Democrats & Liberals Archives

Baghdad Today

On the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Iraq demanding US forces leave immediately. When, oh when will Iraqis realize that these demonstrations threaten to undermine President Bush’s political legacy?

Moqtada al-Sadr was behind most of the demonstrations, of course. With typical hypocrisy, al-Sadr's happy enough that our soldiers are subjugating Sunni militias and rogue Mahdi Army elements, but then he calls on the Iraqi army and police to attack US forces. What an ingrate!

But it's hard to blame these people. Given the fact that 71% of Iraqis want the US to leave, Iraqis are obviously like little children who have no idea what's good for them. After all, could they march in the streets yelling "Death to the oppressors!" when Saddam Hussein was in power? Of course not. As Gordon Johndroe, President Bush's National Security Council spokesman, said yesterday, "Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions."

Except in Baghdad, of course, where a round-the-clock emergency curfew was imposed.

Posted by American Pundit at April 10, 2007 12:34 PM
Comments
Comment #215878

I don’t think the Iraqis care about Bush’s political legacy any more that liberals do. But I’m worried about it.
His legacy, particularly with Iraq, is one of one blunder after another that has so far cost 3,200 of our youngins lives. I’m not sure of the number that are maimed for life, but that’s part of his legacy over there too.
I could care less about any other part of his legacy as it’s not anything of any great accomplishment.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 10, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #215880

Ron, if I knew what the emoticon for sarcasm was, I’da put it after every sentence in that article.

BTW, I just finished reading this: “Learning to Live With the Mahdi Army”

According to the troops on the ground, what they’re doing in Baghdad isn’t making a damned bit of difference.

Most of the Iraqi police they train are either affiliated with the militia or intimidated by it, the soldiers said. … “Eventually, when we leave, they’re going to police their own city. They’re going to do it their way.”

The soldiers said they do not know which police officers are involved with the Mahdi Army. Their Iraqi interpreters, who also serve as cultural barometers, tell the soldiers that all the police officers are.

“I see a whole lot of money and a whole lot of American lives on the line,” he [Staff Sgt. Jesse Benskin] said. “Two weeks after we leave, it’s going to go back to the way it was.”

But what do the troops know, right? They should just shut up and be props for President Bush.
(Where’s that damned sarcasm emoticon?)

Posted by: American Pundit at April 10, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment #215888

* = sarcasm.

I wouldn’t doubt for one second that things will go back to the way they were when we leave.
The sad thing is the Iraqis have the chance to make their country a better place. We’ve given this opportunity at the cost of 3,200 lives of our youngin’s. And I’m afraid most Iraqis don’t care, or appreciate it, enough to work for a better country.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 10, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #215889

This is great…

I think all governments should follow polls and act on them without question…

The people know what they really want, let them have it…


Posted by: cliff at April 10, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #215897

Kinda makes you wish that we gad given Sadaam the keys back to the city instead of that rope. Told him to get his shit together and be a good boy from then on………*************

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 10, 2007 2:31 PM
Comment #215902

“Kinda makes you wish that we gad given Sadaam the keys back to the city instead of that rope.”


Speak for yourself!


“Told him to get his shit together and be a good boy from then on…*************”


That was already tried over a decade ago and he didn’t comply. In fact, his version of “getting his sh*t together” was to fill mass graves, fill up rape and torture rooms and violate UN sanctions in the 20+ years of his reign. Yep, he sure kept the Iraqis in line…

Posted by: rahdigly at April 10, 2007 3:15 PM
Comment #215904

rah…….go back and READ the earlier posts ! Specifically where it says that * = sarcasm !!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 10, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #215906

Sandra, ahh I see that. I only read AP’s post and your comment up until then. Thanks for pointing that out. Now that I know your comment was sarcasm; I concur with you.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 10, 2007 3:38 PM
Comment #215907

AP,

Didn’t you hear?

Extremist Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces. — Sen. John McCain, 4/8/07
Why would you post something that contradicted this? Did the censors at FNC and RNC headquarters approve?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 10, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #215912

The real question is, why aren’t Americans protesting every weekend in this country? Answer: no draft. The great middle class is not losing their loved ones in this Iraq Civil War, and they have cars to drive, jobs to work, kids to school, movies to watch, and beer and meth to consume. How can a little old war in Iraq compete with all that?

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 10, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #215923
Did the censors at FNC and RNC headquarters approve?

