A President all alone.

[Garfield1966]

How so?

 

[local 12 proud]

I was actually hoping that the Republicans would keep the White House. That way when the next POTUS pulls out of Iraq and it implodes, it will be the republican fault. Then there is that checks and balances thing that is also kind of nice.

At the rate things are going, your party will have a very hard time of it in 2008. Then again, that's fine by me so Bush can keep ignoring the people. The results will be very favorable for the Dems come 2008.

Well which is it Gar?

You sound like some woman chewing her nails over which handbag to buy.

Me, Im gonna waste a vote and go Independent.

 

[delldude]

Sounds typical pinko-fascist fence riding liberal to me......ask tomorrow for a different view.

 

[delldude]

UK tabloid...Independent....reports botched raid in Iran precipitated the Brit hostage crisis....hard linking on drudge or the papers website right now.

Inquiring minds want to know... B)

The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis

By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 03 April 2007
A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.

The two men were in Kurdistan on an official visit during which they met the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and later saw Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), at his mountain headquarters overlooking Arbil.

"They were after Jafari," Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of Massoud Barzani, told The Independent. He confirmed that the Iranian office had been established in Arbil for a long time and was often visited by Kurds obtaining documents to visit Iran. "The Americans thought he [Jafari] was there," said Mr Hussein.

Mr Jafari was accompanied by a second, high-ranking Iranian official. "His name was General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran [Iranian Revolutionary Guard]," said Sadi Ahmed Pire, now head of the Diwan (office) of President Talabani in Baghdad. Mr Pire previously lived in Arbil, where he headed the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Mr Talabani's political party.

The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Iran believes that Mr Jafari and Mr Frouzanda were targeted by the Americans. Mr Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian news agency, IRNA, that he was in Arbil at the time of the raid.

In a little-noticed remark, Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, told IRNA: "The objective of the Americans was to arrest Iranian security officials who had gone to Iraq to develop co-operation in the area of bilateral security."

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces". This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.

The raid on Arbil took place within hours of President George Bush making an address to the nation on 10 January in which he claimed: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops." He identified Iran and Syria as America's main enemies in Iraq though the four-year-old guerrilla war against US-led forces is being conducted by the strongly anti-Iranian Sunni-Arab community. Mr Jafari himself later complained about US allegations. "So far has there been a single Iranian among suicide bombers in the war-battered country?" he asked. "Almost all who involved in the suicide attacks are from Arab countries."

It seemed strange at the time that the US would so openly flout the authority of the Iraqi President and the head of the KRG simply to raid an Iranian liaison office that was being upgraded to a consulate, though this had not yet happened on 11 January. US officials, who must have been privy to the White House's new anti-Iranian stance, may have thought that bruised Kurdish pride was a small price to pay if the US could grab such senior Iranian officials.

For more than a year the US and its allies have been trying to put pressure on Iran. Security sources in Iraqi Kurdistan have long said that the US is backing Iranian Kurdish guerrillas in Iran. The US is also reportedly backing Sunni Arab dissidents in Khuzestan in southern Iran who are opposed to the government in Tehran. On 4 February soldiers from the Iraqi army 36th Commando battalion in Baghdad, considered to be under American control, seized Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat.

The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.

The targeted generals

* MOHAMMED JAFARI

Powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, responsible for internal security. He has accused the United States of seeking to "hold Iran responsible for insecurity in Iraq... and [US] failure in the country."

* GENERAL MINOJAHAR FROUZANDA

Chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the military unit which maintains its own intelligence service separate from the state, as well as a parallel army, navy and air force

 

[Garfield1966]

Not really sure to be quite honest. Most days I like the idea of having the power split so that no single party can screw it up. Then there are days like today when I hear how close the vote was in the USSC and realize that court appointments to the federal bench are for life. That's when I realize that I want a Dem prez so that the court does not swing to the wrong way.

 

[jerseyfinn]

. . . Bush has a mandate from an over whelming majority of the people to bring the troops home. Hs is ignoring the mandate to his and his parties peril. . . .

If only it were so easy. But it isn't!

First off, screaming and kicking the loudest does not a mandate make nor does it reflect majority rule. Neither should one assume that the majority necessarily knows best or reflects the best decision or option.

It does however reflect rule of the mob. The last time I saw such an American mandate it was Jim Crow and the aparthid that typified this country until the 1960s.

But I do hear ya loud and clear if what you're saying is that the public are fed up with failure and vacillation and the sort of cluster f*ck that we've got going on in Iraq at the moment. But there is not any sort of unified agreement about what is wrong and what the best move is. The American people simply know that they smell sh*t and it's time to make a decision of some sort.

