WHEW! And here I was thinking the war was getting out of hand!
KING: So it’s going to be going on when you leave office.
BUSH: Probably. I mean, I have no idea and there’s no way I can predict. But I hope not. I hope that they can build their government and reconcile with each other and build a country. This is their opportunity to seize the moment, to build a really good and stable country. And many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day this discourages everybody.
I guess the Bush kids can head over to Iraq to join the fight for freedom since it’s stable now.
Wow… I’m sure glad the amazingly vapid Laura Bush has weighed in.
But the economy is going swimmingly well!
Who knew there were brunettes bimbos?
Who knew we needed another liberal hack posting shit articles on this blog?
A comment made by a non-politician on a show that hasn’t had a serious political conversation in years… but let’s post it anyway.
This place is going down faster than the stock market.
Gee, and I would have though that a statement like this “and many parts of Iraq are stable now” would have been pretty straight forward. Apparently the rabid loons on this site would like to make it out to be that she said “and all of Iraq is stable now.”
Oh….my…..god. That stupid woman should keep her mouth shut. One bombing a day? Does she live in hole in the ground? I cannot wait until that misfit family is out of office. I don’t know who makes me more sick: the entire bush family or the people who voted them in…its a close call.
“Must…restrain…fist of death!”
Roused her from her Stepfordian coma for that insight did we.
Take the problem to the source, not his wife.
4,
Anytime a woman that kills her boyfriend weighs in on political news, she deserves coverage.
5,
Uh, which parts?
Someone catch this bitch and tickle her!
>>This is their opportunity to seize the moment, to build a really good and stable country.
I see that Laura has the same nimble, fast-acting sense of perfect timing that her husband has!
The “moment” that needed to be seized with the first six months after the invasion.
This place is going down faster than the stock market.
Good thing we have you to set us straight, huh?
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Talk about a reality check. The last time I looked the number of bombings per day over the past 6 months ranged from 160-180 per day!
Its so sad (and terrifying) that the Neocons live in denial, in a world of fantasy. Its discouraging that a sizable number of people never let facts get in the way of The Truth.
Yesterday’s “one bombing” killed 18 kids playing soccer.
There were several other “one bombings” as well.
Laura-bot seems to be morphing into Bar. Why would she want to waste her beautiful mind worrying about a bunch of brown kids getting blown up? They were underpriviledged anyway (chuckle chuckle) so I’m sure it’s working out very well for them.
This has been “Today in Sociopathy”. Tune in tomorrow!
#4 – Come on James, hows this any different than Sean Hannity getting a hard-on about Al Gore being a hypocrite? Is Gore being a hypocrite really news? Yet Hannity is running around acting like he just found gold.
What the First Lady said to a certain extent is true, most of the heavy violence occurs within two provinces Al Anbar & Baghdad, along with the troubled cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. The rest of the areas of the country are trying to move forward to build a better future for themselves and their children. Now if I were in her position I would have phrased the statement differently, but I would have made the same point.
Now what I find amazing, and I see this echoed by #4, #5, is that this joke of a story makes the blog, but the positive stories get passed up. Why not post a story on the new Oil Bill that is expected to pass Parliament by May. Here’s an exert from the NYT:
“Before the cabinet vote on Monday, the main Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish political blocs agreed to work together to ensure that the law passes Parliament in an expeditious manner, Mr. Shahristani said.”
There was another story about a bombing outside a Sunni Mosque yesterday, a Mosque who’s Imam was preaching that Al Qaeda should be fought against and resisted at all times. This trend is increasing, or that is to say that more and more Sunnis are leaving behind the fanatics and entering the political process. This new oil bill will also help with this trend as now the idea of one ethnic group getting left out in the cold is greatly diminishing.
