Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

The Truth Is, Iraq's Future Is Abysmal

By Scott Ritter, Truthdig. Posted February 8, 2008.


As nice as it would be for some hope that the "surge" worked, the truth is that the disaster in Iraq has only just begun.
Advertisement

Any analysis of the current state of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq that relied solely on the U.S. government, the major candidates for president or the major media outlets in the United States for information would be hard pressed to find any bad news. In a State of the Union address which had everything except a "Mission Accomplished" banner flying in the background, President Bush all but declared victory over the insurgency in Iraq. His recertification of the success of the so-called surge has prompted the Republican candidates to assume a cocky swagger when discussing Iraq. They embrace the occupation and speak, without shame or apparent fear of retribution, of an ongoing presence in that war-torn nation. Their Democratic counterparts have been less than enthusiastic in their criticism of the escalation. And the media, for the most part, continue their macabre role as cheerleaders of death, hiding the reality of Iraq deep inside stories that build upon approving headlines derived from nothing more than political rhetoric. The war in Iraq, we're told, is virtually over. We only need "stay the course" for 10 more years.

This situation is troublesome in the extreme. The collective refusal of any constituent in this complicated mix of political players to confront Bush on Iraq virtually guarantees that it will be the Bush administration, and not its successor, that will dictate the first year (or more) of policy in Iraq for the next president. It also ensures that the debacle that is the Bush administration's overarching Middle East policy of regional transformation and regime change in not only Iraq but Iran and Syria will continue to go unchallenged. If the president is free to pursue his policies, it could lead to direct military intervention in Iran by the United States prior to President Bush's departure from office or, failing that, place his successor on the path toward military confrontation. At a time when every data point available certifies (and recertifies) the administration's actions in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere (including Afghanistan) as an abject failure, America collectively has fallen into a hypnotic trance, distracted by domestic economic problems and incapable, due to our collective ignorance of the world we live in, of deciphering the reality on the ground in the Middle East.

Rather than offering a word-for-word renouncement of the president's rosy assertions concerning Iraq, I will instead initiate a process of debunking the myth of American success by doing that which no politician, current or aspiring, would dare do: predict the failure of American policy in Iraq. With the ink on the newspapers parroting the president's words barely dry, evidence of his misrepresentation of reality begins to build with the announcement by the Pentagon that troop levels in Iraq will not be dropping, as had been projected in view of the "success" of the "surge," but rather holding at current levels with the possibility of increasing in the future. This reversal of course concerning troop deployments into Iraq highlights the reality that the statistical justification of "surge success," namely the reduction in the level of violence, was illusory, a temporary lull brought about more by smoke and mirrors than any genuine change of fortune on the ground. Even the word surge is inappropriate for what is now undeniably an escalation. Iraq, far from being a nation on the rebound, remains a mortally wounded shell, the equivalent of a human suffering from a sucking chest wound, its lungs collapsed and its life blood spilling unchecked onto the ground. The "surge" never addressed the underlying reasons for Iraq's post-Saddam suffering, and as such never sought to heal that which was killing Iraq. Instead, the "surge" offered little more than a cosmetic gesture, covering the wounds of Iraq with a bandage which shielded the true extent of the damage from outside view while doing nothing to save the victim.

Iraq is dying; soon Iraq will be dead. True, there will be a plot of land in the Middle East which people will refer to as Iraq. But any hope of a resurrected homogeneous Iraqi nation populated by a diverse people capable of coexisting in peace and harmony is soon to be swept away forever. Any hope of a way out for the people of Iraq and their neighbors is about to become a victim of the "successes" of the "surge" and the denial of reality. The destruction of Iraq has already begun. The myth of Kurdish stability-born artificially out of the U.S.-enforced "no-fly zones" of the 1990s, sustained through the largess of the Oil-for-Food program (and U.S.-approved sanctions sidestepped by the various Kurdish groups in Iraq) and given a Frankenstein-like lease on life in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion and occupation-is rapidly unraveling. Like Dr. Frankenstein's monster, present-day Iraqi Kurdistan has been exposed as an amalgam of parts incompatible not only with each other but the region as a whole.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, surge, disaster

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Political agnostic
Posted by: politicalagnostic on Feb 9, 2008 1:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading this, it is painfully clear that the current administration has little or no regard for the dedicated men and women of our armed forces.To even suggest that we will be stuck in that quagmire for another ten years is abominable. Throwing around the words"support the troops" and then damning those who suggest that the best support we could show would be to bring them home ASAP exposes them for what they are,opportunistic,profiteering, scum bags.

