http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html

Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says

By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; A01

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.

Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft constitution by a deadline of tomorrow so the document can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.

But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how the initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.

Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.

U.S. officials say no turning point forced a reassessment. "It happened rather gradually," said the senior official, triggered by everything from the insurgency to shifting budgets to U.S. personnel changes in Baghdad.

The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.

But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said.

"We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University.

In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.

"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."

"Under pressure to get a constitution done, they've lowered their own ambitions in terms of getting a document that is going to be very far-reaching and democratic. We also don't have the time to go through the process we envisioned when we wrote the interim constitution -- to build a democratic culture and consensus through debate over a permanent constitution," he said.

The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.

On security, the administration originally expected the U.S.-led coalition to be welcomed with rice and rosewater, traditional Arab greetings, with only a limited reaction from loyalists of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. The surprising scope of the insurgency and influx of foreign fighters has forced Washington to repeatedly lower expectations -- about the time-frame for quelling the insurgency and creating an effective and cohesive Iraqi force capable of stepping in, U.S. officials said.

Killings of members of the Iraqi security force have tripled since January. Iraq's ministry of health estimates that bombings and other attacks have killed 4,000 civilians in Baghdad since Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari's interim government took office April 28.

Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Attacks on U.S. convoys by insurgents using roadside bombs have doubled over the past year, Army Brig. Gen. Yves Fontaine said Friday. Convoys ferrying food, fuel, water, arms and equipment from Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey are attacked about 30 times a week, Fontaine said.

"There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy," Yaphe said. "This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start."

Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.

Pressed by the cost of fighting an escalating insurgency, U.S. expectations for rebuilding Iraq -- and its $20 billion investment -- have fallen the farthest, current and former officials say.

Pentagon officials originally envisioned Iraq's oil revenue paying many post-invasion expenses. But Iraq, ranked among world leaders behind Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves, is incapable of producing enough refined fuel amid a car-buying boom that has put an estimated 1 million more vehicles on the road after the invasion. Lines for subsidized cheap gas stretch for miles every day in Baghdad.

Oil production is estimated at 2.22 million barrels a day, short of the goal of 2.5 million. Iraq's pre-war high was 2.67 million barrels a day.

The United States had high hopes of quick, big-budget fixes for the electrical power system that would show Iraqis tangible benefits from the ouster of Hussein. But inadequate training for Iraqi staff, regional rivalries restricting the power flow to Baghdad, inadequate fuel for electrical generators and attacks on the infrastructure have contributed to the worst summer of electrical shortages in the capital.

Water is also a "tough, tough" situation in a desert country, said a U.S. official in Baghdad familiar with reconstruction issues. Pumping stations depend on electricity, and engineers now say the system has hundreds of thousands of leaks.

"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."
I'm glad they're coming to their senses. When you're already in a hole, don't keep digging.

I'm shocked. No, really.

I'm shocked. No, really.
Why are you shocked? Did anyone really expect a democracy to take root in Iraq? Or that Iraq as a nation would end up being a modernized country with a Starbucks on every street corner?

Why are you shocked? Did anyone really expect a democracy to take root in Iraq? Or that Iraq as a nation would end up being a modernized country with a Starbucks on every street corner?

That was sarcasm. :)

What a freakin' disaster. The only thing achieved was getting rid of Hussein and his cronies. Now after total failure elsewhere, we may end up with an equally bad government. How many BILLIONS of dollars did we spend?

Yet more proof of the total incompetence of George W. Bush and his inner circle of advisors.

What a freakin' disaster. The only thing achieved was getting rid of Hussein and his cronies. Now after total failure elsewhere, we may end up with an equally bad government. How many BILLIONS of dollars did we spend?

Yet more proof of the total incompetence of George W. Bush and his inner circle of advisors.
I was perfectly happy invading Iraq, extracting Hussein and... leaving. With a warning to the Iraqi people that if they choose to put another dictator in his place, then we'd be back.

For some strange reason, Bush never consulted me. :shrug:

How many BILLIONS of dollars did we spend?


I'm personally more concerned with the thousands of lives we spent.

I'm personally more concerned with the thousands of lives we spent.

How many MILLIONS of lives could have been made better with the cash?

How many MILLIONS of lives could have been made better with the cash?

Do you honestly think had we not gone into Iraq that cash would have been put into other Gov't (presumably social) programs :hscratch:

Do you honestly think had we not gone into Iraq that cash would have been put into other Gov't (presumably social) programs :hscratch:

Of course not. Just pointing out the incredible waste. Hell, W could have used that cash to solidify social security since he spent all last year harping about what danger it was in.

Clearly the "war president" is a military genius. He invaded the wrong country, for a changing set of reasons to achieve goals that are set lower and lower

He has provided for the future security of Haliburon, so I guess he lived up to his promise to spend his "political capital". I'm guessing that most people didn't think he planned to spend it setting up a re-fi to pay off his political debt to his corporate controllers.

I don't remember Bush or anyone else promising a democracy in Iraq in a certain amount of time. I know they have said they would bring democracy there and show them the way, but if they want to do things their own way I don't think we've ever had any intentions of stopping them - unless they become a threat.

Remember back in March 19 '03 when Bush declared war on Iraq "We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."

Seems to me if they draft a constitution and have a government in place, and we help them train their people to deal with the insurgents - we've done what we set out to do. I'm sure we wanted more.. but you can't turn an entire country around in 2 years. I think the title should be "U.S. Lowers people's unrealistic sights on what can be achieved in Iraq".

I still think, in the long run, a pro-western government will be in place and democracy will eventually flourish in the area. I've posted before I think it will take at LEAST a generation or two.

I'm shocked. No, really.


Beat me to it.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8585

Bullish on Iraq
By TAS Subscriber in Iraq
Published 8/15/2005 12:06:55 AM


IRAQ -- Being in Iraq, I'm frequently asked about my impression of what's happening here. Often, I'm reluctant to say because my opinions seem so at odds with the prevailing wisdom, especially the farther you get from Iraq. Maybe I'm an eccentric since I believe things will work themselves out for the best and for the following reasons:

* The Constitution was on time, despite al Qaeda threats to Sunni imams. The Iraqis again proved the critics wrong. And they will continue to inspire people who believe in democracy and self-rule (not all of whom are neoconservatives), despite what the shrill critics of this rescue operation being performed by the coalition in Iraq might say. The world's perceptions are going to be changed as the Iraqis continue to form a government.

* President Bush is bullheaded and determined to continue fighting al Qaeda and its allies, and he will remain so, especially in Iraq. He won't flinch regardless of the petty partisan advantage sought by his political foes and their allies in the media. Those hoping to undermine the war will have to face the fact that Bush was twice elected, increased the Republican control of the House and Senate twice, and is not backing down no matter how loud the din of demagoguery grows from the likes of Senators Kennedy and Byrd. The Democrats are playing a losing hand again and re-fighting the last election, which they lost but have yet to realize. They'd be wiser to look abroad where Australia's PM John Howard and the UK's PM Tony Blair have both been re-elected despite the same histrionics of opponents in those countries.

