Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (694280)	7/28/2005 10:23:11 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"U.S. Signals Spring Start for Pullout" That would be VERY GOOD (politically smart, too), but it's still VERY contingent on a series of external events.... Here's one columnist's opinion that doubts the pullout: July 28, 2005 Oil and Blood By BOB HERBERT nytimes.com It is now generally understood that the U.S.-led war in Iraq has become a debacle. Nevertheless, Iraqis are supposed to have their constitution ratified and a permanent government elected by the end of the year. It's a logical escape hatch for George W. Bush. He could declare victory, as a senator once suggested to Lyndon Johnson in the early years of Vietnam, and bring the troops home as quickly as possible. His mantra would be: There's a government in place. We won. We're out of there. But don't count on it. The Bush administration has no plans to bring the troops home from this misguided war, which has taken a fearful toll in lives and injuries while at the same time weakening the military, damaging the international reputation of the United States, serving as a world-class recruiting tool for terrorist groups and blowing a hole the size of Baghdad in Washington's budget. A wiser leader would begin to cut some of these losses. But the whole point of this war, it seems, was to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq to ensure American domination of the Middle East and its precious oil reserves, which have been described, the author Daniel Yergin tells us, as "the greatest single prize in all history." You can run through all the wildly varying rationales for this war: the weapons of mass destruction (that were never found), the need to remove the unmitigated evil of Saddam (whom we had once cozied up to), the connection to Al Qaeda (which was bogus), and, one of President Bush's favorites, the need to fight the terrorists "over there" so we won't have to fight them here at home. All the rationales have to genuflect before "The Prize," the title of Mr. Yergin's Pulitzer-Prize-winning book. It's the oil, stupid. What has so often gotten lost in all the talk about terror and weapons of mass destruction is the fact that for so many of the most influential members of the Bush administration, the obsessive desire to invade Iraq preceded the Sept. 11 attacks. It preceded the Bush administration. The neoconservatives were beating the war drums on Iraq as far back as the late 1990's. Iraq was supposed to be a first step. Iran was also in the neoconservatives' sights. The neocons envisaged U.S. control of the region (and its oil), to be followed inevitably by the realization of their ultimate dream, a global American empire. Of course it sounds like madness, which is why we should have been paying closer attention from the beginning. The madness took a Dr. Strangelovian turn in the summer of 2002, before the war with Iraq was launched. As The Washington Post first reported, an influential Pentagon advisory board was given a briefing prepared by a Rand Corporation analyst who said the U.S. should consider seizing the oil fields and financial assets of Saudi Arabia if it did not stop its support of terrorism. Mercifully the briefing went nowhere. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it did not represent the "dominant opinion" within the administration. The point here is that the invasion of Iraq was part of a much larger, long-term policy that had to do with the U.S. imposing its will, militarily when necessary, throughout the Middle East and beyond. The war has gone badly, and the viciousness of the Iraq insurgency has put the torch to the idea of further pre-emptive adventures by the Bush administration. But dreams of empire die hard. American G.I.'s are dug into Iraq, and the bases have been built for a long stay. The war may be going badly, but the primary consideration is that there is still a tremendous amount of oil at stake, the second-largest reserves on the planet. And neocon fantasies aside, the global competition for the planet's finite oil reserves intensifies by the hour. Lyndon Johnson ignored the unsolicited advice of Senator George Aiken of Vermont - to declare victory in Vietnam in 1966. The war continued for nearly a decade. Many high-level government figures believe that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for a minimum of 5 more years, and perhaps 10. That should be understood by the people who think that the formation of a permanent Iraqi government will lead to the withdrawal of American troops. There is no real withdrawal plan. The fighting and the dying will continue indefinitely. E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com David Brooks is on vacation. * Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (694280)	7/28/2005 3:05:26 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Libertarian Party: Talk of Iraq Exit Is Not Enough Bush Administration Urged To Begin Troop Withdrawal Immediately (Washington, D.C.) This week, a top American general on the ground in Iraq revealed that a significant withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq may begin by next spring. On the same day, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spoke in a similar tone, saying that the Iraqis should start taking on more tasks currently conducted by U.S. troops. While it is encouraging that the Bush administration is now considering troop withdrawal, simply expressing "hopes" of withdrawal starting almost a year from now is not enough. President Bush is urged to consider the Libertarian Party's Iraq Exit Strategy, which was released on June 29, 2005. The comprehensive plan calls for withdrawal to begin immediately, with all troops removed from harm's way over a 12-month period. The premise of the plan is to remove the common enemy of the foreign terrorists and Iraqi insurgents – American soldiers. As the "security blanket" provided by the American presence is gradually and methodically removed, the Iraqi government will increase the volume and quality of training for its defense forces. "The stated goals of the Bush administration have been accomplished: There were no WMD stockpiles, Saddam Hussein has been captured and a new Iraqi government is in place. It is past time to bring our troops home," stated Libertarian Party Director of Communications Shane Cory. Cory continued by saying, "The invasion and occupation of Iraq was an unnecessary war with deadly consequences for nearly 2,000 American men and women as well as countless Iraqis. While we can choose to dwell on the past improper actions of the Bush administration, it is far more beneficial to address the realities of the continued occupation of Iraq and work towards commonsense solutions that will remove our troops from harm's way." The Libertarian Party's Iraq Exit strategy is available online at www.lp.org/plan.