Hopefully, our next administration will understand that to improve our world standing, we will need to step back and start listening to the rest of the world instead of dictating terms to them. I fear though that by freezing out John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich the status quo will be maintained.

Let the Iraqi people decide their fate and bring our people home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Political agnostic Posted by: madmax427
wild gunmen
Posted by: wittler youth on Feb 9, 2008 3:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one thing you neglected to mention..the perament military base'es we have over there..me thinks we aint going no where any time soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can this leopard change its spots?
Posted by: JayHaden on Feb 9, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Scott. From wherever you get your information, yours is a more realistic point of view than those brought to us by the mainstream media. It's like the dark side of the moon, revealed. If there are like-minded persons in the intelligence community who are informing you, presumably our so-called leaders and leaders-in-waiting also have access to the information on which your thought-provoking scenario is based. That they choose to withhold this apposite analysis from the public debate signals a troubling future for America. If they are simply blind to the possibilities you state, that is bad enough. But if, as many suspect, it is all about oil, what can we expect if we cannot secure that resource for our own use? Do our politicians believe that our profligate, oil-based lifestyle is so entrenched that we Americans will choose endless war and the suffering of others over our own reformation? This is the debate that our presidential candidates should have been engaged in for the last year. That they have not voluntarily backed out of Wonderland though the rabbit hole they entered strongly suggests a lack of moral character amongst all of them. I am sorry to say that our political/economic system is not a proper venue for doing what's right. It is a tragedy, in the ancient Greek sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq the Issue in '08
Posted by: MakingSense on Feb 9, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always appreciate an analysis of the situation in Iraq from someone who has a military intelligence background. However, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ritter's conclusion that "aspiring politicians" want to ignore the issue. Obama has been running ads in my state which clearly state that he wants to end the war in Iraq. On the Republican side, McCain has indicated his willingness not to "cut and run"from Iraq. The reason why the presidential candidates have not mentioned Iraq so far is that the presidential primaries have been intraparty affairs. The Democratic candidates already know that their constituency does not support the Iraq war; if there is any support for continued involvement in Iraq, it would be on the Republican side. As the primaries wind down, and front runners appear, you can expect more clearly drawn positions on Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Iraq the Issue in '08 Posted by: left_libertarian
Iraq is no more.
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 9, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq, along with Yugoslavia, was a country 'created' by the British after World War I. Its borders are not based on any internal order or historical development, and were drawn in a process to which no locals were invited. Ethnic enclaves, religious loyalties, population densities and urban centers were not considered.

For this reason, Iraq was a sovereign nation with firm borders only as long as there was a strong leader to enforce, at peril, secularism and the "ethnic purity" of his choice. Hussein did this for his own ends, not for the good of the people.

Our unprovoked incursion into Iraq has created so many layers of obfuscation and intrigue that it's impossible to claim victory or improvement, or even status-quo in any area or aspect.

Iraq no longer has the ability to defend its borders. We are now the so-called defense, yet we back Turkish attacks on Kurdish settlements in Iraq, and will probably continue to do it, to prevent the Kurds from making all-out war to create their own state, part Iraq, part Turkey, all oil.

Musharraf, a U.S. ally in the war against terror, has protested our own incursions over the Pakistani border to find Al Qaeda where they really live, yet he won't send his army to do it. He does this because he doesn't want to offend the Pushtun tribespeople who live together there, with a phony border between them. His stance is for the members of the tribe who vote.

Iraq, the nation with firm borders, full of diverse people working toward peaceful coexistence never really was. It doesn't matter that the regime-changers in our government are no students of history, nor ones to tap into the knowledge and expertise of others. They would have ignored the facts even if they had them in depth. They make up their own facts, as we know. They want what they want.