The real point is not as the Dems suggest -- get out now if not sooner ! That is a non-solution that is as FUBARed as anything Rummy came up with.

It's a real world out there with real consequences. B43 set something in motion all right. But as much as the dems want to close their eyes and click their heels and go back home, that is not gonna help the situation which at the moment is very dangerous.

Americans are tired of B43. Absolutely no doubt about that. But some of the shennigans going on in Congress at the moment are not in the national interest and certainly not in the interest of our troops who are at the front of the line.

America has got to be extremely careful in what it does in Iraq as things could indeed get much worse without us giving this surge a chance to tone down some of the politics on the ground. The rest should indeed fall upon the Iraqi government.

Just as the dems say they support our troops but not the president; let me say that I'm an American and the democrats and Murtha/Pelosi et. al do not speak for me.

Barry

 

[Garfield1966]

In a perfect world I agree, we created the Iraq mess, we need to fix it. I guess where you and I differ is that you seem to believe there is a solution to Iraq, I do not believe there is. At least not one that we can or should be a part of. Given that perspective, I see no reason why we should continue to pour money down that hole or to bring home any more body bags. In a perfect world, the crew of the Titanic would have been able to repair the damage, in reality they did not and the ship sank. There comes a time when a leader has to say we tried, it did not work and it’s time to go home.

In my opinion, Iraq will implode. It is not a matter of if but when. The only question that I see is how much more we are willing to let it cost us. Bush has had over 3 years to come up with a plan. The only ones I saw clicking their heels together were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. They would not acknowledge that their plan (I use that term very loosely) was a failure and was not working. Only when they lost the House and Senate did they consider making any changes. Unfortunately that was way too late in the game. They have alienated the nations they are now asking to help and send troops. The best they can come up with now is to just send more troops. They still have not outlined a plan for how this is supposed to work. There are no goals that Iraq must meet. Nothing. Just more money and more troops. When Bush’s kids join the armed forces and are deployed on the front line and he is still willing ‘stay the course’ we can talk. As it stands, he has no dog in this race.

As an aside, Bush does not seem to be the one running the show, it’s Cheney. Bush is the puppet or so it would seem. This article in Time was quite interesting.

www.time.com/time/magazine/ article/0,9171,1597516,00.html

If this link does not work just do google search for

"Cheney in twilight".

 

[delldude]

In a perfect world, the crew of the Titanic would have been able to repair the damage, in reality they did not and the ship sank.

It sank due to an unique set of metalurgical and engineering anomolies and it wouldn't have been repairable.

They would not acknowledge that their plan (I use that term very loosely) was a failure and was not working.

Approved source

Only when they lost the House and Senate did they consider making any changes.

If they would have sacked Rummy before the election ,they'd still hold the majority...but then the Dem's would have accused them of election rigging.

The best they can come up with now is to just send more troops.

Getting better if you take off the colored spec's

There are no goals that Iraq must meet. Nothing.

Jad Choueiri Feat. Malak El Nasser - Wareeny

" 2alby 2ouly 7ay wareeny ou kan bee mout min nazrat 3ainy yegree waraya ou nassy hawaya haba da ya3ny ou haby shareeny.

Ana kida ba2a mush hatghayar, elby kbeer, a3ly zghayar, ah bahwak oo sahl ansak lime nefsek balash net-7eyer dana mashta2tish youm ghair leeky wa mafakartesh youm ghair feeky ib2y ooly kalam ya2zeeky ou lo mush 3agbek ! Lo mush 3agbek !

Ba2a wareeny .... Ya niny ya 3ainy ... Inta fakerny wala hagerny yom et gheeb ou 3ashra naseeny. "

 

[Garfield1966]

It sank due to an unique set of metalurgical and engineering anomolies and it wouldn't have been repairable.

Exactly my point. Not repairable so abandon ship.

Approved source

They acknowledged that they were not winning, not that their (or lack there of) was a failure.



If they would have sacked Rummy before the election ,they'd still hold the majority...but then the Dem's would have accused them of election rigging.

You can't be serious. Politics is worth big money. If you think Bush would not have dumped Rumsfeld to win the election I think you are deluding your self. The reason he did not dump Rumsfeld before the election is it would have been an admission of guilt and the result could have been even worse for the republicans that it was.

Getting better if you take off the colored spec's
Jad Choueiri Feat. Malak El Nasser - Wareeny

Bush said we were winning before the election and loosing afterward. Yea, he is a reliable source of information. Like was said elsewhere, they have been fighting for thousands of years. We are not going to stop it in a few years or even decades. It is not a matter of if Iraq will implode but when. It will implode due to a unique set of circumstance and anomalies and it wouldn't have been repairable


" 2alby 2ouly 7ay wareeny ou kan bee mout min nazrat 3ainy yegree waraya ou nassy hawaya haba da ya3ny ou haby shareeny.

Ana kida ba2a mush hatghayar, elby kbeer, a3ly zghayar, ah bahwak oo sahl ansak lime nefsek balash net-7eyer dana mashta2tish youm ghair leeky wa mafakartesh youm ghair feeky ib2y ooly kalam ya2zeeky ou lo mush 3agbek ! Lo mush 3agbek !

Ba2a wareeny .... Ya niny ya 3ainy ... Inta fakerny wala hagerny yom et gheeb ou 3ashra naseeny. "



Huh?

 

[delldude]

You can't be serious. Politics is worth big money. If you think Bush would not have dumped Rumsfeld to win the election I think you are deluding your self. The reason he did not dump Rumsfeld before the election is it would have been an admission of guilt and the result could have been even worse for the republicans that it was.

Lot of talk I heard after the election was about people voting Dem in protest to Bush keeping Rummy.I think it would have made a difference.....would have shown core Con's he was making a much needed change in direction.May have saved the majority...they didn't win by an overwhelming margin.

 

[Garfield1966]

What could have been we will never know. One thing I think is certain. If Bush Co. thought for a minute that dumping Rumsfeld would have been a benefit rather than a hindrance Rumsfeld a$$ would have been bounced out the door back in Sept or when ever it was that they had made the decision to get rid of him. What you say may have been true in hindsight but Bush Co. thought it was better to keep him on till after the elections rather than bouncing him prior. Everything I remember reading after the elections was that he was kept on to save face prior to the elections.

I find it hard to believe a hard core conservative would vote against Bush based on one issue. They may have been pissed but I do not see them jumping ship, especially casting a vote for the enemy. Stay home, yes, I can buy that but I don't buy them voting for the dems. I don’t like Kerry or Clinton at all but I do not see a time when either of them pisses me off enough for me to vote for who ever you put on the ballot.

 

[KCFlyer]

If they would have sacked Rummy before the election ,they'd still hold the majority...but then the Dem's would have accused them of election rigging.

Golly gee whiz....this sure sounds a lot like me saying that if Clinton tried anything in Iraq, the Reps would have accused him of trying to divert attention from Monica.

 

[Garfield1966]

The difference was that there were a bunch of republicans (as I recall) who wanted him out, the military wanted him out. Rice probably wanted him out since he would not even return her calls. The line of people who wanted him out was quite long. Unfortunately, Bush places friendship above his duty to protect and serve his country. He does not seem to have the ability to admit he screwed up until he looses an election. The all of a sudden he wants to play nice. What a moron. How does that saying go “pride goeth before the fallâ€￾?

Him and President Cheney tried to strong arm the country for so long that is came back and bite them hard in the ass. McCain hitched his horse to that wagon and he is going to go down right along with Bush. Bush is a 2 year lame duck pres who will not be able to get jack done because he has pissed off a nation. His own party is distancing them selves from him. 63 members of the Senate just voted to pass embryonic research. Just shy of a veto. Of course he will veto it and that will just piss off even more people. He is just handing the dems the White House on a silver platter. 2008 will be a turkey shoot the way it is looking right now.

I would be surprised to see Bush stump for who ever becomes the republican nominee.

 

[delldude]

Golly gee whiz....this sure sounds a lot like me saying that if Clinton tried anything in Iraq, the Reps would have accused him of trying to divert attention from Monica.

Ahh....aspirin factory in Somalia,blew up OBL's tent in Afghanistan....

Maybe true but the Dem's cry louder and longer....

Unfortunately, Bush places friendship above his duty to protect and serve his country.

A little diferent is how i'd put it....i'd say he has blind loyalty that sometimes clouds his rationale.

Repub's are great for sitting idly by and letting Dem's run rampant all over their butts without hardly a word...someone should have seen the political gain for the party and direction in Iraq by tossing Rummy...funny,my phone never rang.

 

[KCFlyer]

A little diferent is how i'd put it....i'd say he has blind loyalty that sometimes clouds his rationale.

Odd that during the 2004 election, his cloudy rationale was hailed as "unwavering dedication to what he believed in".