An ABC News correspondent tries to get an answer from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
28 Replies to ““What about the Iraqis?””
Oh sure they will be safe. Safe to eat their own oven-baked children if they do not support the neighborhood Islamofacist.
If America retreats from Iraq, the West is finished.
harry reid would be shot for treason in another era.
So now the Americans are their daddy, who get to decide what’s best for them? Ahh…freedom. Mission accomplished.
Iraq: The Solution
1. Arm and train the population.
2. Seal the borders.
3. Wait.
We gave the Iraqis freedom. They’re using their freedom to slaughter one another en masse. Once the Americans leave, the Iraqis will commit auto-genocide. This may actually be part of a brilliant plan, and we should also bring “freedom” to the rest of the Muslim world with likely the same results. Maybe the neocons aren’t such a bunch of naive, liberal, dreamy one-worlders after all. Like the realists, they knew perfectly well that democracy and Westernization would never work in a Muslim hellhole like Iraq, but instead lead to it’s destruction. Crafty neocons, I salute your realism!
Well the dems have decided that their election was becasue the US elecotorate said that the war was going badly. You can interpret that to mean it is time to leave or time to change strategy.
The Dems think it means it is time to leave. Bush can veto whatever they want, they cant override him.
Until September this is all posturing.
If the Dem/Libs win the election in 08, they wont pull out of Iraq.
they are trying to fool voters into thinking they want to, but they cant.
If US leaves Iraq= complete disater for the WEST!
If US leaves Iraq= complete disater for the WEST!
============================
Too bad so much of the WEST doesn’t pony up.
Stephen and Zilla, you have a point, when faced with a televised vote the Dems fold. These fools can obstruct and posture all they want but only the dimmest among them wants to be cited in history as one of politicians that lost Iraq prematurely. I say prematurely because we don’t know the final outcome yet. Another year or two of our support is critical to the outcome.
What didn’t happen in the Iraq is important. The country hasn’t devolved into a civil war pitting Kurds against Sunnis, Shiia against Sunnis, etc. The troublemakers for the most part are outsiders. I think that vast majority of Iraqis have a national purpose and see the whole a better deal than having separate parts.
I think that its kind of ironic that Lady Bird Johnson just died.I remember when her husband got elected with the promise to end the Viet Nam war and once elected expanded the war more than Goldwater said he would,but then, Nixon got elected,ended the war and got impeached for it!Those Dems like war,it makes them RICH!
Big whoop.
Harry Reid has ALWAYS answered questions about the Iraq war with polls and cowardice…
I find this question/answer to be much more news-worthy: Q Are you at all worried that, as sort of these basic questions are answered and the answer that comes back is not exactly, and it’s not black and white, it’s gray, and all — are you worried that the American people listen to this sort of debate and perceive you and the White House as isolated and out of touch on this?
MR. SNOW: No, no more than I think that they look at you and think that you guys are focused on defeat.
Q Wait a minute, that’s not my question at all.
MR. SNOW: You just asked me if I’m clueless, and I’m asked if you’re a defeatist.
WTF is a Neo Con???????????? This term is dismissively used on a lot of blogs and elsewhere. I’m too old to be one of them, I think. Sometimes I’m in total agreement with the neo con, some times not. Is it some kind of term like “racist”? Stops you cold, then thinking about it afterwards it totally enrages you but the dickhead is off on another talking point.
The time to ask “What about the Iraqis?” was before mid-March, 2003.
You make a very good point, Stephen.
Nobody seemed to give a flying F&$# about the Iraqis so long as it was Saddam and Co. commiting mass murder, stealing Oil for Food Aid and handpicking newlywed virgins to serve up to his sons.
The question left unanswered is why the left is so damned concerned about them now?
The easy way to get a very REAL answer to the all important question is to propose the following.
**We are requesting input from the Democrat Liberal left on means to ensure the safety of Iraqi men women and children in our eventual withdrawl from Iraq.**
** It is important that we also provide safety to the Kurds who have become our dearest friends in Iraq. **
**When liberals have presented their viable plan for safety and secure government in Iraq, this administration will then consider policies for a safe and humane move for withdrawl.**
= TG
Circe,
A neocon is a former liberal or Marxist who has “converted” to conservatism. Irving Kristol, self-described Godfather of neoconservatism, describes one thusly: A liberal who’s been mugged by reality. Neocons were the leading cheerleaders for the Iraq war, as opposed to the paleocons (those who’ve always been conservative), who were generally opposed to it.