* Iraqis too are turning on Wahhabism wherever they've lived under the jihaddis. Like all people they resent religious chauvinism, especially the religious chauvinism of foreigners. The Iraqi Sunnis are not cut from the same cloth as the Saudi fanatics who flock to Iraq by way of the Damascus airport. The Washington Post's 14 August 05 report that "Iraqi Sunnis Battle to Defend Shiites" illustrates the inevitable conflict that will also undo Zarqawi and his al Qaeda co-conspirators. These tensions, a fatal flaw for the spread of Wahhabism, exist elsewhere but are rarely mentioned. Even in Chechnya, local Moslems are fed up with Wahhabi Puritanical popinjays. In Africa, too, scholars report local religious leaders wary of Wahhabi gunmen, who are young, rude, and arrogant punks denouncing local Moslems for the way they've practiced Islam for hundreds of years.

* Proof of the resentment against these foreign jihaddis is seen whenever Coalition forces take back territory once under the control of the jihaddi terrorists. Ordinary indigenous Iraqis show coalition forces where the bomb-making factories are. This is a consistent fact on the ground. Iraqis frequently identify terrorists and bomb-making locations. Tips and intelligence are flowing toward the Coalition. The balance has shifted.

* The U.S. is working feverishly on material solutions to save U.S. and coalition lives. One example is the up-armoring of vehicles from the HMMWV to nearly every other vehicle. Efforts at material solutions are made across the board; they are as highly imaginative as robots that search for IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and as low tech as K-9s. Many are classified and yet to be fielded. This part of the war is constantly improving and comprehensively addressing all threats posed by the terrorists from IEDs to indirect fire. The media can spin the improvements in body armor as a failure, but soldiers never even used body armor before the U.S. toppled the Taliban.

The public should be happy to know the U.S. military is not content if something even a little bit better can be found to protect its service members. The U.S. and its allies will win the technological race. To believe the terrorists will outpace these efforts is to believe they can embrace science overnight in a way that it has no aptitude for; its only hope is continued assistance from Syria and Iran. But as for the terrorists, what have they have ever invented other than killing without pity and then wallowing in the gore on the Internet? And for those who think the coalition is not winning against these terrorists, why is it that Coalition forces are incapable only of picking up the enemy when they do not know their location? When was the last time a terrorist group entered a Coalition facility to snatch one of its leaders and then held them in a known location? It is because of the Coalition's strong position that the terrorists have shifted from attacking Americans to killing random Iraqi civilians.

The terrorists have only the roadside bomb and the un-aimed mortar to use today. An enemy whose greatest strength is its ability to hide is not going to win. This enemy may delay success and drive up the costs. He may create a protracted terrorism environment like that in Colombia, Spain, Algeria, Israel, and for a longtime Ireland. But as in those countries, democracy muddles through and will rule at the end of the day.

* All decent people in the world, and possibly even most liberals, will wake up to the similarities between the terrorists in Iraq and the terrorists in Britain, Egypt, Spain, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bali, Thailand, and the Philippines, to name a few locations. Only the hard left will hold out hope that the U.S. will get its comeuppance in Iraq in some Pol Pot Cambodia type denouement. But for most people, the more the terrorists strike the rest of the world the more they remind civilized people that we're all in this struggle together. Ignoring the Iraqis' suffering at the hands of these fanatical criminals will become less politically correct.

* The Internet makes it far more difficult for the mainstream media to hide unpleasant facts about America's enemies and those who wish to see the U.S. military and the Coalition fail for their own political agenda. As Dan Rather found out, keeping the truth from the public is beyond the broken monopoly of the mainstream media now. Internet users know that President Bush has already met with the publicity-seeking and prominently grieving Cindy Sheehan. The days when CBS's Walter Cronkite could undermine a war are behind us. Now, people can search out the whole story no matter how much New York Times spikes stories about Air America or puts a "they're just Arab nationalist spin" on the terrorism in Iraq. Granted the TV News will continue to fight for the return of its lost power, but its days of shaping public opinion are gone. It can still do great harm, but it cannot hide the truth about the terrorists in Iraq or Michael Moore's soul mate Cindy Sheehan.

* Even al Jazeera's propping up of bin Laden and crew will grow old as more and more people come to understand the symbiotic relationship that exists between terrorists and media that prominently display them. Al Jazeera will have to decide whether it wants to be a credible news organization or whether to prefers to pander to the bloodlust of ghoulish viewers. It may wish to fill that niche market that enjoys repeated showings of beheadings and other backward and benighted violence. But nothing debases the Arabs more in the world's eyes than the impression al Jazeera gives that Arabs have an insatiable lust for cruelty. Al Jazeera, with a potential to enrich the lives of Arab viewers, can either become a enlightening and cosmopolitan influence or further its present role as the inspirers of violence.

* The unthinking use of the terms "insurgents" and "insurgency," implying as they do some sort of legitimate struggle, is now under fire. It has started to dawn even on slow-witted media types that the "insurgents" are primarily the old Baathists terrorists unwilling to give way to the long-suffering majority and the rule of law; that they are also criminals employed by the Baathists; and finally that they are the self-proclaimed al Qaeda affiliates. Those who continue to call these murderers "insurgents" will have no more credibility than if they called the KKK an insurgent organization.

* The Iraqi people have not buckled under the threat of terror. They voted when threatened with death. They continue to fill the ranks of the police and the army as quickly as the Coalition can train them despite suffering the most casualties of any member nation in the coalition. They engage the enemy with growing confidence and bravery all the time. The long-suffering Iraqis know that failure is not an option. A proud and nationalistic people, they nonetheless know that Saddam had brought them to a point where they need assistance from the U.S. The quickest way to end the much-needed U.S. assistance is to defeat the terrorists. Iraqis are keen to do it and to wish the U.S. farewell. It is time the media focused on their courage and their pluck instead of the car bombers and faceless murderers that get so much airtime and ink. Meanwhile, the Iraqis continue to turn on and turn in the terrorists and their mercenaries.

Iraqis know too well what failure would mean: mutually assured destruction. That alone still keeps me optimistic.


The writer, who must remain anonymous, is an Iraq-based subscriber to The American Spectator.


I agree with Zod, neither Bush nor anyone else in the admin did claimed that democracy would happen in 2-5 years, everyone has said it would take a long time.

I don't remember Bush or anyone else promising a democracy in Iraq

I don't remember Bush promising an Islam based Constitution that enshrines the treatment of women as second class citizens in Law, either. He didn't say 'hey, let's go make us an Iran Lite', did he? But that's what we're getting. Which is super awesome.

I don't remember Bush promising an Islam based Constitution that enshrines the treatment of women as second class citizens in Law, either. He didn't say 'hey, let's go make us an Iran Lite', did he? But that's what we're getting. Which is super awesome.
Again, you're not going to be able to turn around a culture in 2 years where women are considered second-class citizens into citizens with the same rights as men. It's going to take quite a while to get that done. To think Bush could somehow pull off a complete change in the way people in Iraq thinks in 2 years is not being realisitic. Which is why I said this article is probably better to be titled "U.S. Lowers people's unrealistic sights on what can be achieved in Iraq".

