Bush, Iraq PM Discuss Troop Pullout Plan

2011 Eyed As Target Date For U.S. Troops To Leave But No Deal Or Timeline Finalized

(AP)  President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spoke Friday by secure video as work on a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2011 continued.

"There are still discussions ongoing," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "It's not done until it's done. And the discussions are really ongoing. And ongoing and ongoing. But hopefully drawing to a conclusion."

The comments contradict reports out of Baghdad that a 27-point withdrawal plan had been approved by the two sides.

Mr. Bush is vacationing at his ranch in Texas.

The deal being discussed by U.S. and Iraqi negotiators sets a course for American combat troops to pull out of major Iraqi cities by next June, with a broader exit two years later from the long and costly war that began in March 2003.

The dates could be adjusted if security and political progress in Iraq deteriorate.

There are about 140,000 U.S. forces in Iraq, according to United States Central Command, and more than 4,100 American troops have been killed there.

Johndroe would not discuss specifics of the plan being negotiated, including the dates when U.S. troops might begin to leave.

Increased security in Iraq, which the Bush administration said is due to the so-called surge of U.S. forces more than a year ago, created the conditions for the troop withdrawal negotiations to take place, Johndroe said.

The talks take place as Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama regularly trade shots over progress in Iraq and argue over who is better suited to be commander in chief when Bush leaves office in January.

Obama, the Democratic nominee in waiting, wants all U.S. forces out of Iraq within 16 months of his taking office, saying they are needed in Afghanistan. Violence in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan has increased due to a resurgent Taliban and political instability in Pakistan.

Obama opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And he's said the surge of troops has not led to the political reconciliation needed to ensure the country will remain secure once all U.S. troops are gone.

McCain, the Republican candidate, supported the president's January 2007 decision to add 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Those additional troops have returned home.

McCain has said the security situation in Iraq should dictate any pullout schedule. And he's criticized Obama for not only opposing the troop surge but trying to block the funding that would have allowed the increase.

[armydog2]

georgie must be ready to go off the wagon now,cut and run.or maybe a line or two will take the edge off.

[bluestardad]

WAR CRIMES TRIALS FOR THIS IDIOT ARE SOON TO FOLLOW!

[alphaa10-2009]

A New Reverence for International Law?--2

On some days, Rice probably wishes she had stayed in academia.-- at least there, she could publish for GOP thinktanks in taxpayer-paid obscurity.

Finally, we are given to understand the Georgians have committed their share of offenses under international law, as well. To the extent these are factual, Georgia must understand international law applies to even the natives of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The two, miniscule territories fear absorption by either Russia or Georgia. They want to be left alone.

All to say, many parties are involved in an affront to international law in Georgia and nearby regions. How startling a tactical move it might be if Russians were actually to honor the principles of international law in Georgia, and remove their military forces.

By respecting international law in Georgia, Russia would dramatize the illegal Bush conduct in Iraq. On his way out of office, Bush could reflect once more on that stark contrast-- if Russia could demonstrate respect for international law, maybe he should have, as well.

[deacon20081]

WAR CRIMES TRIALS FOR THIS IDIOT ARE SOON TO FOLLOW!
Posted by bluestardad

Pray for Justice.

[hermitdave]

WELL lets see. The American puppet president is talking to the puppet leader of a country he invaded to make sure his big business oil friends could get back to exploit the country of Iraq. My guess is the plan will go just as Uncle Richerd the real American president wants it to go.

[alphaa10-2009]

A NEW REVERENCE FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW?

What is most interesting about the Russian invasion of Georgia is how exquisitely reverent Bush and Cheney and Rice and all the other architects of Bush''s war in Iraq have become about the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Bush and minions are clearly indignant when Russia does, on a much-smaller scale, exactly what they did in Iraq. And compared with Saddam, Saakashvili was left in power (at least, so far).

Here on display is official Bush Double-Think in its full, Orwellian glory.

Rice is Exhibit A-- From her academic background, even Rice understands principles of international law matter a great deal in drafting a responsible US foreign policy.

As an educator in the California university system, Rice was also the first to insist the Communist bloc honor such principles, as well. Her area of specialty was foreign affairs, and the Soviet bloc, in particular.