Iraq is a recent and artificial creation (post WWI) that was always held together by force, either led by a king or a strongman. The US is now acting as that strongman; should they leave, the country will quickly unravel, with the Turks and Iranians grabbing big pieces of it.
The Americans cannot leave. No matter who’s elected president, no matter how unpopular the occupation is, he/she will come to that conclusion. Losing Iraq = Losing the ME.
The US are there for the long run, at least as long as there are significant oil reserves in the region.
The question left unanswered is why the left is so damned concerned about them now?
Actually, that question was answered by members of ‘the left’ who opposed long-term Western-backing of Saddam back when it wasn’t fashionable, the extreme hardship of the sanctions regime, etc.
Kate:
“Nobody seemed to give a flying F&$# about the Iraqis so long as it was Saddam and Co. commiting mass murder, stealing Oil for Food Aid and handpicking newlywed virgins to serve up to his sons.
“The question left unanswered is why the left is so damned concerned about them now?”
Because back then it was Sadaam who was responsible for doing the bad things to his own people. Since the US removed Sadaam, the US is responsible for what goes on there.
Sadaam = Saddam
GreenNeck (10:44 P.M.)
“The US are there for the long run, at least as long as there are significant oil reserves in the region.”
Well THAT certainly explains why the American armed forces stayed in Western Europe for 50 years after World War II… good on ya!
Stephen (11:03 P.M.)
“Actually, that question was answered by members of ‘the left’ who opposed long-term Western-backing of Saddam back when it wasn’t fashionable, the extreme hardship of the sanctions regime, etc.”
Hate to break it to you, ‘high school’, but there wasn’t a SINGLE leftist politician, pundit, or polemical pinhead who ever, EVER, said or wrote ANYTHING of ANY note about Saddam Hussein before the summer of 1990; they didn’t even know the asshole drew breath. Period.
Iberia (11:03 P.M.)
“Because back then it was Sadaam who was responsible for doing the bad things to his own people. Since the US removed Sadaam, the US is responsible for what goes on there.”
What a load of sophomoric b.s. So, YOU would just let that bastard continue to put the boots to, what, 27 million people? How would you like it if Canada had a despot running things for the next 24 years… unelected that is, and backed by a bunch of mechanized Mafiosa?
You would simply LOVE it in Zimbabwe now, what?
Tell you all what… if a bunch of home invaders crash my front door to ravage my wife and child and you just happen to be passing by, PULEEEEZE grab the nearest weapon (ax handle, golf club, 30/30 Winnie… anything) and try to smash the S.O.B.s’ heads in (maybe load the Winchester first and then ‘apply’ the business end).
HARRY REID whats this scoundrel up to im sure he is not doing it for national interest just what banifits his own corupt party
this is not a dem/lib fight, it’s a fight for freedom, as we know it, for a people. you need to refocus your energy to more constructive ends and do away with all the political claptrap/bullshit
Joe B.
I suppose the “B” stands for “blowhard,” given all the tough talking, meaningless rhetoric you just wrote. There are despots all over the world, some of which are good friends of the US.
Like the US actually gave a shit while Saddam was gassing Iranians. They were selling him arms. Now it’s a big deal…Islamic invasion is imminent if the US pulls out, eh? If you recall, the 9/11 bombers were mostly Saudis who planned the attack in Germany. Iraq had nothing to do with it. This is a problem of the Americans own making and the American voters will decide if this war is worthwhile.
Hmmm, more wisdom from one our resident leftard idiots.
1. said gas was provided by euro weenies, not the Americans
2. we all know that real politik sometimes demand alliances with less than savory regimes
3. saddam insane was a homicidal maniac, and the world will be better off without him
4. it is truly amazing how leftard morons jump to the defence of terrorists if it allows them the chance to bash Bush
Iberia, you truly are a retard.
I suppose the “Iberia” stands for “Spain”… which turned turtle and sank out of sight at the first sign of trouble. What with all your churlish, wrong-headed drivel.
Let’s see… oh, I remember, it was SAUDI ARABIA which had some 17 U.N. sanctions for violating a 1991 resolution forbidding them to, you know, bomb and kill its own citizens. Figures; the U.N. gets pretty much everything wrong. Must be one of YOUR favourite international bodies, eh?