Heck Women couldn't even vote in some parts of this country for 140 years after the constitution was drafted, but you are expecting Bush to do the same thing in 2 years? Please.

Is writing a Constitution TODAY, not 200 years ago, that makes women second-class citizens a step in the right direction to change the culture? I'd say no. YMMV.

I've been of the opinion ever since the beginning that a democracy such as envisioned by Bush and many others was most likely not obtainable in Iraq.

I've said we should lower our expectations. If we can achieve a reasonably stable government that treats its citizens less harshly than under Saddam, friendly (foreign policy wise) toward the U. S. & the west, doesn't threaten its neighbors, will continue the free flow of Iraqi oil, etc. - I think we can say we've accomplished a great deal. Then we can say both the world and the U. S. is better off now then before the invasion.

http://p44.news.re2.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050815174225;_ylt=ArMgefyH1EaKO6vmcu_9Gz9X6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi leaders have agreed on a draft constitution to be submitted to parliament by Monday's deadline except for two issues that the legislative body must decide, two Shiite officials said.

Two large explosions hit central Baghdad later Monday and could be heard in the convention center in the heavily guarded Green Zone where meetings were being held on the charter.

Nasar al-Rubaie, a member of the committee drafting the constitution, said the document would be handed over to the 275-member National Assembly late Monday for a decision on the two unresolved issues. He said those issues were women's rights and self-determination, a Kurdish demand for more autonomy and the right to secede someday.

Jalaldin al-Saghir, a Shiite member of parliament, confirmed agreement had been reached but refused to identify the two remaining issues.

"An agreement has been reached on the constitution and it was signed and it will be handed to parliament," he said. "There are two points that the National Assembly will have to solve."

The announcement came after the parliament twice delayed a session Monday on whether to approve a new constitution by a midnight deadline.

The National Assembly had been scheduled to convene at 6 p.m. (10 a.m. EDT) to consider the draft but moments ahead of the time, the meeting room in the heavily guarded Green Zone was absent of legislators.

It initially was delayed for two hours, but Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said the parliament would not convene before 10 p.m. (2 p.m. EDT.)

No mention of the role of Islam in the Gov't at this point, unless someone has something more definitive.

I've also said in the past that we should be very careful in establishing democracies in that part of the world, because we might very well not like the democracies that they would choose.

http://p44.news.re2.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050815174225;_ylt=ArMgefyH1EaKO6vmcu_9Gz9X6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl



No mention of the role of Islam in the Gov't at this point, unless someone has something more definitive.

U.S, U.K officials admit now that it's extremly likely that Iraq will have an Islamic based society, but hey what do they know. Of course you missed it in the original article that started this topic

"But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam"

Google it and you'll find dozens of articles stating how Iraq's now delayed constitution will be based on Islamic law.


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wocons154385190aug15,0,6953839.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

"While Shias and Kurds agree on most major issues, they are debating whether the constitution should describe Islam as one of several sources of law, or the only source. Shia clerics have lobbied for Islam to be declared the sole basis of law, while the more secular Kurds have pushed for a looser interpretation."

U.S, U.K officials admit now that it's extremly likely that Iraq will have an Islamic based society, but hey what do they know. Of course you missed it in the original article that started this topic

No I didn't miss it, the original article was written before the draft was prepared so there was no way to tell what the final answer would be. Since the reports are now saying it was delayed (I'm not sure why there was a flurry of them saying it had gone through at some point[1]) it still seems up in the air IMHO. I agree it is likely, but since that is mentioned as one of the points of contention until the final draft is presented we don't know. Your final quote above even reinforces that notion.


EDIT: Ah... I see what happened now, when I said no mention of Islam you read it as a definitive statement that Islam was not a part of the draft. The comment was meant as a comment on the article/reporting itself saying that it was not pointed out what role Islam was to have (anything from none/a little/a lot).


[1] Reading a couple of articles it sounds like what may have happened is the committee submitted it's report/draft w/ the thought of leaving a few issues up to the Parliment to hammer out, but Parliment returned it back to the committee w/ an extension. None of the articles read that way directly but that's the impression I'm getting... or, after reading/listening to more articles, there is/was so much confusion over this right now somebody talked to the wrong person and/or jumped the gun on releasing the "it's done" article.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8585


I agree with Zod, neither Bush nor anyone else in the admin did claimed that democracy would happen in 2-5 years, everyone has said it would take a long time.


Once again the bush revionists strike again. Once again the bush believers blindly follow without question, like brown shirts. If you deny it then maybe it isn't true. Keep following and believing in the ever changing lines of Bush. Once again a republican cited a republican written article to support his point of view.

I really wish i could live in a fastasy world like republicans. It's sad how faced with 2 an a half years of failure you can't see what's going on.

Bush stated that Iraq would have a working democracy soon after the fall of Baghdad and after the "Mission was accomplished" on the 23 of may 2003.

Went went for WMD...we went for Saddam...we went for terrotists...we went for democracy...we went to (what will it be this week)

Bush stated that Iraq would have a working democracy soon after the fall of Baghdad and after the "Mission was accomplished" on the 23 of may 2003.

Got a link/quote? I don't recall either way but since you are stating that he did it should be easier for you to find proof than asking the "brown shirts"[1] -rolleyes- to provide proof that he didn't.


[1] You do know/realize some will interpret that as a personal attack right? Was that level of rhetoric really necessary to make your point?

Bush stated that Iraq would have a working democracy soon after the fall of Baghdad and after the "Mission was accomplished" on the 23 of may 2003.

I'd also like a link showing this.

Got a link/quote? I don't recall either way but since you are stating that he did it should be easier for you to find proof than asking the "brown shirts"[1] -rolleyes- to provide proof that he didn't.


I remember it was during a speach when they actualy had a time table or plan about Iraq and how long it would take it to become a democracy. Will try to look it up.

I do know however that Bush never came out infront of the American people and said it can easily take more than 5 years to get a democratic government into Iraq. He has made it clear from the begining that the war would be easy and we would be welcome and that Iraq and our trouble would be over in months.


[1] You do know/realize some will interpret that as a personal attack right? Was that level of rhetoric really necessary to make your point?

I can easily point out a a dozen personal attacks against me that recieve zero warning. Guess it's ok to equate Kerry suporters and democrats to terrotists and terrorist sympathizers though.

He has made it clear from the begining that the war would be easy and we would be welcome and that Iraq and our trouble would be over in months.

We are welcome most places in Iraq and I remember him saying exactly the opposite regarding the war.

We are welcome most places in Iraq and I remember him saying exactly the opposite regarding the war.

Link?

It's ok, I know what your talking about, it's only 4 or 5 provinces that are trouble, of course the fact that estimates put 50 to 60 percent of the population lives there might cause issue...

I'd also like a link showing this.