But hitching her wagon-- pre-2000 election-- to the rising Bush star, Rice clearly forgot about such principles. So complicit did Rice become in the Bush conspiracy about Iraq, she was content to moan about the threat of a "mushroom cloud" and any other tale handed her for publication.

(see "A New Reverence for International Law?"--2)

[notblue]

Only a politically blinded moron would ignore the progress in Iraq, two years ago when the Dems wanted to cut and run there was no progress, the situation today is much different yet the ingrates cling to defeat and sarcasm, that''s the leftwing way!

[tablink]

Despite our strong denials in the past, the Russians were correct about the purpose of NATO.

[FHMullane]

I don''t understand how the timetable is such a campaign issues since it will be negotiated with Iraq before the new President takes office... and no matter who it is he will have to pay attention to what is going on... If we can get them home sooner we should.

To say the SURGE ALONE is responsible for this is nieve to say the least. Part of what got the Iraqis putting it together and stopping the craziness was our elections and the real possibility that a democrat isn''t going to put up with this.

Sadr had his troops stand down and the Sunnis fought along side Americans to run Al Qaeda out. There is no way to be sure if those things would not have happened without the surge... I think they would have because they were in response to our talking about leaving (Sadr) and AlQaeda just going too far with the Sunnis.

The surge, in hindsight, was a good thing but to say it was the sole reason things calmed down really is unrealistic. McCain wants credit for that but that alone would just have put 30,000 more troops in harm''s way. Had the Sunnis continued to work WITH Al Qaeda and had Sadrs Army continued there would be no calm on the ground with our without 30,000 troops...

[idnnsg]

"Only a politically blinded moron would ignore the progress in Iraq, two years ago when the Dems wanted to cut and run there was no progress, the situation today is much different" - notblue

We invaded Iraq, destroyed their infrastructure, killed millions of people, invited in al Qaeda, set up a puppet government, and stole the Iraqi''s oil for the international corporations. Iraq is in shambles. There is NO CHANCE of any meaningful democratic government. Civil war is inevitable. Iraq has been a complete, MISERABLE FAILURE, just like Bush!

Bush''s backers control the US media, so it''s easy for re.tards like you to fool yourselves into believing the lie that "now things are different". But the ONLY people who will be fooled are the same re.tards who believed Cheney when he said the "insurgency is in its last throes" in May of 2005, MORE THAN 3 YRS AGO! The SAME re.tards who thought it was FUNNY when Bush laughed about not finding WMDs under his desk. The SAME retards who will vote for In.sane McCain.

So what if there''s less violence in Iraq now, compared to some point earlier when WE caused the chaos that created more violence in Iraq. That is NOT success!

Repugs: They "Cut and run", but only when the Chimp in Charge says to!

Has anyone let McCain in on the joke? HE wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years! What will the party faithful do? Vote for Obama who wants to get the hell out of Iraq? Or will they vote for McCain who wants to stay, but CALLS HIMSELF a "republican"?

[alohaone1]

So , Obama wants the troop to go to Afganishtan instead ? This is the most stupid things I ever heard ! Afganishtan''s problems is not with troops , it is with Pakistan , when the terrorists were given safe-haven in Pakistan , they are never totally destroyed . And we can not invade Pakistan like Obama mentioned without facing international back-lash , For us to just go and bomb target inside Pakistan , it is not only obsurd , it is barbaric .So , we either have to give Musharaf free-hand to DESTROY the oppositions like how it is in dictatorship ( which is not acceptable for us ) OR , trying to work with the Pakistani Government now that Musharaf is out of the way . Obama is not only naive , he does not know basic in foreign relations , If you have someone as ally , you do not JUST BOMB them as you please , unless you want to fight in both , Afganishtan and fignt the Pakistani at the same time !

[kissamaarse]

Obama said he would strike within Pakistand after Al Qaeda. He was criticized by Bush & McCain, but then Bush did. Obama said to redeploy troops to Afghanistan. He was criticized by Bush & McCain, but now Bush is. Obama many months ago stated a timeline to withdraw from Iraq. He was criticized by Bush & McCain, but now Bush is.

Now who is the clear choice here? Who knows how to make the right decisions? Seems like Bush keeps following Obama''s lead, and then McCain comes sniffing along after.