LOL. I think both those organizations dropped their support of McCain. :)

The great middle class is not losing their loved ones in this Iraq Civil War

Absolutely right. This is Bush’s war, not America’s war. America has nothing to lose by a responsible withdrawal. As rah pointed out, Saddam is gone. We won. The war is over. Time to bring the boys & girls home.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 10, 2007 4:42 PM
Comment #215932

David
Sorry David, but a whole heap of our military is made up of folks from the middle class. As well as the lower class. Of course sense the military doesn’t keep records of the income level of it’s recruits neither of us can really prove our point.
But your right about the no draft part. Without the draft the only folks in the military are volunteers. There’s no mass induction of anyone 18 or older. With out this mass induction most folks don’t even think of a war effecting their families. So they go their merry ways and give no thought to the loss of life in this war.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 10, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #215933

AP,

“As rah pointed out, Saddam is gone. We won. The war is over. Time to bring the boys & girls home.”


Easy there Pundit. Where I agree that we won the war “mission was accomplished” in ousting that despotic terrorist (Saddam), that many (for some reason) seem to side with; I never said to “Bring the troops home”. They have to “complete their mission” in turning the country over to the Iraqis and keep Iran and Syria from not allowing Iraq to be a stable and free country. Yet, since so many on the left “care” so much about the Iraqi people and our troops, that shouldn’t be too hard to comprehend***.


By the way AP, David R made a good point bringing up the “no draft”. That’s why the anti-war crowd can’t get enough traction like they did with Vietnam. The troops know who their Commander in Chief is and they know where they’re going (Iraq); if they want out, they wouldn’t enlist and re-enlist like they have been. In fact, they’ve made their quota for 2006 even with this war (America’s War) that some of you can’t stand. Also, you (definitely) should’ve placed an asterisk after “boys and girls” when you were referring to our troops; don’t think that went unnoticed.

Posted by: rahdigly at April 10, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #215943

rahdigly

Also, you (definitely) should’ve placed an asterisk after “boys and girls” when you were referring to our troops; don’t think that went unnoticed.


Why should he? Their all someones boy or girl. My son, a MSGT, is 36 and he’s still a boy.
Besides, when ya get my age (60) anyone young enough to be in the military is a girl or a boy. Even the Generals.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 10, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #215960

Ron, I agree with you and I’ve been jumped for calling them kids, and for the same reason you supported the “boy” and “girl” statement. These are our kids, our sons, daughters, nieces, nephews or etc. The mistake I won’t make again, thanks to Stephen D., is to refer to them as “troops”.
We may not have much of a chance, or choice, to maintain any level of support unless we reinstate the draft. Ya, it’s unpopular, but it doesn’t appear that there are enough new enlistments to be of much help. I’d like to see just how much of the $$ requested by Bush will go into the pot for the “re-upping” incentives. $40,000 a pop if it’s done in Iraq eventually adds up.
Our resources are depleted and like I said before, with so many of our State Guard away, we are left quite vulnerable.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 10, 2007 9:25 PM
Comment #215963

Cliff, Of the people, by the people, for the people… of course you listen to the polls. If our Prez did it once in a while he and we would not be in this mess.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 10, 2007 9:49 PM
Comment #215972
They have to “complete their mission” in turning the country over to the Iraqis and keep Iran and Syria from not allowing Iraq to be a stable and free country.

rah, it’s not Iran and Syria destabilizing the country. It’s the Shiite-dominated government — including al-Sadr who is an important part of the ruling coalition — and their militias. It’s the Sunnis who believe the Shiites will exterminate them and are joining militias to stop them. It’s the Kurds who are forcibly removing both Shiites and Sunnis from Kirkuk in order to claim that city and its oil-rich surroundings.

Syria and Iran are the least of Iraq’s problems.

Everybody from Petraeus to Reid and Pelosi to even Bush acknowledge that the key to Iraq is for Iraqis to agree on a power-sharing arrangement. The Iraqi government has failed to do so — and shows no signs of wanting one. If they wait long enough, US troops will leave and the Shiite and Kurdish factions can wipe out the Sunnis and take whatever they want.

The Iraqi government has no incentive to stabilize the country. As that article I linked in a previous comment makes clear, Iraqis are spinning their wheels and US soldiers aren’t making any difference.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 10, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #215980

AP,
Good article. Somewhere I saw an interview about the situation with weapons in Iraq; it was suggested that even if every border could be sealed airtight, there are enough weapons and explosives already in Iraq for the fighting to continue for years and years.