Looking for the speach, having trouble remembering which one it was. Although you all know for a fact he was promising a quick transition to a democracy, but of course if you once again deny it, it must not be true.

Are you denying that the though the overall tones of his speechs made it seem like transition would be extremly quick. Remember how we would be welcomed with open arms, and Iraq would pay for it's own reconstruction?

Are you denying that bush stated over and over in speach after speach the Iraqi people wanted freedom more than anything and would quickly adopt democracy?

Are you denying how easy Bush said the war would be?

Remember the "mission was acomplished" on may 23 2003, over two years ago?

I can easily point out a a dozen personal attacks against me that recieve zero warning. Guess it's ok to equate Kerry suporters and democrats to terrotists and terrorist sympathizers though.

Did you report them as such?



Although you all know for a fact he was promising a quick transition to a democracy, but of course if you once again deny it, it must not be true.

And you keep repeating it so it must be true right? The rhetoric on both sides has reached such a monumental level it's difficult to remember what is real and what is revisionist history.

Once again the bush revionists strike again. Once again the bush believers blindly follow without question, like brown shirts. If you deny it then maybe it isn't true. Keep following and believing in the ever changing lines of Bush. Once again a republican cited a republican written article to support his point of view.

I really wish i could live in a fastasy world like republicans. It's sad how faced with 2 an a half years of failure you can't see what's going on.

Bush stated that Iraq would have a working democracy soon after the fall of Baghdad and after the "Mission was accomplished" on the 23 of may 2003.

Went went for WMD...we went for Saddam...we went for terrotists...we went for democracy...we went to (what will it be this week)
Of course you don't take on the facts presented by BHK (or mine) and instead resort to name calling. Exactly what I expected. Exactly.

I simply posted a single quote from Bush at the start of the war where he set the governments expectations. As you can see, he never said there would be a democracy in 2 years. He has said, and I said this earlier, that we will try and put a democracy in place and it's up to them to make it work. There has never, ever, ever, been any guarantees by the administration that it would happen in a certain amount of time. If you can find a direct quote proving otherwise - go for it. Good luck.

Of course you don't take on the facts presented by BHK (or mine) and instead resort to name calling. Exactly what I expected. Exactly.

It's a pro-bush article that focuses on only the positives and maniplates facts. I can cite an antiwar article as "fact". This seems like a press release from the RNC. Funny how nothing I orginally posted can be countered, but that's ok. If you want to cite articles as "fact" they should atleast pretend to be independent.

Ok let's breakdown the completly partisan republican written article taken as "fact".

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8585

* The Constitution was on time, despite al Qaeda threats to Sunni imams. The Iraqis again proved the critics wrong. And they will continue to inspire people who believe in democracy and self-rule (not all of whom are neoconservatives), despite what the shrill critics of this rescue operation being performed by the coalition in Iraq might say. The world's perceptions are going to be changed as the Iraqis continue to form a government. "

Totally wrong. I am curious how he wrote this when the constitution was
still being written.

* President Bush is bullheaded and determined to continue fighting al Qaeda and its allies, and he will remain so, especially in Iraq.

Yeah that search for Bin Laden is going well. Also because Al qaeda was in Iraq before the war, oh wait they wern't.

* Proof of the resentment against these foreign jihaddis is seen whenever Coalition forces take back territory once under the control of the jihaddi terrorists. Ordinary indigenous Iraqis show coalition forces where the bomb-making factories are. This is a consistent fact on the ground. Iraqis frequently identify terrorists and bomb-making locations. Tips and intelligence are flowing toward the Coalition. The balance has shifted.


Another outright half truth at best, at worst a total lie. The army and marines say that Iraq is like "whack-a-mole" You clear one town and the insurgents move to another, over and over. I am wondering why it doens't mention that while some report others Iraqi support that bomb making factories and help alert them to oncomming U.S. troops.

As for the forigen fighters I am wondering wht the actual numbers are. Got a link providing those number? Does the Bush company have any bodies that they can tie to other countries? One minute Bush claims it'f foriegn fighters then next minute he claims it's former Saddam regime members.

* The U.S. is working feverishly on material solutions to save U.S. and coalition lives. One example is the up-armoring of vehicles from the HMMWV to nearly every other vehicle. Efforts at material solutions are made across the board; they are as highly imaginative as robots that search for IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and as low tech as K-9s.

So they were sent to war without the right equipment...rush to war? I wonder how many soldiers that got killed?

* The unthinking use of the terms "insurgents" and "insurgency," implying as they do some sort of legitimate struggle, is now under fire. It has started to dawn even on slow-witted media types that the "insurgents" are primarily the old Baathists terrorists unwilling to give way to the long-suffering majority and the rule of law; that they are also criminals employed by the Baathists; and finally that they are the self-proclaimed al Qaeda affiliates. Those who continue to call these murderers "insurgents" will have no more credibility than if they called the KKK an insurgent organization.

Last time I checked Bush and company wanted the term insurgents used rather than rebels. Using the word insurgent over and over might help people think they were "insurging" from other countries. I might agree with that point if the word "rebel" was bing used.


The rest of the article is so oppionated and pro-bush that the writer doesn't even bother to try to back up the partisan view.

How about you and BHK trying to disprove what I posted in the original article?

Do you zod, BHK or any of the other pro-war people have family members fighting in Iraq?

Although you all know for a fact he was promising a quick transition to a democracy, but of course if you once again deny it, it must not be true.

Calling other posters liars is not a good way to get friends and influence here.

I take it you are backing down from trying to find the Bush quote?

The rest of the article is so oppionated and pro-bush that the writer doesn't even bother to try to back up the partisan view.

Considering it was written as "another perspective" it sounded to me from the onset that it was an opinion piece written by a subscriber, not an official news items written by one of the regular reporters.

I agree though, the author's credibility does take a blow when saying the constitution was finished when it was obviously still be written. However there were so many rumors floating around yesterday it's not all that surprising many people got it wrong.

How about you and BHK trying to disprove what I posted in the original article?

BTW can you please markup/indicate better what in this post is your words and what is quoted material... it's really confusing as it is :hscratch:

Cinten, I think you may be confusing actual speeches and policy of our president with things said by analysts that were widely publicised. It's generally not hard to find things that our President has said using relevant keywords.

We saw this same thing over Scott O'Grady's death... claims that the <b>President</B> was capitalizing on his death by over-emphasizing his sympathy and making him a trophy man while ignoring the many other soldiers who had died... not doing justice to their sacrifices. Whereas... it was really the media that was emphasizing him so strongly, and rightly so, considering his celebrity status. The President offered the same condolences as with other families, many of which he had personally visited. But that didn't stop people from blasting him when it should never have been an issue. Nobody could find a quote to back up these claims of the president trying to capitalize on his death.