So much of the comments on this story are anti-Bush rants and add little to the actual debate of how to succeed in Iraq. Greg Allen you pointed out a fault in the administration’s planning, nicely done and I agree with that to an extent. #14 please submit a link that backs up the notion of 160-180 bombings a day. To agree with the majority of the posters, yes of course atrocities are occurring in Iraq, but they have been occurring for quite some time, long before the U.S. invaded in 2003. These condemnable acts are not limited to Iraq either, they occur everyday in “the Gap” (Thomas P.M. Barnett) so there needs to be a wider perspective taken as well.
I didn’t post #14, but I’ve also seen reports of attacks in the range of 160 per day. A quick search of CNN stories found this article from over a year ago that says attacks in October 2005 numbered 100 per day, according to the Pentagon:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/03/iraq.bombs/index.html
Atrocities have been occurring long before the US invaded Iraq? Yes, but not 30,000+ civilians per year. It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that going into Iraq was a major mistake. The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that this disaster has made the US less safe, not more:
“Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Stop trying to defend the ridiculously bad decisions of the Bush administration. We’re just so exhausted pointing out how wrong you are.
#18
Number of attacks or number of bombings?
Actually, if you add up the number of dead because of Saddam’s hegemonic dreams, coupled with the mass genocides carried out in Halabja, Dohuk, and the quelling in Basra the figures look less appealing.
A counter-factual point, if America would not have gone in, I believe that Iraq would have imploded given enough time. This situation would have been comparable to ex-Yugoslavia, and there would have tens of thousands of dead a year. Eventually, the country would have been split into 3 states but prior to that there would have been as much violence if not more.
The N.I.E. is exactly that an estimate, here’s a line that supports my beliefs (pg. 2): “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.” Note, that “fewer.”
#19
Ok – I have a question for you.
If it were Clinton rather than Bush – would you feel the same? I’ll assume you’ll answer honestly.
#19 – Most of the attacks are IEDs (bombs) or suicide car bombs.
My point in mentioning the NIE is to show that the entire Intelligence Community agrees that the threat of terrorism has gone up due to the invasion of Iraq by the US. What has the US accomplished by invading? Spent hundreds of billions of $, lost thousands of American lives (with tens of thousands of others with serious injuries), destroyed US credibility in the world, increased the threat of terrorism. Yeah, that was worth it.
Yes, intelligent people with an awareness of history and culture knew that Iraq could become another Yugoslavia (and there’s a good chance it may eventually end up splitting into 3 separate countries). Unfortunately, Bush & Co. were not among these intelligent people. If Iraq had imploded by itself, same result as now but without the “accomplishments” I listed above.
#20 – Yes. It would not have mattered to me what administration took Saddam out as long as they did it and were throughly committed to reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts. The best opportunity was offered to Bush I, but he blew it.
#21 –
The costs:
Money – as a % of U.S. GDP it is not that much
Lost lives – a tragedy, but I heard an interesting stat the other day (haven’t checked it out for accuracy) about a comparable loss of lives during Clinton’s 1st term from accidental deaths.
U.S. Credibility – I don’t know what that means and I’d question if we ever had it in the first place.
Increased threat – short-term maybe, long term…nope
The gains:
Iraqi Government – Democratically elected Parliament & a helluva constitution
Oil Sharing Bill – leaps & bounds better than anything Saddam had
Arab vs. Persian Pride – young, educated Iranians won’t tolerate a better form of governance from an Arab country, this could drive reforms within Iran
Preventing future inter/intra-state Conflict originating from Ba’athist Iraq
A friend & ally – …. Kurdi zin Duah!
Multiplier effect – speculative, but capitalism and freedom could begin to spread out from Iraq and into boarding countries
Why does the phrase “Stupid Over-Medicated Bitch” come to mind?
#20, why don’t you answer the question too. The bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo suggest many leftists would have taken a different view.
17,
Good to see that a wholly muslim and theocratic parliament voted for an Oil Law that enriches the American corporations. Of course water and electricity to the people would be a nice touch, but why bother with small details likes that?
VFUbML peace http://peace.com