[notblue]

INNNSG, your move.on talking points are tiresome and false, you people mirror the words of the enemy, listen to one of Al KAWHRI''s speaches sometime. How do explain the countless attacks against the US and other countries throughout the world prior to the Iraq conflict? Why do you ignore the history over tha last thirty years, And the point you attempt to make in regards to actually fighting back is tiresome and incorrect. Leavinig the nemy alone didn''t work and if ACTUALLY FIGHTING MEANS the recruitment of more terrorist then that will make them easier to destroy. If you think the US media is somehow a puupet of the Bush administration then you obviously do not watch the news. The leftwing media has been relentless in it''s critisism of Bush and Americas policies, in fact I would characterize the modern media as a mouthpiece forthe leftwing in this country. Osama and the rst of the Extremists caused the chaos in the modern world, 12 million Iraqis voted for freedom, tried the Butcher of baghdad and executed him, get a friggin clue and get on the side of right. Who are you defending with your blather? Ever ask yourself that?

[alohaone1]

the crooks you are bashing America are just tooo Dumb to see the reality . We invade Irag for no reason? I thought 90% of the world DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER SADDAM REALLY POSSESSED WMD OR NOT and that include not just our CIA BUT also the French , the British , the Russians , the Israelis ... and the Mad Man , himself, went out of his way to even FOOLED his own generals that the next units have WMD (this is backed up by Iraqi Generals commanding units around Baghdad ) . Also , Saddam agreed and violated resolutions after resolutions and treated the world with contempts and deceptions times and again . So , did we actually have pictures of stockpiles of WMD with the Iraqi President standing smiling beside them , NO , but all the intelligent and circumstantial evidences from a intelligent agencies around the world at that time justfied going in to take out a dictator who not only killed scores of his own people but has through invasions killed scores of his neighbors and threaten the whole region and the world oil supply for the last 40 years ...and if any of you is telling me that stability in an OIL Supply region is not an important enough reason , ask yourselves whether or not you or your relatives use cars or electricity today . If you guys walk to work and live in the wilderness , you have the right to criticize decisions regarding oil , if not SHUT UP !

[alohaone1]

you know , come to think of if , it is not so bad after all TO BE INVADED BY THE US ... the US is not a colonial or imperial or communist power who invaded for its own benefits while disregard the sufferings of the people there . The US went to wars to secure its interests and its allies'' interests , but after the war , they went by the law , establishd democracies and played by the same rules agreed by both sides , and NOT by force like the Roman,or Mongolians , or the Dutch or French or German or Russian Empires...That is why , Japan , after having their OWN constitution written by the US was able to rebuild and compete and even beat the US in fair competitions , look at the Japanese today and their auto industry . Also , France, Germany , South KOrea , the Phillipines , SAudi Arabia , and even Iraq ....all the countries that were invaded by the US are getting stronger and freer everyday , and if they work hard enough , they surely can compete with the US in any way they want . Too bad for others who DID NOT HAVE THE PLEASURE TO BE INVADED like Georgia or soon Ukraine ,or even Vietnam ...who will eventually be "BROTHERLY PROTECTED " BY THEIR LOVING BIGGER BROTHERS THE RUSSIANS AND THE CHINESE ...No wonder the Polish are just too happy to have recently become our Cronies , ungrateful Western Europeans and Betraying Libs in the US are forgetting the price of Freedom that were paid with the US invading Armies'' blood not too long ago ...sad sad sad ..

[mr2258]

Obama is only trying to take credit for the things that Bush was already doing.What a piece of slim.

[promaclaura]

alohaone1 and notblue - I think your on target comments fall on deaf ears because these posters have one hate, President Bush. All else falls to the wayside, his elections have caused such sour grape losers that they can''t see past it. How else could one explain their blind, inaccurate statements. I think the jist of their statements conclude they would have been happy to leave the Iraqi''s in Saddams hands. For some reason they are justifying Saddams evil, they''re saying let''s all forget that he invaded other countries, never stopped pursuing WMD, paid suicide bomber families 25,000 (totals in the millions), gassed his own people, contrived fake elections to keep in power for decades, left numerous mass graves (firing squads like the Nazi''s), numerous torture methods (wood chippers, rape houses), palaces galore for himself, a disaster for infrastructure (minimul water or electricity), his people lived in squalor while he sat on gold toilets...... Wow, those Iraqi''s had it great huh? To me that is living hell, so keep on hating Bush and defending Saddam because that is in essence what you are doing. If I had a choice for a ruler I would pick George Bush over Saddam Hussein any day.

[shoebox119]

Once upon a time, the United States refused to recognize any government that was elected while under foreign occupation (see Lebanon). I guess the exception to that policy is when America''s the occupier.

How can anyone not see that the current Iraqi government is nothing more than a puppet of America?

[pvperson]

"I thought 90% of the world DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER SADDAM REALLY POSSESSED WMD OR NOT"

That was before the world found out that Bush had fabricated everything he was using as proof.

The world was willing to let the inspectors do their jobs, Bush knew that he had to invade before the world learned the truth.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...I thought 90% of the world DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER SADDAM REALLY POSSESSED WMD OR NOT and that include not just our CIA BUT also the French , the British , the Russians , the Israelis..." Posted by alohaone1

You thought incorrectly, the French disagreed with the US, hence "freedom fries," remember that idiocy? The German foreign minister accused Bush of using tactics akin to Hitler''s in stirring up the war fever, and was forced to apologize for her comparison, as it offended Israel. The British foisted a pirated ten year old thesis, stolen from an Indian student at Berkley University (California, btw) proof that they too were lying. Mahathir Muhammad then Prime Minister of Malaysia, observed that the US had a 50 year cold war with the Soviets without firing a shot, but because Bush wanted Iraqi oil, the US fires every weapon other than nuclear, that it possessed, against a country that was no threat.

Hans Blix told the UN that there were no WMDs, and cheney said that the US had information contrary to the guy who spent two years on the groung looking for them.

No your point is pretty much the opposite of reality, most of the world, probably 90%, knew that Bush was lying us into a war for oil. Even I knew it.

[promaclaura]

alohaone1 and notblue - I might add that I believed Saddam should be ousted before George became President. You see, like the rest of the world that watched Saddam play WMD pat-a-cake during the no-fly zone (costing billions) I watched as well (on this very network and 60 minutes). Everyone believed he was a menace to our country and feared him the most. Then 9/11 happened, and we woke up to the fact that if terrorist trained in Afghanistan could perform such a tragic event, what in the h e l l could Saddam pull off? After all he was the one that pretended to have the WMD, so we took his game to heart. Bye, Bye, Saddam. I bet many of these posters believed Saddam was evil as well, it took President Bush''s election to change their minds, truly pathetic.

[misha128-2009]

alohaone1 and notblue are lost with Senator McCain in an alternate reality where there is an Iraq-Pakistan border and the enemy Al Qaeda is a better source of intelligence than the US intelligence agencies. Someday they may actually read the recently declassified intelligence documents and determine what the administration hid from Congress and the country in making their case for Iraq.

[bagdadshere2]

Once upon a time, the United States refused to recognize any government that was elected while under foreign occupation (see Lebanon). I guess the exception to that policy is when America''''s the occupier.

How can anyone not see that the current Iraqi government is nothing more than a puppet of America?

Posted by shoebox119 at 06:04 PM : Aug 22, 2008
----------------------------------------

AMERICA doesnt recognize any government elected under foreign occupation when the people vote under threat and AK-47 like in Lebanon and Gaza strip. That was not the case with the Iraqi government cause the people voted freely without any fear and elected Nuri Al-Maliki.

[ajaxtheleast]

future prez. reads to third-graders:

"And then you know what ?,,,,

Well,,,,,

The good Commander-In-Chief George Bush

in his eighth year of his battle against

the Evil Ragamuffins from the far-away land

offered pennies, nickles and dimes to

half of the Evil Ragamuffins to become good

Ragamuffins to fight the remaining half of

the Evil Ragamuffins,,,,there-by managing a

tie with the Evil Ragamuffins AND everybody in

the one-third left that could still do this

sort of thing LIVED happily ever after.

[alohaone1]

Obama said he would strike within Pakistand after Al Qaeda. He was criticized by Bush & McCain, but then Bush did. Obama said to redeploy troops to Afghanistan. He was criticized by Bush & McCain, but now Bush is. Obama many months ago stated a timeline to withdraw from Iraq. He was criticized by Bush & McCain, but now Bush is.-----------------

Posted by kissamaarse at 05:20 PM : Aug 22, 2008

Okay , let see , Before Bush bombed limited and precisedly confirmed targets inside Pakistan border-region , he called and got permission from Musharaf who confirmed it as the case leaked out . For Bush to have to agree to a time-table of withdrawal , it is because the Iraqis become emboldened by the stupid Libs and Obama support and thus our negotiating power with them is curtained by our own people . When the war were raging on, for the shake of their country , we did not talk time -table , now with the enemies nearly destroyed and come time for our companies to make profit, they want time-table ? what kind of joke is it , but you know what , if your own people is stabbing you in the back , now can you negotiate ? Remember why the best army lost in Vietnam ? Now , WE have to GRUDGINGLY AGREE TO THIS UNFAIR DEAL once again, thanks to Obama and the betraying Libs...and Afganishtan , it is time the other Nato nations do their duties , not us , but because Obama and the libs are playing the image of we abandoning Afganishtan , we have to send troops there too !

[promaclaura]

Hans Blix told the UN that there were no WMDs, and cheney said that the US had information contrary to the guy who spent two years on the groung looking for them.

No your point is pretty much the opposite of reality, most of the world, probably 90%, knew that Bush was lying us into a war for oil. Even I knew it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by brianbwb

The U.N. is a joke. Corruption at it''s best under Koffi Anan. Ever hear of the "oil for food scandal"? Koffi''s son was up to his neck in this one. France was bought by Saddam with oil, Russia was selling Saddam weapons. Those countries turned a blind eye to Saddam''s attrocities, and made a mockery of the sanctions against Saddam. Using the very tool that was supposed to feed his people to buy support from the real oil grabbers. Thank God France woke up and elected a pro-American not on the make. Once again, Bush hate blinds one to all else. Keep on defending your favorite dictator Saddam, it fits you so well.

[misha128-2009]

promaclaura -- Did not Cheney himself in 93 say the first George Bush was right in not continuing and toppling Saddam. Funny Bush 41 and 20th century Cheney were right and Bush 43 and 21st Century Cheney were wrong. Republicans apparently do not age well or effectively teach their young common sense.

[kansas1946]

I think George is using Obama''s plan. McCain would stay there 100 years.

[promaclaura]

alohaone1 and notblue are lost with Senator McCain in an alternate reality where there is an Iraq-Pakistan border and the enemy Al Qaeda is a better source of intelligence than the US intelligence agencies. Someday they may actually read the recently declassified intelligence documents and determine what the administration hid from Congress and the country in making their case for Iraq.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by misha128

misha - the case for ousting Saddam was made before George Bush even took office. Look at Saddam''s atrocities and tell me that you would have wished that on anyone. Come on, this is pure Hate Bush speak and you know it. President Bush shouldn''t have even had to make a case at all, Clinton and his administration did a good job on that already. All Democrat minions sought ways to oust Saddam because he was evil personified. Go ahead, defend your hero Saddam.

[alohaone1]

Any of you Libs out there who said that evidences pointed to NO WMD in Iraq before the war CARE to tell me why the many UN resolution before the war ? What did the Resolutions say ? if the evidences were so compelling , why did the UN have resolutions at all? Then , how many resolutions were broken and treated like TRASH by Saddam before we invade Iraq? How much time did we wait between resolutions , how many deadlines come and past , how many "if you do not complain, there will be consequences " were treated like Jokes by SAddam who even when the war broke out , refused to believe that the world DARE to do anything to him? and the strongest evidences coming from the UN inspectors , I quote: "..we can not rule out the possibilities of WMD in Iraq .." now that is so compelling and strong ! Go do some research on news prior to the war and you will see.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by promaclaura

Your point is irrelevant, as Saddam did not have WMDs, as most of the world already knew, and all of the world certainly knows now.

As for whatever chicanery Saddam was up to, that was an internal Iraqi matter, it still was no clear and present danger to us, he was sent back out of Kuwait, and bombed back to the 1950s, and was absolutely no reason that 4,100+ of our children, and upwards of a million Iraqis should have died, and still die.

You can continue to try to invent reasons and justifications for Bush''s lies, but in the end they are still lies, and in time people like you will be regarded the same as the few remaining old Germans who still think that Hitler was right in what he did.

[promaclaura]

promaclaura -- Did not Cheney himself in 93 say the first George Bush was right in not continuing and toppling Saddam. Funny Bush 41 and 20th century Cheney were right and Bush 43 and 21st Century Cheney were wrong. Republicans apparently do not age well or effectively teach their young common sense.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by misha128

History has proven this wrong, I felt it was a mistake to leave Saddam in place. Wow, he was so kind to his detractors after that. Mass murder and mass graves show how successful leaving Saddam in place was. Let''s not forget the successful no-fly zone, a great big prison that cost us billions and gained us nothing. It also, made sure to keep our troops in Saudi Arabia, the holy land that p i s s e d OBL off so bad. We spent 12 years wringing our hands over Saddam, it would have been much better to have done it the first time.

[alohaone1]

alohaone1 and notblue - I might add that I believed Saddam should be ousted before George became President. You see, like the rest of the world that watched Saddam play WMD pat-a-cake during the no-fly zone (costing billions) I watched as well (on this very network and 60 minutes). Everyone believed he was a menace to our country and feared him the most. Then 9/11 happened, and we woke up to the fact that if terrorist trained in Afghanistan could perform such a tragic event, what in the h e l l could Saddam pull off? After all he was the one that pretended to have the WMD, so we took his game to heart. Bye, Bye, Saddam. I bet many of these posters believed Saddam was evil as well, it took President Bush''''s election to change their minds, truly pathetic.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by promaclaura at 06:14 PM : Aug 22, 2008

Well said ! it is true ... it is easy to say " I told you so " when we did not find WMD in Iraq , but the trouble is , Saddam would not let the inspectors do their jobs ...and it went on for 10 years ! on the other hand , if a decision was not made and it turn out that Saddam had WMD , will any one care to bear the consequences . Remember , the evidences were never enough to make the case that Bin Laden will pull 9/11 on us , but he did , same case in WW2 , yes , wait until you get enough evidences (which is close to forever) and risk the consequences !

[gce65]

Pop some smelling salts under Bush''s nose! Wake up, George!
It''s the central point of negotiations.
It''s called a TIMELINE FOR WITHDRAWAL.
It''s around June of 2009.

[promaclaura]

brianbwb - willing to let people suffer under Saddam Hussein because of Bush Hate.

[brianbwb-2009]

"For Bush to have to agree to a time-table of withdrawal..." Posted by alohaone1

It is because the more sane of us are appalled at the death and destruction wrought by his lies, and will continue, even after he has left office, to call for his arrest and presentation at war crimes trials, and for the return of the money stolen from our children''s future, from the war profiteers who stole it.

The Iraqis should be emboldened to attain the end of our occupation of their land, and if I, in my opposition to genocide based on lies, have in any microscopic way helped to bring it about, then I have done my duty to humanity to oppose a war criminal.

[gce65]

It hardly matters what the US agrees to anyway. Bush will do whatever he wants regardless of negotiations of treaties or status of force agreements. Negotiating is just a stalling tactic anyway, it''s what the Israelis do all the time.

[jackmayoff2]

WELL THERE GOES THE MCCAIN IDEA 100 YEARS OF WAR IN IRAQ OUT THE WINDOW

[notfooled]

Any of you Libs out there who said that evidences pointed to NO WMD in Iraq before the war CARE to tell me why the many UN resolution before the war ? What did the Resolutions say ? if the evidences were so compelling , why did the UN have resolutions at all? Then , how many resolutions were broken and treated like TRASH by Saddam before we invade Iraq? ....
Posted by alohaone1 at 06:31 PM : Aug 22, 2008

I''m not a lib or any other label you''d like to attach to citizens, but the truth is that Sadam was fianlly cooperating with the inspectors, that according to the inpectors themselves.

The liar-in-chief decided to pull the inspectors out before they completed their work, I wonder why?

And as for UN resolutions: Since any permanent Security Council Member can basically force a resolution on most anything, its not all surprising bush could get a resolution based on all of his hoaxed lies and reasoning.

The question you should be asking is why we would need to invade a sovereign nation we already had disarmed and surrounded. Sadam was already boxed in like a caged rat.

Answer: oil and military industrial profits generated by the Bush/Cheney/Suadia crime syndicate scheme to facilitate the largest transfer of weath the world has ever known - from our pockets to theirs.

[co11bang]

For all of those who keep claiming that the war is justified because Saddam was a bad bad man with nukes. Fact: Russia has nukes. Fact: Russia threatend to nuke Poland ( our ally.) So if you actually believe the rhetoric that you spew (but you dont and you know it) you should be beating down the door to join the military and invade and occupy Russia.

[brianbwb-2009]

"brianbwb - willing to let people suffer under Saddam Hussein because of Bush Hate." Posted by promaclaura

promaclaura - willing to see more innocent Iraqis die than Saddam ever killed, and see American soldiers die, and see the US economy stolen from his/her own future and the future of his/her own children because of Bush love.

[promaclaura]

appalled at the death and destruction wrought by his lies
brianbwb

Why aren''t you more appalled at the death and destruction wrought by Saddam? Go ahead defend him for me.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by co11bang

I''ll go you a few better.

Fact: The US has nukes. Fact: the US nuked Japan. Fact: the US killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Fact: The US is aiding Turkey who are committing genocide against the Kurds, the same victims of genocidal crimes by Saddam.

[notfooled]

Well said ! it is true ... it is easy to say " I told you so " when we did not find WMD in Iraq , but the trouble is , Saddam would not let the inspectors do their jobs ...and it went on for 10 years ! on the other hand , if a decision was not made and it turn out that Saddam had WMD , will any one care to bear the consequences . Remember , the evidences were never enough to make the case that Bin Laden will pull 9/11 on us , but he did , same case in WW2 , yes , wait until you get enough evidences (which is close to forever) and risk the consequences !
Posted by alohaone1 at 06:40 PM : Aug 22, 2008

The trouble with this kind of thinking is that now almost a million people are dead and there were no WMD''s.

Perhaps you''d rethink your comments if someone came and wiped out your family and friends in con scheme to generate oil and military industrial profits and then claimed they were only tryin to protect people from you.

And since we only have the word of folks that work for the liar-in-chief that Bin Laden is responsible for 911 - I doubt its true. More likely bush and cheney cooked the whole thing up so they could hold a war.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Why aren''''t you more appalled at the death and destruction wrought by Saddam? Go ahead defend him for me." Posted by promaclaura

Bush''s bodycount score is much higher than Saddam''s, and while I am appalled at what he did to his own, I am angry at even worse that Bush has done to those people in the name of my country, so repugnant and obviously illegal that he had to lie to get it approved.

[notfooled]

When do the war crime trials for genocide for the entire lying and corrupt bush/cheney/saudia crime syndicate start?

962 public lies (wmd, wmd, the sky is falling) causing the senseless deaths of nearly a million people.

[promaclaura]

"brianbwb - willing to let people suffer under Saddam Hussein because of Bush Hate." Posted by promaclaura

promaclaura - willing to see more innocent Iraqis die than Saddam ever killed, and see American soldiers die, and see the US economy stolen from his/her own future and the future of his/her own children because of Bush love.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by brianbwb

This is not Bush love you b o o b! I already stated he should have been handled way before George became President. I would rather stop an evil dictator in his pursuit of WMD before he has them. As a previous poster pointed out, Russia has them, so does Pakistan and are hands are tied while they pump out their extremism. The U.S. has WMD, but we don''t use them and continue to be the most generous country in the world. Those other countries that have the WMD only threaten with them and give squat for aid to any other country.

[joe_transit]

Who said this, Bush, McSame? I''ll believe it after it happens.

[kansas1946]

Why aren''''t you more appalled at the death and destruction wrought by Saddam? Go ahead defend him for me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by promaclaura at 06:49 PM : Aug 22, 2008
+ report abuse
*****************************
Saddam was a creep. No doubt about it. But so what. There are hundreds of creep leaders around the world. Maybe you need to check out how the Saudi royalty treat their people. You know, the guy that Bush strolls hand in hand with in the garden.
It is now our responsibility to overthrow dictators militarily. That is not what our military is for. It is to protect us. Iraq was no threat to us. It was Cheney''s dream and he just got the pet puppet George, to lie and act like we were under some threat from Iraq. We all know better. GWB. Worst president in the history if the United States, and McCain just mimics his policies.

[payasyougo]

Will Obama, as president, renegotiate anything Bush agrees to so that our troops will come home sooner?