I would really like to see a quote of the president outlining a short-term democracy in Iraq that should have been in place by now, or even alluding to it. Just because that's what you feel like he meant or what the media may have portrayed doesn't make it Presidential policy. His words should be plainly clear. And that was never what I envisioned. The insurgency is greater that what I would have expected, but the governmental proceedings, establishment of a constitution, elections... none of those come as suprisingly late. We're looking at a long term endeavor here... not 2 years, not even 5 years... things will be changing rapidly in Iraq for at least 10 years until they get their feet on the ground. There will be issues with democracy, insurgents, boycotts, women's rights, the economy, issues with OIL, alliances, religious differences... and nobody knows how it will end up.

I take it you are backing down from trying to find the Bush quote?


I'm to lazy to search for the quotes, so take it at what you will. If i com across it I will post it. I guess now I will demand quotes and citations more often.

Honsetly though, I remember the tone and the message of the speeches that he gave during that time was that Iraq would quickly embrace democracy. So he might not have said within 2 years or so (we now how he is with time tables), but he did not say it would take a 5 to 10 years.

Honsetly though, I remember the tone and the message of the speeches that he gave during that time was that Iraq would quickly embrace democracy. So he might not have said within 2 years or so (we now how he is with time tables), but he did not say it would take a 5 to 10 years.

I suspect though that "tone" and "message" is being remembered in the context of your own POV, which is obviously slanted against Bush/Iraq war. Looking over speeches all I've been able to find so far is a promise to stay the course and help Iraq through this period. In fact a couple of times he rejected calls for a pull out (the action that has been pegged as the final objective) saying the situation in Iraq hasn't merited it yet. It seems he has gone out of his way to not to tie this to a time table of any sort (2 years, 5 years, 10 or more years).

I'm to lazy to search for the quotes, so take it at what you will. If i com across it I will post it. I guess now I will demand quotes and citations more often.



Here's something to help you out. This is supposedly all the major speeches Bush has given on Iraq

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/archive.html

assuming of course you don't believe these have been edited/altered/etc ;)

It's also funny to see looking over these that the whole "freedom" thing has been there from the onset, just as much frankly, as the WMD thing.

Here's something to help you out. This is supposedly all the major speeches Bush has given on Iraq

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/archive.html

assuming of course you don't believe these have been edited/altered/etc ;)


Nice site, thank you. My pov came from my beliefs and the pro-bush people I work with and some discussions we had. I got some information from them regarding Bush and his belief that democracy would take a quick hold in Iraq. so might be wrong about him quoting an exact time table, will look more into it.

Did you think the war would be more dangerous 2 years after Bush declared major combat over on May ,1 2003?

And here are my quotes :)

Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

I might have misunderstood him about the democracy time table, but I thought that he meant "major combat" was over. It's been 2 years and 3 months sine he declared "major combat" over 1364 soldiers have been "killed in combat" since then.

Here's the best I can find, with snippets:
http://www.pentagon.mil/news/May2004/n05242004_200405248.html
<b>Bush Outlines 5 Steps Forward in Iraq</B>

By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 24, 2004 – President Bush outlined five steps tonight that will help Iraq <b>move toward</B> democracy and security.

...

Bush's five-step plan to "help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom" consists of:

* Handing over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government;
* Helping establish security;
* Continuing to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure;
* Encouraging more international support; and
* Moving toward a national election "that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people."

Bush said U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi intends to name the interim-government officials this week.

"On June 30, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist and will not be replaced," Bush said. "The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs."

...

Bush said transferring authority to a sovereign Iraqi government will give Iraqis more interest in the country's success.

"Iraqis will know that when they build a school or repair a bridge, they're working not for the Coalition Provisional Authority, they're working for themselves," Bush said. "And when they patrol the streets of Baghdad or engage radical militias, they will be fighting for their own country."

...

Regarding the second step, to assist in establishing security, the United States will provide forces and support as necessary, he said.

Coalition officials are also taking several steps to improve the quality and performance of Iraqi forces. The steps include intensifying and lengthening training, improving vetting procedures for leaders, and installing an Iraqi chain of command.
...

The plan's third step is to continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure "so that a free Iraq can <b>quickly</B> gain economic independence and a better quality of life," Bush said. <i>[This is the only place I notice anything happening quickly... and it's AFTER the intrastructure has been rebuilt]</i>

...

The president called the fifth step "the most important step" – free national elections to be held by January 2005.

...

<b>Bush admitted completing these five steps won't be easy and there's likely to be more violence before and after the June 30 transfer of authority.</B>

"The terrorists and Saddam loyalists would rather see many Iraqis die than have any live in freedom," he said. "But terrorists will not determine the future of Iraq."

Bush said he sent American troops to Iraq "to make its people free, not to make them American.

<B>"Iraqis will write their own history and find their own way," he said. "And as they do, Iraqis can be certain a free Iraq will always have a friend in the United States of America."</B>



Well... we've been through much of this timeline... interim government, elections, even further to the constitution. There will hopefully be a new election based on the new constitution in the not-so-distant future. But establishing a working self-supporting, self-defending democracy... I don't see any timeline or expectations for that. Are Iraqis already "embracing" democracy? Do we factor in the opinions of insurgents when measuring that? Is the constitution and subsequent election verification enough of this fact? What will it take to show it?

Cinten,

Thanks for responding to BHK's article, and for coming clean about the misconception about Bush's timeline for democracy. I know what you're saying though, and the vibe he put out certainly was one of a democracy heading to Iraq in a short amount of time. I think that was his hope. I think the plan was that if everything went swimmingly well it would happen very quickly, and it just hasn't turned out that way. It all sort of reminds me of when a president (doesn't matter who) says they have a plan to erase the deficit in XX years. Everyone knows it's not going to happen that fast, but it's appreciated that steps are being taken to accomplish it.

Did you think the war would be more dangerous 2 years after Bush declared major combat over on May ,1 2003?

Yes because "major combat" is in relation to the movement of armies and the tactics and strategy of capturing ground and defeating the armed/uniform enemy that is opposing you. Anyone who said/thought (not hoped since that is completely different) they knew the post war would be violence free was selling something (and I believe there are some in the admin who did try to down play the violence but I don't recall if the President was one of those). I disagree w/ some of the way the post "major combat" effort has been handled. There should have been a tighter lock down initially to control the looting and a quicker outreach effort to recruit/train security forces and just like in the US they have done a terrible job of controlling the borders. However none of that has to do w/ "major combat" and at the time Bush made the comments on the carrier the mission as defined at that point (the capture/control/occupation of Iraq) was accomplished. Anyone who says different is also trying to sell you something ;)

Daily Show: Headlines - Tome Delay
How did Iraq fail to resolve two millennia of religious, ethnic and cultural hatred in seven months?

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=17184

I hope we achieve a recognition, and permanent memory, of a couple of basic lessons; you don't start a war unless it's necessary, and when you are, despite all your best efforts, in a war. commit a maximum of resources to win.

And don't elect any more bushes. Ever.

I hope we achieve a recognition, and permanent memory, of a couple of basic lessons; you don't start a war unless it's necessary, and when you are, despite all your best efforts, in a war. commit a maximum of resources to win.

