Rice refuses to predict US out of Iraq within ten years

[Ivan Seeking]

...Responding to repeated questions over a troop withdrawal, Rice said such a decision needed to be "results-based and not time-based." But she refused to rule out whether troops would still be serving in Iraq five or 10 years from now. [continued]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19407685.htm

 

[edward]

Results based means we get the oil.

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19407685.htm

Let's not forget her controversial promotion to Secretary of State in the first place. Or her blind loyalty to Bush, and dedication to the neocon dream. In fact, 10 years is probably considered good time in her mind.

"Senators open fire on Rice over Iraq
Despite secretary of state’s star power, senators doubt her vision of unitary, democratic Iraq"

...Rice, one of the designers of the administration’s nation-building project in Iraq, repeatedly told a panel of mostly skeptical senators that the United States must transform Iraq so that its democratic example would change the entire Middle East.

...But Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., angrily told Rice that the American people “don’t want the job of rebuilding the Middle East on the backs of our brave men and women and the taxpayers of the United States.” (Boxer voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution.)

And committee chairman Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., who voted for funding the Iraq operation, said to Rice, “Let’s say that the Iraqis, after all is said and done, really don’t want to have a united country…. Some Americans would say, ‘why are we there, if these folks not only don’t appreciate us, but they’re hashing the whole thing up, they literally don’t want to have the sort of Iraq that was envisioned by the British and French years ago?’”

Both Lugar and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., suggested to Rice that what she and Bush are trying to achieve — a unitary, multi-ethnic, democratic Iraq — may simply not be feasible.

Not to mention concern for women's rights in Iraq. For more - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9751656/

Not to be mean, but she looked demonic on the news today -- And people want her to run for president, to carry on the legacy!? :yuck: (Thank goodness she’ll probably leave politics and join Colin Powell in the sports industry.) NOTE: If one simple lesson can be learned, it is that we would have cooperation from other countries NOW in regard to Iraq if Bush had not been reelected. We may have help in three years when he is no longer president (I wish sooner), but not if another individual who shares the same unpopular mentality is elected.

 

[BobG]

Not to be mean, but she looked demonic on the news today -- And people want her to run for president, to carry on the legacy!? :yuck:

Visual images provoke such strong emotions - and are so hard to refute. If the media spread lies (Dan Rather's letter on Bush's National Guard service, for example), the lies can be refuted with evidence. If the media writes editorial comments, the author can be shown to be biased by articles he's written previously.

'Seeing is believing'. When a publication can either pick their most favorable or unfavorable photo of a subject, viewers can see for themselves what kind of person the subject of the photo is. Very effective since the public doesn't see the photos not selected.

It's beside the point, in any event. I tend to share the concerns of Lugar and Barack - is the goal of the war even a feasible goal? I agree with Rice that you can't leave right now or you'd have a huge mess in the heart of the oil producing region, but at this point, her (and Bush's) vision seems pretty unrealistic. I think what Congress was hoping for was a little more realistic criteria for a US exit - i.e. "We don't even care what kind of government they have anymore, nor who they ally with. As long as they can keep the internal violence to a dull roar on their own and aren't a threat to the rest of the region, we'll be satisfied and leave."

 

[kublai]

I saw and heard the badgering by "bobcat" Boxer. Ms. Rice refused to answer the question. She did not say anything remotely resembling " refusing to rule out".

Typical leftwing media bias and sensationalism strikes again.

 

[Smurf]

Typical leftwing media bias and sensationalism strikes again.

Typical political parrot repeats corporate slogans once again.

 

[wasteofo2]

I saw and heard the badgering by "bobcat" Boxer. Ms. Rice refused to answer the question. She did not say anything remotely resembling " refusing to rule out".

Typical leftwing media bias and sensationalism strikes again.

It wasn't Boxer that asked Rice the question, it was some male Senator.

And she did refuse to rule out the possibility that we'd be in Iraq in 10 years. She was asked if it was a possibility, and she wouldn't say no. She refused to rule out the possibility of being in Iraq in 10 years. It's not spin, it's what she did.

 

[Informal Logic]

I saw and heard the badgering by "bobcat" Boxer. Ms. Rice refused to answer the question. She did not say anything remotely resembling " refusing to rule out".

Typical leftwing media bias and sensationalism strikes again.

You should hand it to Boxer for being one of the VERY few who were brave enough to vote against the 2002 Iraq war resolution. I have a hard time believing anyone is happy about the invasion now.

 

[Gokul43201]

I saw and heard the badgering by "bobcat" Boxer. Ms. Rice refused to answer the question. She did not say anything remotely resembling " refusing to rule out".

Who claimed that Rice said anything remotely resembling "refusing to rule out" ? The contention is that Rice refused to rule out something. She was asked if she would rule out a certain possibility and she did not agree to do it - ie. : she refused to rule out the possibility !

See, it's simple !

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It wasn't Boxer that asked Rice the question, it was some male Senator.
And she did refuse to rule out the possibility that we'd be in Iraq in 10 years. She was asked if it was a possibility, and she wouldn't say no. She refused to rule out the possibility of being in Iraq in 10 years. It's not spin, it's what she did.

Thank you. There is spin and then there are facts, and IMO, part of the problem today in the US is that far too many people can't tell the difference.

 

[loseyourname]

The real problem is that one cannot even present a fact without spinning it. Take these two statements:

1) Condi declined to answer questions demanding a timetable for troop withdrawal.

