Bush Administration Doesn't Care About Iraqi Democracy

Paul Bremer, administrator of Iraq, May 14, 2004:
"If the provisional government asks us to leave we will leave," Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. "I don't think that will happen, but obviously we don't stay in countries where we're not welcome."
Iraqi leaders, November 21, 2005:
Iraqi leaders, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, urged an end to violence in the country and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.

In a final statement, read by Arab League chief Amre Moussa, host of the three-day summit, they called for ``the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces.'' No date was specified.

Vice-President Cheney, November 21, 2005:
Vice President Dick Cheney said the administration won't set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and that nation's forces are making progress toward securing the country on their own.

``A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations and a terrible blow for the future security of the U.S.,'' the vice president said in a speech today at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, a policy research group that generally supports the Bush administration.

The "spreading freedom" lie is just as bad as the WMD lie. If the Bush administration was seriously interested in Iraqi democracy, they would accept the will of Iraqi leaders and help set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq. However, they are ignoring those pleas, just as they ignored pleas from the intelligence community about the shoddy WMD intelligence. That they don't actually care what Iraqis think of the American-led occupation shows once again just how elective this war actually was and still is. It shows how, more than anything else, invading and occupying Iraq was simply a pet project of neo-conservatives from long before Bush came into office or the attacks of September 11th, 2001. They just wanted this war, period. They want to keep continuing it, period. They really don't seem to care what happens, as long as they get to keep fighting it. The only real Bush administration justification for war in Iraq is that they just want to do it. WMD's, democracy, and mounting human costs don't matter. They want this war. If peopel keep voting for Bush supporters, this war is what they will continue to get.



Display:


progress (none / 0)

"the vice president said in a speech today at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, a policy research group THAT GENERALLY SUPPORTS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION."

Just a few weeks ago, they wouldn't have dared print that last clause. The MSM has a long way to go, but the ball is actually rolling.

by drlimerick on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:05:34 PM EST

The Neo-cons want a Neverending War (none / 0)

Podhoretz explained it quite clearly in A Clash of Civilizations. Cheney has been very clear that Iraq is a 50 to 100 year war.

From VVAW No War with Iraq No Blood for Oil or Ego: (Fall 2002 issue of The Veteran)

The war in Afghanistan is not over. American troops will be there a long time and in great numbers, as in Korea, with no end in sight. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not eliminated. Afghanistan is supplying 80% of Europe's heroin, and our allies there admit they cannot, or will not, stop it. President Karzai is so weak that he cannot get his own bodyguards and must be guarded by U.S. forces. Our allies are committing war crimes (as exposed by Newsweek). We are killing civilians and making blood enemies in a country that has lots of time for revenge. Finally, that poor country is still not getting the aid promised.

One would think with all this turmoil, the U.S. government would want to clean up this mess before moving on to other targets, but U.S. forces now are in nearly 150 out of the 189 member states of the United Nations. What other member state has its forces stationed in so many countries? What is the purpose of such an "imperial" stretch?

We've now expanded into the Islamic former republics of the Soviet Union, anchoring these from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea with U.S. troops. These strategic and oil-rich countries are a side prize to Bush's never-ending war.

Democratic warmongers like Clinton, Clark, Feinstein, Leiberman and Biden, on the other hand, would be content with a 40 or 50 year occupation, as long as we "stabilize" Iraq.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:14:24 PM EST

Re: The Neo-cons want a Neverending War (none / 0)

"Democratic warmongers like Clinton, Clark, Feinstein, Leiberman and Biden, on the other hand, would be content with a 40 or 50 year occupation, as long as we "stabilize" Iraq."

Wow, your thinking is just as black & white as most Republicans!  

I'm sorry, I hate it when people just attack posters, but this kind of quote really pisses me off.

There are some good points here, though, before the lame ending.

by Mark Matson on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 07:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the way out (3.00 / 1)

Cheney to the contrary notwithstanding, when a majority of the US public wants out, and the Iraqi government wants us out, there is no more rationale for staying.  

Murtha was clearly a tipping point.  Within 6 months the pullout will have clearly begun, whether Bush announces it forthrightly or not. By Nov. 7, 2006, it will be crystal clear that the troops remaining in the area will be in the Kurdish lands or "over the horizon" in some friendly emirate.

by Mimikatz on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:39:38 PM EST

In other words, (none / 0)

we are going to do what we should have done right after we got Saddam.
by Paul Goodman on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 07:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iraq- Departure, Our Schedule or Their Schedule? (none / 0)

The War In Iraq has reached a point where tough choices wil be made. The choice to leave should be made with the Iraq government as a co equal. We have expended many lives and much money to install a government of their choice so we should abide by their decision.

The reasons for going to war are indeed a moot issue now. Let's move past the rhetoric and make sure our sacrifice makes a difference for the future.

Mike Protack for U S Senate
www.ikeprotack.com

by Mike Protack for U S Senate 2006 on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 01:05:28 PM EST

Re: Iraq- Departure, Our Schedule or Their Schedul (none / 0)

"The War In Iraq has reached a point where tough choices wil be made. The choice to leave should be made with the Iraq government as a co-equal [emphasis added]. We have expended many lives and much money to install a government of their choice so we should abide by their decision"

Co-equal? Shouldn't they be the ones who decide what troops can stay in their country? At most we should only stay if we are invited. You say as much in your last sentence, but I think the point needs repeating.

Keith

by keith johnson on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We are not equals in Iraq (none / 0)

The US legal position in Iraq now is that we are guests - invited by the UN acting at the request of the Iraqi soverign Government we stay as long as the Iraqi government petitions the UN to allow our occupation.  When the iraqis stop petitioning the UN to allow this occupation and inform the US most our forces must leave we will do just that. We built billion dollar bases in saudi arabia - we were told to abandon them less than a decade after their construction and we left them.  We had no say.  we will have no say in leaving Iraq either.  We are making very expensive lines in sand that our enemies erase swiftly.
From CNN:
In January 2002, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told CNN that Saudi officials had asked the United States to reduce its military presence there. "I think it's in the long-term interest of both countries," Card said.

Exiled Saudi Osama bin Laden has cited the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as a core grievance in his self-proclaimed holy war against the United States. Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, according to the U.S. government.

In addition, anti-American and pro-bin Laden sentiment has been strong in some parts of the kingdom, home of the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.saudi.us/
 

by sporadicallyDilligentRuss on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:48:11 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.