And don't elect any more bushes. Ever.
Colin Powell? I knew you were a lurker on this board. :D

you don't start a war unless it's necessary

Who makes that determination though? What qualifies as "necessary"?


And don't elect any more bushes. Ever.
I don't think there are any more to elect. There's no way Jeb will be elected, assuming he even tries to run. Maybe in the next generation or sometime down the road since the same families (on both sides) keep popping up time and again, kind of like an American version of an aristocracy :yack:

you don't start a war unless it's necessary
What you don't do is use hindsight as your reason for us never going to war.

At the time we went in both Republicans and Democrats (except for the anti-war few) had all agreed it was necessary. The democrats voted right along to authorize force. I bet we could look at your life and find some stuff you did that you shouldn't have done, but at the time you did it because you felt it was the right thing to do. Who can blame you for that?

There are those of us who feel that we should have gone in anyhow, and many many more lives are being saved because of our actions. Saddam has been shown to have killed way more people per year than are currently dying there now, even in a warzone. So if you really want a necessary reason - there you go.

I agree with Zod, neither Bush nor anyone else in the admin did claimed that democracy would happen in 2-5 years, everyone has said it would take a long time.

Why should they? Over 200 years and we don't have one.

Yes we do - we have a representative democracy.

If you need me, I'll be leafing through my old stack of 1998-era Limbaugh Letters.

I'm just curious what the true criteria is for an "impeachable offense."

This reuter's article (http://reuters.myway.com//article/20050818/2005-08-18T151636Z_01_SCH854948_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-HEARTLAND-DC.html) finds fresh doubts among the republican heartland, and what better way to express it than following Republican Chuck Hagel around the stump. Of course Hagel has been speaking out against the war for over a year, but they don't bother to mention that part.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050822/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=An8X0RWc4WlrCteb1_lP61Cs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Hours before a midnight deadline, Shiites and Kurds reached an agreement Monday on a draft constitution and were trying to persuade Sunni Arabs to go along with their compromises, officials said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Negotiators met for about three hours Monday morning and convened again shortly after 4 p.m. at the home of Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani in the Green Zone for talks Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said would "be decisive." He said there was some progress in the earlier session.

A senior government official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said an agreement had been reached between the Shiites and the Kurds in the morning.

Those groups were now trying to sell the deal to the Sunni Arabs in the afternoon session.

A Shiite television station quoted Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi as saying "major breakthroughs" had been made and that the draft would be submitted to parliament Monday.

Issues holding up agreement were believed to include federalism, the distribution of
Iraq's oil wealth, power-sharing questions among the provinces and the role of the Shiite clerical hierarchy. It was unclear how those issues might have been resolved between Shiites and Kurds.

An initial Aug. 15 deadline was pushed back a week after no agreement was reached. Iraqi officials have insisted they would meet this second deadline and present a final document to the National Assembly, dominated by Shiites and Kurds.

Negotiators for all three communities — Shiites, Kurds and minority Sunni Arabs — met in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone for a new round of talks Monday. Shiite politician Khaled al-Attiyah said the political leaders "have tentatively agreed that the National Assembly would meet" Monday evening.

Parliament will either receive the draft of the new charter or vote on setting a new deadline. If it doesn't agree on either, the legislature will have to dissolve.

Earlier, a Kurdish member of the drafting committee, Abdul-Khaleq Zangana, had said there were problems with "the role of religion and women's rights." He would not elaborate but predicted "either an extension — and this is not good — or parliament dissolves — and this is difficult."

Also before the end of the morning session, Shiite lawmaker Bahaa al-Araji accused the Kurds and secular allies of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of trying to "curb the political process" to bring down the government and force new elections.

"If an agreement is not reached, we will hand a draft and win slight majority in a vote and this is our right," al-Araji said.

Sunni Arab negotiators had complained of being sidelined in the final week of talks and that Shiites and Kurds were cutting deals excluding them.

A Sunni backlash on the constitution could complicate the U.S. strategy of using the political process to lure members of the minority away from the Sunni-dominated insurgency. Washington hopes that a constitution, followed by general elections in December, will enable the United States and its international partners to begin removing troops next year.

Shiites and Kurds have enough seats in parliament to win approval for a draft without the Sunni Arabs. But the Sunni minority could scuttle the constitution when voters decide whether to ratify it in the Oct. 15 referendum. Under current rules, the constitution would be defeated if it is opposed by two-thirds of the voters in three of Iraq's 18 provinces. Sunni Arabs form the majority in at least four.

On Sunday, Sunni representatives on the drafting committee appealed to the United States and
United Nations to prevent Shiites and Kurds from pushing a draft through parliament without their consent, warning it would only worsen the crisis in Iraq.

Underscoring the crisis, much of the country lost electricity Monday after an attack on a major power line between Beiji and Baghdad last week. The power shortage forced a halt in oil exports from southern Iraq, because crude could not be pumped into tankers, Iraqi and foreign oil officials said.

Exports through the country's other export outlet in the north have been long interrupted due to sabotage on the pipeline and virtually all of Iraq's exports — about 1.5 million barrels a day — go through the southern ports.

In other developments:

_Eight policemen and three civilians died Monday when their bus was ambushed near the Taramiyah police station, just north of Baghdad, police Capt. Karim al-Selman said.

_Eight police commandos were killed in a car bombing at a checkpoint in Baghdad, police said.

_The U.S. military said Monday that two soldiers died when their vehicle overturned during a military operation near Tal Afar. At least 1,868 U.S. troops have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

_Four Iraqi policeman were killed when a suicide car bomb slammed into a police checkpoint in Baghdad, said Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman, the Interior Ministry spokesman.

_Police in Baghdad said they had found the bodies of six unidentified men in various parts of the capital. All were handcuffed, bound and shot in the head.

There has been speculation recently that vigilante death squads have been operating around Iraq. Some analysts warn the bloodshed demonstrates that the alternative to a constitutional power-sharing deal would be a gradual descent into civil war.

I'm sure what ever constitution is presented no matter how good will be derided by the media and many on the left. Putting it into perspective, our constitution took 8 or 9 years, made no mention of women's rights, and allowed slavery.

I'm not saying this is what you are doing bhk but I am getting sick of seeing republican talking heads compairing this to the creation of the US constitution for two reasons:

1. The huge differences between what lead up to the forming of the constitutions.

2. It just sets up the responce, "So you wouldn't have supported the founding fathers when they were trying to create OUR CONSTITUTION?!?"

2. It just sets up the responce, "So you wouldn't have supported the founding fathers when they were trying to create OUR CONSTITUTION?!?"

No, but I would have supported the framers when they were trying to create our constitution. :D

As long as we're being pedantic, I'd argue that it didn't take 8 or 9 years to come up with our Constitution -- the Constitutional Convention convened on May 25, 1787 and was signed on September 17, 1787 -- a period of about 4 months. I suppose we could stretch things by starting our count in September 1786 with the Annapolis Convention and going all the way until the Constitution became effective upon ratification by the ninth state in June of 1788 -- about a year and three quarters. The only way you get 8 or 9 years is if you count the Articles of Confederation as part of the Constitutional Drafting Process, and if you're going to count that, you might as well start your count all the way back with the convening of the Continental Congress in 1774.