Posted by: phx8 at April 11, 2007 12:04 AM
Comment #216003

Tens of thousands ?
Woa. At least iraqis are more and more united. Let’s compare with the very few that were shown there around Saddam’s statue photo op to greet their liberators while they were putting Star and Stripes over the statue head.

Okay, they unite against the US.
But, hey, that’s a start. Give neocons 4 more years and more people will be united, no doubt.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 11, 2007 8:35 AM
Comment #216004

phx8,

Somewhere I saw an interview about the situation with weapons in Iraq; it was suggested that even if every border could be sealed airtight, there are enough weapons and explosives already in Iraq for the fighting to continue for years and years.

Oh please, give Bush a break.
He couldn’t order to secure Oil Minister in Bahdad *and* Saddam’s ammo stocks at the same time, all while firing all iraqis in army. Not with only enough soldiers there for the task.

He made a choice.
Oil control *and* war to continue for years and years vs security for iraqis.

It was an easy one…
Follow the money.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 11, 2007 8:41 AM
Comment #216005
In fact, his [Saddam] version of “getting his sh*t together” was to fill mass graves, fill up rape and torture rooms and violate UN sanctions in the 20+ years of his reign. Yep, he sure kept the Iraqis in line…

And how that’s different with the current situation?
The names changed, that’s all.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 11, 2007 8:48 AM
Comment #216006

Seems Bush can’t find anybody willing to oversee his war:

White House seeks “czar” to oversee wars: report

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have turned down the position, the report said.

And

The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone to fill the post before the job is announced.

I think Bush has burned too many bridges.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 11, 2007 8:52 AM
Comment #216023

womanmarine, I think nobody wants that job because it’s impossible. Here’s what one of the generals Bush approached said:

“The very fundamental issue is, they [the administration] don’t know where the hell they’re going,” said retired Marine Gen. John J. “Jack” Sheehan… “So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, ‘No, thanks.’”
Posted by: American Pundit at April 11, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #216068

And more good news:

Pentagon weighs troop extension for Iraq

/sarcasm off

Posted by: womanmarine at April 11, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #216080

It’s a done deal now womanmarine…. :(
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_troops_20

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 11, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #216102

Yes money, politics, and oil certainly do play a role in all this: However, the fact still does remain, we are setting up for a confrontation with Iran. It has to be done folks for our security and the generations that follow. The Iranian “powers that be” will develop and use nuclear arms; it is only a matter of time. Read the headlines, they WANT to go to war. It is instilled in their religious ideology. If we don’t take it to them on their turf, they will surely bring it to ours.

Posted by: anicheintime at April 11, 2007 6:11 PM
Comment #216105

anicheintime,

*They* WANT to go to war?
As far I could tell from your post, *you* WANT to go to war.
What does it means? Is it instilled in your ideology too?

Besides, if Iran wants to go war, they could have do it since years, when US troops where an easy target in Iraq, easy outnumbered, not now that two carriers are near their coasts.

I love preemptive doctrine partisans logic, that’s so… pre-logic.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 11, 2007 6:38 PM
Comment #216175

Ahhh, the “Doom and Gloom” and “Anger and Rage” crowd is alive and well on this blog. *Love the “troop extension” link*; good thing some of you are so(ooooo) concerned how long they’re going to be in Iraq***. Whatever! Many of you just want to announce defeat and bring the troops home; it’s for your own selfish reason, not for the good of the country. “You” don’t like the way it’s going there; “You” don’t like the decision to go; “You” don’t like Bush. Well, tough sh*t. We’re there and our TROOPS are going to complete their mission; with or without your “support”.


By the way, the “Boys and girls” line and not calling them “troops” anymore was just despicable. Remember, according to your verbiage, it was “boys and girls” who defeated Nazism, Fascism and Imperialism in WWII; you know, a war we (actually) won b/c the country was in “support” of our “troops” and their “mission”!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 12, 2007 8:57 AM
Comment #216189
We’re there and our TROOPS are going to complete their mission; with or without your “support”…. Posted by: rahdigly at April 12, 2007 08:57 AM
Or die trying, right rah rah? Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 12, 2007 10:36 AM
Comment #216198

Correct! Just like they did in WWII, 120…

Posted by: rahdigly at April 12, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #216225

Except this isn’t WW II, this is Iraq War II, that w started. You’re living in a fantasy to think that trying to equate the two is worth anything.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 12, 2007 1:56 PM
Post a comment