Poor baboo, didn’t you know that possibly “1,000,000 Iraqi children died of starvation because of that nasty U.N. Oil-For-Frau… oops… Oil-For-Food program” (that would have been one of YOUR main planks for ending said program, I’m sure).
If it is about oil, then why are Americans ponying up so much money to fill up their gas tanks? Thieves ought to be smarter? D’ya think?
Well do ya?
Saddam Hussein, by the way, used mainly Soviet and French weaponry in 1980 when he invaded Iran. He got relatively little help EVER from the U.S., and when he gassed Halabja in 1988 he cut himself off from ANY meaningful U.S. support. At least that’s the way George Bush Sr. saw things. Thank God.
A withdrawl from Iraq now just encourages the Jihadists. Far from settling the ME down, it will ignite a powder keg. Worse yet, it will help al Qaeda recruit and lead to even more export of terror and violence.
The sad part so many American politicians losing their nerve is that for the first time they have a good chance of succeeding in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus is an expert in counter-insurgency and the measures he has implemented are bearing fruit. Victory is just a matter of time, if they can be patient.
There are despots all over the world, some of which are good friends of the US.
Hardly, Castro, the slob in North Korea, Chavez, Mugabe, Iran aren’t our friends. Nations don’t have “friends”, only lefty dolts would use that term, they have alliances motivated by all manner of strategic considerations, deamed statescraft, as they should.
You need to use your computer for video games, Iberia, adult dialogue isn’t working out for you.
Kingstonlad and Joe B.;
Regardless of what you think of me or how much you bluster, the simple fact is that Iraq and Afghanistan are not working out the way the Bush neocons planned. They initiated this operation; they screwed it up; and now they are going to have to wear it.
penny:
Let’s see …how about the leaders of Colombia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Pakistan and China for a start. The US overthrow of Mossadeq and replacement with the Shah is one of the reasons why the US has had such “warm” relations with Middle East countries; likewise all the meddling in Central and South America over the past 200 years has been a fine example of promoting freedom and democracy. You may think of all these relationships as strategic alliances or statescraft; I think of it as hypocrisy.
Oh sure they will be safe. Safe to eat their own oven-baked children if they do not support the neighborhood Islamofacist.
If America retreats from Iraq, the West is finished.
harry reid would be shot for treason in another era.
So now the Americans are their daddy, who get to decide what’s best for them? Ahh…freedom. Mission accomplished.
Iraq: The Solution
1. Arm and train the population.
2. Seal the borders.
3. Wait.
We gave the Iraqis freedom. They’re using their freedom to slaughter one another en masse. Once the Americans leave, the Iraqis will commit auto-genocide. This may actually be part of a brilliant plan, and we should also bring “freedom” to the rest of the Muslim world with likely the same results. Maybe the neocons aren’t such a bunch of naive, liberal, dreamy one-worlders after all. Like the realists, they knew perfectly well that democracy and Westernization would never work in a Muslim hellhole like Iraq, but instead lead to it’s destruction. Crafty neocons, I salute your realism!
Well the dems have decided that their election was becasue the US elecotorate said that the war was going badly. You can interpret that to mean it is time to leave or time to change strategy.
The Dems think it means it is time to leave. Bush can veto whatever they want, they cant override him.
Until September this is all posturing.
If the Dem/Libs win the election in 08, they wont pull out of Iraq.
they are trying to fool voters into thinking they want to, but they cant.
If US leaves Iraq= complete disater for the WEST!
If US leaves Iraq= complete disater for the WEST!
============================
Too bad so much of the WEST doesn’t pony up.
Stephen and Zilla, you have a point, when faced with a televised vote the Dems fold. These fools can obstruct and posture all they want but only the dimmest among them wants to be cited in history as one of politicians that lost Iraq prematurely. I say prematurely because we don’t know the final outcome yet. Another year or two of our support is critical to the outcome.
What didn’t happen in the Iraq is important. The country hasn’t devolved into a civil war pitting Kurds against Sunnis, Shiia against Sunnis, etc. The troublemakers for the most part are outsiders. I think that vast majority of Iraqis have a national purpose and see the whole a better deal than having separate parts.