Putting it into perspective, our constitution took 8 or 9 years, made no mention of women's rights, and allowed slavery.

That was what, 200 years ago? I think we've moved on since then. I understand that Indians treat women like shit, but we don't do that, and last time I checked it was American servicewomen dying for Iraqi freedom, not Indians of any gender.

I don't think American servicewomen are dying so Iraqi men can write discrimination against women into their constitution.

That was what, 200 years ago? I think we've moved on since then. I understand that Indians treat women like shit, but we don't do that, and last time I checked it was American servicewomen dying for Iraqi freedom, not Indians of any gender.

I don't think American servicewomen are dying so Iraqi men can write discrimination against women into their constitution.


And if Americans write their constitution for them do you think it will be worth the paper it's written on?

Women's best hope in Iraq is a Democracy. Let it get it's roots, THEN fight for women's rights.

They didn't have rights BEFORE so it's not like rights are being taken away. I know it's hard for Americans to imagine a culture based on religion, but you don't just undo that overnight by saying "it ain't right" and ignoring them either.

As long as we're being pedantic, I'd argue that it didn't take 8 or 9 years to come up with our Constitution -- the Constitutional Convention convened on May 25, 1787 and was signed on September 17, 1787 -- a period of about 4 months. I suppose we could stretch things by starting our count in September 1786 with the Annapolis Convention and going all the way until the Constitution became effective upon ratification by the ninth state in June of 1788 -- about a year and three quarters. The only way you get 8 or 9 years is if you count the Articles of Confederation as part of the Constitutional Drafting Process, and if you're going to count that, you might as well start your count all the way back with the convening of the Continental Congress in 1774.

:lol:

I don't think American servicewomen are dying so Iraqi men can write discrimination against women into their constitution.

How many American servicewomen have died in Iraq?

The whole notion of comparing the two efforts is ridiculous. Our U.S. Constitution didn't have to consolidate the interests of three or more discrete groups with competing agendas and a history of conflict spanning several millennia.

This is one area where I'm more than willing to give the U.S. administration the necessary time to work through the issue. Rushing this step will vastly complicate everything to come.

- David Stein

That was what, 200 years ago? I think we've moved on since then. I understand that Indians treat women like shit, but we don't do that, and last time I checked it was American servicewomen dying for Iraqi freedom, not Indians of any gender.

I don't think American servicewomen are dying so Iraqi men can write discrimination against women into their constitution.

why not just count an iraqi woman as 3/5 of a man

that way they will start off just like the US did

And if Americans write their constitution for them do you think it will be worth the paper it's written on?

And if the Iraqis write their constitution Taliban Lite style do you think it will be worth 1886 dead American soldiers?

The Iraq War Justification du Jour is to bring them Freedom. All of them. Not just the ones with beards.

How many American servicewomen have died in Iraq?

More than none, which is my ideal number. YMMV.

And if the Iraqis write their constitution Taliban Lite style do you think it will be worth 1886 dead American soldiers?

The Iraq War Justification du Jour is to bring them Freedom. All of them. Not just the ones with beards.


do you prefer a sharia lite constitution, or all out civil war as americans become seen as a conquering force for trying to shove our culture down iraq's throat?

So is this the left's newest curve ball at Bush & co?

Expectations lowered "yeah we can finally get out!", but still not high enough?

:hscratch:

I understand that Indians treat women like shit, but we don't do that

Shitty enough to elect them Prime Minister?
Or shittier than that?

[QUOTE=mosquitobite]

They didn't have rights BEFORE so it's not like rights are being taken away. /QUOTE]

UMMM...aren't guaranteed rights kind of the whole point of drafting this constitution?

This is like saying they've had years to get used to a brutal dictatorship, so let's give 'em what they know.

:lol:
:( I don't get it.

And if the Iraqis write their constitution Taliban Lite style do you think it will be worth 1886 dead American soldiers?

The Iraq War Justification du Jour is to bring them Freedom. All of them. Not just the ones with beards.

This seems like as good a place as any to post the latest Disillusioned Conservative Opinion Piece, this time from NRO's Andy McCarthy:
For what it’s worth, this is where I get off the bus. The principal mission of the so-called “war on terror” – which is actually a war on militant Islam – is to destroy the capacity of the international network of jihadists to project power in a way that threatens American national security. That is the mission that the American people continue to support.

As those who follow these pages may know, I have been despairing for a long time over the fact that the principal mission has been subordinated by what I’ve called the “democracy diversion” – the administration’s theory that the (highly dubious) prospect of democratizing Iraq and the Islamic world will quell the Islamists. (Aside: go ask Israelis if they think the fledgling “democracy” in Gaza and the West Bank – which is very likely to bring Hamas to power – promotes their national security.)

Now, if several reports this weekend are accurate, we see the shocking ultimate destination of the democracy diversion. In the desperation to complete an Iraqi constitution – which can be spun as a major step of progress on the march toward democratic nirvana – the United States of America is pressuring competing factions to accept the supremacy of Islam and the fundamental principle no law may contradict Islamic principles.

There is grave reason to doubt that Islam and democracy (at least the Western version based on liberty and equality) are compatible. But that is an argument for another day. The argument for today is: the American people were never asked whether they would commit their forces to overseas hostilities for the purpose of turning Iraq into a democracy (we committed them (a) to topple a terror-abetting tyrant who was credibly thought both to have and to covet weapons of mass destruction, and (b) to kill or capture jihadists who posed a danger to American national security). I doubt they would have agreed to wage war for the purpose of establishing democracy. Like most Americans, I would like to see Iraq be an authentic democracy – just as I would like to see Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. be authentic democracies. But I would not sacrifice American lives to make it so.

But even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm’s way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace.

It is not our place to fix what ails Islam. But it is utter recklessness to avert our eyes from the fact that militant Islam thrives wherever Islam reigns. That is a fact. When and where militant Islam thrives, America and the West are endangered. That is also a fact. How can we possibly be urging people who wisely don’t want it to accept the government-institutionalized supremacy of Islam?

And if the United States, in contradiction of its own bedrock principle against government establishment religion, has decided to go into the theocracy business, how in the world is it that Islam is the religion we picked?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_08_21_corner-archive.asp#073754

The whole notion of comparing the two efforts is ridiculous. Our U.S. Constitution didn't have to consolidate the interests of three or more discrete groups with competing agendas and a history of conflict spanning several millennia.
- David Stein
You sure about that?

:( I don't get it.

Historical pedantry gives me teh funny.

Suffice it to say I was not laughing at you.

Historical pedantry gives me teh funny.

Suffice it to say I was not laughing at you.

:banana: Anyone who doesn't laugh at me is OK in my book!

:banana: Anyone who doesn't laugh at me is OK in my book!

:sad: Why do you hate me?

:sad: Why do you hate me?