Whatever it was that held the Iraqi borders and its peoples together, we have now destroyed. Already, there is no more Iraq. When we leave, it will revert to what it was before it was created--land formerly belonging to the Ottoman Turks, occupied by ethnic and religious population groups, who will always be at war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Did you ask the Iraqis about that? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Israel and Oil Mean the USA Will NEVER leave Iraq!
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 9, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not kid ourselves. Obama has already indicated he is a "very good friend of Israel," and you can bet Israel will never settle for a democratic and free Iraq, but wants one with American power firmly in control. Therefore, take Israel/AIPAC, and USA interests regards the oil in the region, and American troops are certainly going to be in Iraq for the long haul. For the "Arabs" to decide things themselves might mean enhanced power for Iran, something Israel will never tolerate. It also might mean Iraq will have control over the price and quantity of oil she exports, something America will never tolerate. American troops, I have news for you. But some real-estate in Baghdad. You are never leaving.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dipconsult
Posted by: dipconsult on Feb 9, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As my consultancy has pointed out for over 3 years now, Iraq has one thing going for it - virtually all nations have a real interest in its stability.

This coincidence of interest demands a major diplomatic offensive - not confined to Middle East countries, but worldwide. This would dilute the influence of such as Syria, Iran and Israel when getting pressure to bear on all parties to achieve pacification.

Unfortunately the G W Bush Administration has a quite extraordinary objection to the normal business of diplomacy which involves discussions with potential enemies as well as supposed friends. Also it has lost almost all credibility. So such a major effort has to await the next president who, hopefully, will have a fresh and pragmatic view of the whole world scene left him by G W Bush.

The US cannot simply leave Iraq as it left Vietnam (which scarcely mattered). That would be a disaster not just for the US but for much of the world. There has to be a very broad effort by many countries to get the US out of the Iraq bog.

In other words, after the unilateralist unipolar-ism of G W Bush, the next president must be a multilateralist recognising that the US - though remaining immensely powerful - can no longer seek to run the world alone.

We warned in 2002 - with many other Cassandras far more distinguished (e.g. Brent Scowcroft)- that the invasion of Iraq would have disastrous worldwide consequences. America alone cannot undo this "Bush legacy", but many countries havea major national interest in joining in an efort to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dipconsult Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Romance. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: omance. Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Romance. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: omance. Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Romance. Posted by: Longdream
ReformerRay
Posted by: ReformerRay on Feb 9, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the U.S. forces leave Iraq is only the beginning of the issue that should be discussed.

Obama said he wanted to confront "the mind-set that got us into this problem". Excellent beginning - phrase the issue in non threatening terms. However, sooner or later, Obama must begin to argue that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from some of the other 117 U..S. military bases scattered all over the world and those bases closed - in consultation with the nations involved.

The U.S. must withdraw from its self-appointed role of protector of the independence of nations' whose government we like. The Department of Defense should be returned to its former role of protecting the political integrity and borders of the U.S. The Department of Defense should defend us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq's oil is still the strategic target of the U.S. Empire.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 9, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article addresses the tactical situation in Iraq but doesn't touch on the real reasons that the Bush Administration and their corporate cronies are so dead-set on remaining in Iraq.

Let's recall the publicly stated reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq: supposed biological and nuclear weapons, and Saddam Hussein himself. Neither was a threat, and one is dead and the other was never there. So, based on that rationale, the U.S. military should have packed up and left years ago.

But that's not what happened, is it? Instead, a economic czar (Paul Bremer) was placed in charge, and he set up a puppet government and began privatizing the country and handing out billions to BushCo cronies like Bechtel, Halliburton, Fluor, Shaw, etc etc - who pocketed the money and left the country.

This all helped create great resentment among the Iraq population, and the U.S. responded to the rising rebellion against the occupation by setting up a torture camp and trying to terrorize the Iraq population into submission - also known as the "El Salvador option" - and it's no surprise that 80's Central American-era torture proponents like John Negroponte and Elliot Abrams are still around, is it?

That led to the iconic images of the Iraq invasion - the hooded guy with the wires, the men covered in their own feces, the dogs being used to attack naked prisoners in dark rooms - and so on.

The U.S. also started backing various death squads - as Psyops Petraeus would tell you, you need to set up insurgencies in order to fight insurgencies - that's why it's called "counterinsurgency" - aka "techniques of imperial coercion for domestic populations."

For more on that, and a good companion piece to Scott Ritter's article, see The Redirection - Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism? by Seymour M. Hersh Mar 2007.

So, what is this all really about? It's about Iraq's massive oil reserves - the biggest untapped pools of oil on the planet, especially with the new discoveries in the western regions of Iraq. 200 billion barrels at $100 a barrel equals $20 trillion worth of oil - that's the glittering prize that BushCo. is still salivating over.

Look at the "benchmarks" of 2007 - the main benchmark was the Iraq hydrocarbon law, which the U.S. press tried to sell as a "revenue distribution law for the Iraqi people", but which in reality would have granted control of Iraqi oil to the International Oil Corporations. That issue has been banned from discussion in the U.S. press during election season, but it's still active:

Iraq sidesteps oil law impasse, Feb 5 2008, Financial UK

Essentially, the oil minister puppet installed by the U.S. government is now trying to ignore the elected Parliament entirely and set up independent deals with western corporations. The Iraqi oil unions have been banned from any participation.

With democracy like that, who needs dictators?

Does anyone really think that Wall Street gives a damn about how many U.S. soldiers and Iraqis are killed, as long as they can get their greedy claws on the big prize?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Media hypnosis would make Pavlov proud – and oil companies rich.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 9, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:

"America collectively has fallen into a hypnotic trance, distracted by domestic economic problems and incapable, due to our collective ignorance of the world we live in, of deciphering the reality on the ground in the Middle East."

* * *

We're in a hypnotic trance, all right; but we're not distracted so much by domestic economic problems as we are by the pop culture idiocies rammed down our throats 24/7 by "news" outlets. For every minute of propaganda ... er ... "news" about the Iraq occupation (it is NOT a war!) or about the failing economy, we're treated to 20 minutes about Britney, smarmy speculation about Heath Ledger's tragic death, the latest contestants on "Dancing With the Stars," etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The administration and congress are certainly not sufficiently distracted by domestic economic issues, either. Otherwise, we'd be getting better than the anemic, pathetic "stimulus package" that is little more than a band aid over a severed limb for the middle and lower classes, but another givaway for business (NOTE: If you're trying to get people to spend money, giving tax breaks to businesses while shorting the public ain't the way to do it). Besides, the administration doesn't give a crap for the public – especially now that the top two poobahs are not running for reelection. Bush is working on his woebegotten p.r. "legacy" as the great christian-democratic reformer over all those heathans in the Middle East while stealing their oil. That "legacy" does not include us or the Iraqi people, but only the corporate and media benefactors who can help him in his quest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

25ghostcommander
Posted by: 25ghostcommander on Feb 9, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The invasion of Iraq and the occupation has and is nothing more than a smoke screen for "The Largest Robbery In History" of present and future taxpayers. If Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and Pakistan, why invade Iraq? Oil is one answer but the other is Contracts--many, many contracts worth billions of dollare--40% of every dollar destined for Iraq goes to the crony contractors in no-bid or inflated contracts.This is the "Right Wing" conspiracy and it's aftermath-continuing. These THINGS are not Politicians, they are Criminals--one and all. Their actions have proven that. A vote for a pretend to be Republican is a vote for a Fascist Criminal.Impeach or Overthrow?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bendinriver
Posted by: bendinriver on Feb 9, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Sky is Falling, The Sky Is falling !! ---- Guess What? IT IS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

aitezaz
Posted by: aitezaz on Feb 9, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scott Ritter has written the whole truth and nothing but the truth about US war in Iraq.he vehemently demands the americans to quit this stupid venture which has not only cost massive mindless destrution of her taxpayers resources but also enormous loss of innocent lives.it is a matter of great regret that the people of america either dont know of this great and tragic folly or they do not want know it.it is a matter of shame in either case.a still greater tragedy is that all the US presidential candidates seem to treat this event of enormous consequence very lightly and speak to their electors as if they,when elected,would win this WAR for them.this would be another callous dishonesty with americans.this charade must end and soon.

i would therefore seek a favour from the Editor of AlterNet,to please send a copy of this article to each of these candidates.tell them that it is a must read for them so that they wake up to the realities and quit living in a fools paradise.as mr Bush is unlikely to accept this epic folly,these gentlemen must campaign that the US forces quit Iraq tomarrow.this action would greatly benefit the americans interests today and in the future.

i fervently wish this happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

real names vs freak names
Posted by: Robert K. MacDonald on Feb 9, 2008 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do those who make comments give themselves freak names like they are screwed up by drugs or wacko adolescent rebelliosness? Why can they not give their real names?
The most real and rational analysts of our Middle East Wars are people like Michael Parenti (Democracy for the Few" and speeches on Free Speech TV), Naomi Klein,
(The Shock Doctrine:The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,) and Noam Chomsky.
The U.S. government is controlled by billions of dollars in political money given by war related corporations to the mass-media opinion shapers, members of Congress, war contractors, universities, and such. These multi-millionares and billionaires consider the rest of the population to be so ignorant fearful, gullible and uncritically credulous that they are not a real part and may never be a real part of the policy-making process.
The USA is two nations, the exploited and the exploiters. And there is almost no competition so far between the two groups.
Dr. MacDonald psycho-imperialism.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: real names vs freak names Posted by: Birdperson
» screen names Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: real names vs freak names Posted by: Longdream
Didn't a Single Person Read the Late Afternoon Edition of the NYT? Read it and weep folks...
Posted by: Turiye on Feb 9, 2008 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... Stated that the Military has updated its manuel. It calls for soldiers to operate AS SOLDIERS while comingling with CIVILIANS wherever we deem necessary. By we I mean them. According to Lt. Gen. Caldwell this calls for at least a 10 to 15 year ongoing action. Meaning a 'draft'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sy Hersh said this in his lecture at UCLA months ago and Ian Masters guests as well
Posted by: asilsfable on Feb 9, 2008 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You must listen to Ian Masters' program:

http://ianmasters.org/masters_llc_020308_80.mp3

More unhappiness for the Iraqis to come, sadly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We already screwed Iraq,
Posted by: donl51 on Feb 9, 2008 1:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's now Iran I'm a bit concerned about,Bush is on the warpath ,so we know whats comming next,especially w/ his irefutable evidence that they pose a threat to the world''of Israel'' so whats he going to do,? kill lots of innocent people [their gov.is not especially innocent] but take them out and do what we did before, put in a shah!! a nice puppet Gov....PS you ever notice that w/ our aid to those poor in Africa come christian rules??like abortion,no help! reason has no bearing on anything,.Sorry but I beleive Bush and Religion in general should be burned at the stake!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course it's abut oil but it's more than that ...
Posted by: harryf200 on Feb 9, 2008 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, we can forget all that philophraphopic rubbish about doing this for the people of Iraq, we know there were no WMDs and it wasn't about ridding the World of terrorists, either. (Did anyone really beieve it was in the first place?) Yes, we're all there because of the oil.
But why control the oil? Because oil is vital to the US economy and it's vital to keep the US Navy afloat and USAF in the air, so they may continue to remain supreme on the seas and in the air, protecting the US not just from attacks on the mainland but also to protect its channels of trade.
This is probably the reason why the US came late into WW2 (waited until the old trading empires were crippled and collapsed by war) so the US could fill in the gaps to the advantage of the US. Hence, the USA has been the predominant economy ever since whereas it was relatively weak before.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq's future?
Posted by: black on Feb 9, 2008 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the Bush/Cheney legacy. How can anyone of reasonable intelligence support these or any other neocon idiots? For THINKING people, this will go down as the WORST administration in American history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress the Enabler
Posted by: JayHaden on Feb 9, 2008 6:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's remember that Congress is the enabler here. With Congresspeople who actually subscribe to the principles of public service, we would not have an administration that is trampling our rights, beggaring our treasury, dismantling our government, looting foreign lands and killing innocents. Congress is the real power behind the throne and we should work diligently not only to throw the Republican and Democratic rascals out, but to bring them to book. That so many are opting out of a very lucrative and prestigious sinecure suggests that their foresight is still good enough to see personal danger on the horizon in the form of a flock of chickens coming home to roost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Congress the Enabler Posted by: Longdream
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 10, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush administration: Try 'em & Fry 'em

There's no statute of limitations on genocide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: dayenta
The Future is Abysmal For EVERYONE on the planet- including all the animals
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 10, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Future is Abysmal For EVERYONE on the planet- including all the animals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 10, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if the police where you live couldn't be fired or even disciplined. Would you feel like you could rely on them to protect you?

VOCA, now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

100 years of war
Posted by: puddytat on Feb 10, 2008 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't forget, McCain says he does not know much about the economy or how to fix it and that it is fine with him if we stay in Iraq for one hundred years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Depleted Uranium is killing the Future Iraqis and Vets!
Posted by: common intelligence on Feb 10, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The MSM never even touches on the birth defects in Iraq. Which casn be directly attributable to the military use of Depleted Uranium. Neither will they report on the volume of vets that are suffering from the ssame cause.

Too much of the consiquences of using our weapons of mass destruction are over looked and kept from the publics knowlege.

How sad a world the mass murdering Bush Regime has unleashed.

How sad the American people are none active and hide from voicing theirselves.

How sad the Candidates never address these issues.

How sad the republicans and democrates in rolls of leadership, are in not making or be able to present through the MSM, these truths, that they maybe reconned with.

How sad the future, my son will have to live in when he is old enough to realize how ugly it has become.

God has nothing to do with the hell that has been bequithed on the future of humanity.

This sick nation of people in denial and heartless killers have engaged in is on the road to ruin, and the one responsible are being let off scott-free.

WE NEED A NATIONAL ALLEGENCE TO CONVICT "THEM".

MAKING THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Surge is working!
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 10, 2008 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever you may think about it, it is working (sorry Naomi, but it just isn't going YOUR way).

Yes, it is all about power and oil and economic and personal security. Well aren't you the bright ones for figuring that out. Just be glad you are on the powerful side because that really is the only choose you have in life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You've Been Snokered! Posted by: sofla100
No, the Surge IS NOT Working, Unless You Have Been Duped!
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 10, 2008 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because of a temporary decrease in US casualties, the FOX news boys and other media outlets have been saying "the surge is working." But, many news stories coming from Iraq tell a different story. The biggest indicator now, of a serious problem, is that American Generals do not want to see an end to the surge numbers and a pullback of US forces. They keep pushing back an eventual timetable when this will happen. But, what we are seeing is a more politicized propaganda process. Fake numbers that are to be "pulled out," when in reality, if you count all US troops, plus US mercs and contractors, this number now exceeds 300,000. Also, legitimate news stories from the ground tell the tale of US forces being told to avoid enemy engagements and of US forces "brokering deals" with various neighboorhood strogmen, to "keep the peace." Now, how long will this last? It will last just long enough to get another Republican elected, and that is the entire strategy. It's a perfect set-up for John McCain. After the election and with McCain in office, and with things collapsing, you can expect a large US troop increase, above current numbers, into Iraq. It's only the stupid American people who believe the current ploy and have been duped by it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Surge my ass. It's Working? working what?
Posted by: common intelligence on Feb 12, 2008 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What kind of ignorant statement is that? The surge is working....What the hell does that mean? Hell there's a surge in Oakland, California and it's not working.
Violence, killing, meheim, starving people, homeless, mortified, crippled here and there.
More are dying EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Iraq is a friggin desert of blowing friggin sand, heat, poisoning by depleted uranium
(and who knows what other horrible weapons of mass destruction Bush has unleashed)

The United States is on a highway to economic hell,
no health care, retirement is a joke, employment is fizzling out daily,
Housing costes are cost prohibitive if no one can pay for them.
The US has now manufacturing capabilities any longer.......
on and non and on.....

But we got ourselves the most corrupt bunch of pirates running our nation into the ground in the world........they are asn asccountable for crimes against humanity.

The Pentagon is set on the death penalty for alledged Guantanamo "detainees". But they won't allow a relooking at 911 Truth.

But they will kill off the evidence just like they shipped out all the evidence at 911. (They are hiding the truth and distroying evidence every day).

But the gawd damn Surge is working?
Kiss my democratic ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]