I think that its kind of ironic that Lady Bird Johnson just died.I remember when her husband got elected with the promise to end the Viet Nam war and once elected expanded the war more than Goldwater said he would,but then, Nixon got elected,ended the war and got impeached for it!Those Dems like war,it makes them RICH!
Big whoop.
Harry Reid has ALWAYS answered questions about the Iraq war with polls and cowardice…
I find this question/answer to be much more news-worthy:
Q Are you at all worried that, as sort of these basic questions are answered and the answer that comes back is not exactly, and it’s not black and white, it’s gray, and all — are you worried that the American people listen to this sort of debate and perceive you and the White House as isolated and out of touch on this?
MR. SNOW: No, no more than I think that they look at you and think that you guys are focused on defeat.
Q Wait a minute, that’s not my question at all.
MR. SNOW: You just asked me if I’m clueless, and I’m asked if you’re a defeatist.
WTF is a Neo Con???????????? This term is dismissively used on a lot of blogs and elsewhere. I’m too old to be one of them, I think. Sometimes I’m in total agreement with the neo con, some times not. Is it some kind of term like “racist”? Stops you cold, then thinking about it afterwards it totally enrages you but the dickhead is off on another talking point.
The time to ask “What about the Iraqis?” was before mid-March, 2003.
You make a very good point, Stephen.
Nobody seemed to give a flying F&$# about the Iraqis so long as it was Saddam and Co. commiting mass murder, stealing Oil for Food Aid and handpicking newlywed virgins to serve up to his sons.
The question left unanswered is why the left is so damned concerned about them now?
The easy way to get a very REAL answer to the all important question is to propose the following.
**We are requesting input from the Democrat Liberal left on means to ensure the safety of Iraqi men women and children in our eventual withdrawl from Iraq.**
** It is important that we also provide safety to the Kurds who have become our dearest friends in Iraq. **
**When liberals have presented their viable plan for safety and secure government in Iraq, this administration will then consider policies for a safe and humane move for withdrawl.**
= TG
Circe,
A neocon is a former liberal or Marxist who has “converted” to conservatism. Irving Kristol, self-described Godfather of neoconservatism, describes one thusly: A liberal who’s been mugged by reality. Neocons were the leading cheerleaders for the Iraq war, as opposed to the paleocons (those who’ve always been conservative), who were generally opposed to it.
Iraq is a recent and artificial creation (post WWI) that was always held together by force, either led by a king or a strongman. The US is now acting as that strongman; should they leave, the country will quickly unravel, with the Turks and Iranians grabbing big pieces of it.
The Americans cannot leave. No matter who’s elected president, no matter how unpopular the occupation is, he/she will come to that conclusion. Losing Iraq = Losing the ME.
The US are there for the long run, at least as long as there are significant oil reserves in the region.
The question left unanswered is why the left is so damned concerned about them now?
Actually, that question was answered by members of ‘the left’ who opposed long-term Western-backing of Saddam back when it wasn’t fashionable, the extreme hardship of the sanctions regime, etc.
Kate:
“Nobody seemed to give a flying F&$# about the Iraqis so long as it was Saddam and Co. commiting mass murder, stealing Oil for Food Aid and handpicking newlywed virgins to serve up to his sons.
“The question left unanswered is why the left is so damned concerned about them now?”
Because back then it was Sadaam who was responsible for doing the bad things to his own people. Since the US removed Sadaam, the US is responsible for what goes on there.
Sadaam = Saddam
GreenNeck (10:44 P.M.)
“The US are there for the long run, at least as long as there are significant oil reserves in the region.”
Well THAT certainly explains why the American armed forces stayed in Western Europe for 50 years after World War II… good on ya!
Stephen (11:03 P.M.)
“Actually, that question was answered by members of ‘the left’ who opposed long-term Western-backing of Saddam back when it wasn’t fashionable, the extreme hardship of the sanctions regime, etc.”
Hate to break it to you, ‘high school’, but there wasn’t a SINGLE leftist politician, pundit, or polemical pinhead who ever, EVER, said or wrote ANYTHING of ANY note about Saddam Hussein before the summer of 1990; they didn’t even know the asshole drew breath. Period.
Iberia (11:03 P.M.)
“Because back then it was Sadaam who was responsible for doing the bad things to his own people. Since the US removed Sadaam, the US is responsible for what goes on there.”
What a load of sophomoric b.s. So, YOU would just let that bastard continue to put the boots to, what, 27 million people? How would you like it if Canada had a despot running things for the next 24 years… unelected that is, and backed by a bunch of mechanized Mafiosa?
You would simply LOVE it in Zimbabwe now, what?
Tell you all what… if a bunch of home invaders crash my front door to ravage my wife and child and you just happen to be passing by, PULEEEEZE grab the nearest weapon (ax handle, golf club, 30/30 Winnie… anything) and try to smash the S.O.B.s’ heads in (maybe load the Winchester first and then ‘apply’ the business end).
HARRY REID whats this scoundrel up to im sure he is not doing it for national interest just what banifits his own corupt party
this is not a dem/lib fight, it’s a fight for freedom, as we know it, for a people. you need to refocus your energy to more constructive ends and do away with all the political claptrap/bullshit
Joe B.
I suppose the “B” stands for “blowhard,” given all the tough talking, meaningless rhetoric you just wrote. There are despots all over the world, some of which are good friends of the US.
Like the US actually gave a shit while Saddam was gassing Iranians. They were selling him arms. Now it’s a big deal…Islamic invasion is imminent if the US pulls out, eh? If you recall, the 9/11 bombers were mostly Saudis who planned the attack in Germany. Iraq had nothing to do with it. This is a problem of the Americans own making and the American voters will decide if this war is worthwhile.
Hmmm, more wisdom from one our resident leftard idiots.
1. said gas was provided by euro weenies, not the Americans
2. we all know that real politik sometimes demand alliances with less than savory regimes
3. saddam insane was a homicidal maniac, and the world will be better off without him
4. it is truly amazing how leftard morons jump to the defence of terrorists if it allows them the chance to bash Bush
Iberia, you truly are a retard.
I suppose the “Iberia” stands for “Spain”… which turned turtle and sank out of sight at the first sign of trouble. What with all your churlish, wrong-headed drivel.
Let’s see… oh, I remember, it was SAUDI ARABIA which had some 17 U.N. sanctions for violating a 1991 resolution forbidding them to, you know, bomb and kill its own citizens. Figures; the U.N. gets pretty much everything wrong. Must be one of YOUR favourite international bodies, eh?
Poor baboo, didn’t you know that possibly “1,000,000 Iraqi children died of starvation because of that nasty U.N. Oil-For-Frau… oops… Oil-For-Food program” (that would have been one of YOUR main planks for ending said program, I’m sure).
If it is about oil, then why are Americans ponying up so much money to fill up their gas tanks? Thieves ought to be smarter? D’ya think?
Well do ya?
Saddam Hussein, by the way, used mainly Soviet and French weaponry in 1980 when he invaded Iran. He got relatively little help EVER from the U.S., and when he gassed Halabja in 1988 he cut himself off from ANY meaningful U.S. support. At least that’s the way George Bush Sr. saw things. Thank God.
A withdrawl from Iraq now just encourages the Jihadists. Far from settling the ME down, it will ignite a powder keg. Worse yet, it will help al Qaeda recruit and lead to even more export of terror and violence.
The sad part so many American politicians losing their nerve is that for the first time they have a good chance of succeeding in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus is an expert in counter-insurgency and the measures he has implemented are bearing fruit. Victory is just a matter of time, if they can be patient.
There are despots all over the world, some of which are good friends of the US.
Hardly, Castro, the slob in North Korea, Chavez, Mugabe, Iran aren’t our friends. Nations don’t have “friends”, only lefty dolts would use that term, they have alliances motivated by all manner of strategic considerations, deamed statescraft, as they should.
You need to use your computer for video games, Iberia, adult dialogue isn’t working out for you.
Kingstonlad and Joe B.;
Regardless of what you think of me or how much you bluster, the simple fact is that Iraq and Afghanistan are not working out the way the Bush neocons planned. They initiated this operation; they screwed it up; and now they are going to have to wear it.
penny:
Let’s see …how about the leaders of Colombia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Pakistan and China for a start. The US overthrow of Mossadeq and replacement with the Shah is one of the reasons why the US has had such “warm” relations with Middle East countries; likewise all the meddling in Central and South America over the past 200 years has been a fine example of promoting freedom and democracy. You may think of all these relationships as strategic alliances or statescraft; I think of it as hypocrisy.