:banana: Anyone who laughs at me is also OK in my book!

Yahoo Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050824/wl_nm/iraq_secularists_dc_1;_ylt=Am1NbcroK97PYHYLSkC37tFX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
By Andrew Hammond
2 hours, 6 minutes ago

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Secular Iraqis said on Wednesday a proposed new constitution left no room for doubt about the Islamist path the country was heading down two years after a U.S.-led invasion was supposed to produce greater freedoms.

The document presented to parliament on Monday is suffused with the language of political Islam in defining the state, and assigns a primary role to Islam as a source for legislation.

"The draft aborts the democratic process Iraqis hoped for and is a big victory for political Islam," said writer Adel Abdel-Amir. "Islamic law, not the people, has become the source of authority."

The draft says Islam is the official religion of the state and there can be no law that contradicts the "fixed principles of its rulings." The preamble says the constitution responds to "the call of our religious and national leaders and the insistence of our great religious authorities."

Language guaranteeing "rights and freedoms" is subordinate to the primary position given to Islam, opponents say.

"Human rights should not be linked to Islamic Sharia law at all. It should be listed separately in the constitution," said Safia Souhail, Iraq's ambassador to Egypt.

The prominent women's rights campaigner denounced wording that grants each religious sect the right to run its own family courts -- apparently doing away with previous civil codes -- as an open door to further Islamicise the legal system.

Although in practice, many Iraqis end up having recourse to religious authorities or informal tribal law, the idea of a united civil code is central to the modern state, Souhail said.

"This will lead to creating religious courts. But we should be giving priority to the law," she said.

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened -- we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment."

UNEVEN CHARTER

Despite the brutality and despotism, the decades of Baath Party rule under Saddam Hussein left a largely secular legacy, which included relative freedom for women.

"We had hoped for a secular constitution that would separate religion from state," said Mirza Dinnayi, leader of the Yazidi sect viewed by Islamists now running Iraq as devil worshippers.

"It doesn't even mention some minorities ... A constitution that can't ensure the rights of its citizens and equality doesn't deserve to be called a constitution."

The only minorities ensured specific rights are Kurds, who have a federal region in the north, and speakers of Syriac, who it says are free to educate their children in the language.

Iraq's state media organs -- the daily paper al-Sabah and satellite channel al-Iraqiya -- have come out full guns blazing in favor of the draft, which the Sunni minority favored by Saddam are mobilizing to bring down in an October referendum.

But the popular Azzaman daily said in a column on Wednesday that parliament would be better off dissolved than promulgating a document such as the draft, as expected, later this week.

"It gives with one hand and takes with the other. This constitution is not close to a modern state," the paper's managing editor Saad Abbas told Reuters.

He drew attention to a list of Baath era crimes in the preamble that gives priority to the suffering of Shi'ites.

"It mentions some victims and doesn't mention others. Communists, for example, also suffered. It's fair to the Islamists but not the non-Islamists," Abbas said.

Souhail said the United States, a crucial backstage player keen for a deal that meets U.S.-backed deadlines, had let the Shi'ite Islamists and Kurds in government do as they wish.

"We have received news that we were not backed by our friends including the Americans. They left the Islamists to come to an agreement with the Kurds," she said.

I saw this recently. I'm sure my friends on the other side will enjoy my posting it. :)

Quotes from opponents when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay
(R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is
they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe
Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may
come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up
their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military
might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit
strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation
will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about
how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a
sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the
administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign
policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they
have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I
didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator
Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it
is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just
learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with
very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month
later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified
rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate
definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission
creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to
bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining
what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic
plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still
is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush
(R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is
they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe
Scarborough (R-FL)

That part is true enough, they're still there.
Remember Clinton said the troops would be home for Christmas, he just didn't mention it would be Christmas 2015.

All the other quotes are appropriate in a pre 9/11 world.
I did agree that it was the right thing to do to stop all the killing at that time but there was no strategic interest of the US at stake in Bosnia.
And, while you may not agree with the exit strategy of Iraq, Bush has spelled it out.

Quotes from opponents when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may
come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up
their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
:scratch2: Isn't it more likely that this (partial?) quote is about sending troops to Kosovo and not Bosnia (we had had troops in Bosnia for a few years by 1999).

How cute, so America invaded Iraq to turn it into an Islamic theocracy -confused-? Do also we have a plan to make France communist?

I supported the war from the start, but man have I been wrong about the USs ability to civilize barbarian peoples. Thousands of good American lives lost, and this is what comes out :mad: :mad: :mad:? Maybe we should just have dropped a nuke on the bastards and be done with it :grumble: I'll never again support going to war for other peoples' "liberty".

How cute, so America invaded Iraq to turn it into an Islamic theocracy -confused-? Do also we have a plan to make France communist?

I supported the war from the start, but man have I been wrong about the USs ability to civilize barbarian peoples. Thousands of good American lives lost, and this is what comes out :mad: :mad: :mad:? Maybe we should just have dropped a nuke on the bastards and be done with it :grumble: I'll never again support going to war for other peoples' "liberty".



Have you read the draft constitution? It most certainly does not create an Islamic theocracy, despite the lamentations of much of the media in the West.

It most certainly does not create an Islamic theocracy, despite the lamentations of much of the media in the West.
Yeah, that's about all I'm hearing about it too... the "disclaimers" in the media are much more subtle than the part that makes it sound like a theocracy. It's a shame, considering the impact of what's going on and how it could be used to unify people instead of drive further division. (sigh)

Daily Show: Stewart - MC Dubya
Bush's simple, catchy talking points are quite frankly, easy to dance to.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=17544

Have you read the draft constitution? It most certainly does not create an Islamic theocracy, despite the lamentations of much of the media in the West.

What happens on paper, and how law is enforced on the streets, are two entirely different issues. I suspect once a constitution is agreed upon, it will not only change by small amendments once the US and the news media are fixating their eyes on some other evil country that needs cleansing, but the entire constitution itself will be merely something to appease western countries.

We already have internal Shi'ite fighting, regardless of the Sunnis.

I'll never again support going to war for other peoples' "liberty".
What do you mean, "again?" If you think back to the reasons given in late 2002/early 2003 for invading Iraq, "Iraqi liberty" was barely a footnote.

- David Stein

Yep. :up:

What do you mean, "again?" If you think back to the reasons given in late 2002/early 2003 for invading Iraq, "Iraqi liberty" was barely a footnote.
:lol: Please.. This so stupid i'm not even going to bother proving you wrong. Scan his speeches before the war and find out the truth yourself.

Edit: I will agree that WMD's was his main focus but in every speech he always mentioned Iraqi freedom as a reason for going in. It was hardly a footnote.. if you were paying attention.

GZ,

We're talking PRE-IRAQ invasion. Not the nice little "feel-good" speech in May 2003 when Bush was aboard the USS Lincoln, already calling his invasion a success.

No, what were talking about is the speech he gave in October 2002, and before the UN in late Jan. 2003.

October 2002:

8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore th