationalist sentiment and Shiite secretarian sentiment were can all be chalked up to a general outlook on Iraq that fell in line with Cheney's pronouncement on Meet the Press that American soldiers would be treated as liberators and showered with flowers and candy.

I don't think it's right to use this admission as ammunition for another round of We Hate Bush. I'd much rather them begin to be a bit more honest than they've been, and if this rare display of veracity is met only with more finger pointing and blame issuing, I doubt we'll see anything like it again. I just want them to try and make the best decisions they can based on the best information they have and stop issuing pie-in-the-sky proclamations about how easy it will be to replace an ironfisted strongman with an Athenian democracy.

 

Based on the vast history of your festering posts that I've read I have every faith that I could trawl through your posts and dig up innumerable examples of this claim being a pile of tosh. Please feel free to let me know if you want to make this public.....

Ummm - call me old-fashioned but I'd guess the "far too many lives" comment was in relation to the estimated 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians who've lost their lives in this debacle. But hey, why let little things like that get in the way of your rant

This is bullsh!t of the highest order - trying to turn Bushco's "Holiday in Iraq" into some moral crusade against Fascism is beyond the pale. Are you trying to tell me that Iraq was the biggest offender as a "fascist state" in this god-forsaken world?

Jeezus - even if this was true it would just be another indicator of the ineptitude of this government in ignoring the worst offender (you know - as in the BS of the justification of Iraq being a priority in the War on Terror whilst ignoring the likes of Syria and Saudi Arabia).

 

Don't presume to ever speak for me. Anyone with half a brain knew that I was talking about innocent Iraqis.

You also may want to withhold your whole "torture chamber" and "death squad" talk, because once we pull out before midterm elections next year so that congressional republicans can leave skid marks running from the administration, don't be shocked when the Shiite's we liberated whip up on their good neighbor Sunni's in ways that ouday and koosay couldn't even dream up.

It would be much more becoming of you to say something like "well in hindsight things didn't really turn out as planned, but the intentions were good even if the results sucked.''

Instead, you chose to stay in full on attack mode. You call me soulless? That is rich. I am waiting for the day that a half written KK diatribe appears because you are finally consummed by your own anger while typing.

You were had, and you bought every lie hook, line and sinker, and now you are defending the indefensible because you have no choice.

I got off of the "we should have never gone in their in the first place" kick a while ago because it is water under the bridge. Most of my criticisms over the past year or so are directed at the way we have royally screwed the pooch in the aftermath of the invasion. That should be fair game as the poll numbers are now beginning to show that the majority has come around to the realization that Bushco has botched any chance at making this right, and in the process, he has made us less safe.

Here is a little taste of what yet another retired military brass has to say about the budding democracy in Iraq:

Our goal of bringing democracy to Iraq, while worthy, is unattainable. The Shiite clerics won't stand for it.

The clerics, who have taken on the same titles as those used by the Iranian Shiite clerics when they toppled the Shah, have won the elections.

The grand titles being used in Iraq right after the elections, "Ayatollah of the Revolutionary Islamic Council," for example, should have some people in Washington sitting up and taking notice. The Iranians already have visited the newly elected clerics, and it will be but a short time before some agreements between the two countries are formalized.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...500.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed

You can accuse us of having a negative attitude, but that attitude is appropriate at this point, and well earned based on our foreign policy.

Now, run along and start another "great news from Iraq!" thread.

 

Karl. What have you sacrificed for democracy in Iraq?

 

Clap harder, bitch.

 

Well, he got banned from posting here a couple of times.

 

You know what pisses me off the most about all this? The fact that the Military was able to do their part and achieve a Military victory only to have the fools in charge blow the whole fvcking thing apart due to piss poor planning and inability to utilize any intelligence whatsoever.

As a result we now have a military force that is none too happy over playing target and policeman, and lets not leave out scapegoats, who get stuck over there and have extended tours of duty.

As for the elections, did anyone think that those elected would have a clue about how to build a govt. that wasn't based on a theocracy? Those people have no clue how to do anything unless someone is pointing a gun at their heads telling them what and how to do it. The whole region is 500 years behind the west in terms of religion and its place in ruling the people. The best thing we could do is quarantine the whole area until they grow up.

 

1-3) Absolutely. Amen to all of it. I think that is becoming more apparent when you see people like Barry McCaffrey becoming more and more critical of the civilian leadership.

4) See the thread on tinkering with hybrids. If we had cars getting 200 mpg. If we don't need the oil, none of the dominos that led us to this point fall. The only concern in the region would be Israel.

 

www.aldaily.com has a link to the latest Krauthhamer op-ed,

I like this statement and it is as true today as it was after the election, "Until now, it was widely assumed that the only alternative to pan-Arabist autocracy, to the Nassers and the Saddams, was Islamism. We now know, from Iraq and Lebanon, that there is another possibility, and that America has given it life."

The Iraqis are going to have to work out this democracy thing in their own way but I don't think anyone reasonably doubts that Iraq will be democratic. I find it telling that the Left on BS are so cynical about it. I don't think they are FOR anything, they just hate GWB. I think it's telling that the Neo-cons are Liberals who have been run out of the realist or isolationist Leftis circles and have grudgingly found a home with GWB.

In any event, I've read dozens of threads like this one in the past. Yet Central Asia is in a much better position than it was four years ago and only looks to improve. Now, the choice is not only between despots and Islamist.

 

The elections in Iraq were certainly a positive out of this war. If nothing else, it provided a symbol. I am sure that the Lebanese took heart in what they saw, but those are two completely different animals. Lebanon has a significant Christian population that was at one time a majority. Beirut was -- and in some ways still is -- a western city. It really is a melting pot in the middle east if such a thing is possible.

I also read some articles that suggest that the democratic movement in Kiev was every bit the source of inspiration as Iraq.

Your statement about there being no doubt that Iraq will be democratic begs the question of what qualifies as democratic. In many ways, Iran is more democratic than much of the middle east, and I think it is fair to say that an Iranian styled theocracy is the frontrunner for the ultimate form of government. When 60% is Shiite and very closely aligned with Iran, why would they settle for anything less.

Without speaking for anyone who you might call "the left on BS" other than myself, but what exactly are we supposed to be for? I am hopeful for some type of stable government that can protect itself to emerge, and that they get control of the country so that terrorists can't use it as Afghanistan West. I hope that women there retain some semblence of the rights they have enjoyed in the past, but I am not holding my breath.

I hope that the Shiite dominated government will maintain good relations with us since we provided them with the path to power.

That's as far as it goes. I really believe that hoping for anything more is pie in the sky.