2) Condi refused to rule out continued American presence for another decade.

These two statements express the exact same fact and both are equally accurate. Nonetheless, the impression a reader will get upon reading them will be quite difference depending on which he reads.

 

[Tide]

There is spin and then there are facts, and IMO, part of the problem today in the US is that far too many people can't tell the difference.

Indeed!

It was perfectly clear that Condi (or was it Leeza speaking?;) did not want to telegraph to the "insurgents" when the U.S. will be pulling out of Iraq and there are good reasons for that. Some Senators (Lugar e.g.) understand the principle but press for some kind of timetable anyway. That's not entirely unreasonable since we would all like to know!

But then there were those (Sarbanes, e.g.) who seem to think badgering the witness is obligatory so they beat up on her just because they can. Will we see troop reductions next year, the year after, in five years, in ten years - tell us NOW! Condi stuck to her script which IMHO was a mistake. The correct answer would have been "Certainly we'll see our troops return well within ten years but I'm still not going to cite a specific time."

She did not come off looking very good saying it was "not appropriate" to "try and speculate" about such matters. I thought the bully senator came off looking much worse for his condescending attitude but then that is not what people here chose to discuss.

Now, what was that about spin?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Indeed!
It was perfectly clear that Condi (or was it Leeza speaking?;) did not want to telegraph to the "insurgents" when the U.S. will be pulling out of Iraq and there are good reasons for that. Some Senators (Lugar e.g.) understand the principle but press for some kind of timetable anyway. That's not entirely unreasonable since we would all like to know!
But then there were those (Sarbanes, e.g.) who seem to think badgering the witness is obligatory so they beat up on her just because they can. Will we see troop reductions next year, the year after, in five years, in ten years - tell us NOW! Condi stuck to her script which IMHO was a mistake. The correct answer would have been "Certainly we'll see our troops return well within ten years but I'm still not going to cite a specific time."
She did not come off looking very good saying it was "not appropriate" to "try and speculate" about such matters. I thought the bully senator came off looking much worse for his condescending attitude but then that is not what people here chose to discuss.
Now, what was that about spin?

Funny, your answer was almost as long as hers.

It is really very simple. Bush rushed to war on bad and misleading information, probably intentionally misleading at that, and when no WMDs were found he changed the justification for the war. Now people want to know when we are getting out. Bush's responsibility is first to the American people, but he refuses to answer to his illegal war based on the "signal that it will send". How long are you going to fall for that one? How long can he keep saying this given no clear definition of acceptable conditions for withdrawal?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How about sending a signal to the people of Iraq that they need to pull it together. How about sending a signal to the UN and other nations that they had better help take up the slack or the place will slide into chaos.

 

[Tide]

Ivan,

How long are you going to fall for that one?

I'm not sure what you have fallen for or into but Logic 101 dictates that merely describing another person's rationale is not "falling for it."

The issue was spin and you're certainly torquing it up to the hilt! :)

 

[Skyhunter]

Indeed!
It was perfectly clear that Condi (or was it Leeza speaking?;) did not want to telegraph to the "insurgents" when the U.S. will be pulling out of Iraq and there are good reasons for that. Some Senators (Lugar e.g.) understand the principle but press for some kind of timetable anyway. That's not entirely unreasonable since we would all like to know!
But then there were those (Sarbanes, e.g.) who seem to think badgering the witness is obligatory so they beat up on her just because they can. Will we see troop reductions next year, the year after, in five years, in ten years - tell us NOW! Condi stuck to her script which IMHO was a mistake. The correct answer would have been "Certainly we'll see our troops return well within ten years but I'm still not going to cite a specific time."
She did not come off looking very good saying it was "not appropriate" to "try and speculate" about such matters. I thought the bully senator came off looking much worse for his condescending attitude but then that is not what people here chose to discuss.
Now, what was that about spin?

Some people will believe anything.

We are building permanent bases and refusing to say when we are leaving.

Must be for the reason they tell us; "It will send the wrong signal to the enemy, which btw didn't exist before we invaded.

Just like when they lied about WMD to justify the war to begin with.

I guess you can fool some of the people all of the time.

 

[Tide]

Some people will believe anything.

They certainly will! And it's nice to see that sloganeering is alive and well. :)

 

[faust9]

Indeed!
It was perfectly clear that Condi (or was it Leeza speaking?;) did not want to telegraph to the "insurgents" when the U.S. will be pulling out of Iraq and there are good reasons for that. Some Senators (Lugar e.g.) understand the principle but press for some kind of timetable anyway. That's not entirely unreasonable since we would all like to know!
But then there were those (Sarbanes, e.g.) who seem to think badgering the witness is obligatory so they beat up on her just because they can. Will we see troop reductions next year, the year after, in five years, in ten years - tell us NOW! Condi stuck to her script which IMHO was a mistake. The correct answer would have been "Certainly we'll see our troops return well within ten years but I'm still not going to cite a specific time."
She did not come off looking very good saying it was "not appropriate" to "try and speculate" about such matters. I thought the bully senator came off looking much worse for his condescending attitude but then that is not what people here chose to discuss.
Now, what was that about spin?

Oh c'mon! You think by setting a 5 year timetable we will somehow alter the insurgency? Hell, the admin keeps saying "We don't want them to know when we are leaving because they will just wait for us to leave." Well, if we set a five year timetable AND they do wait for us to leave(unlikely but this is the administrations line) then that gives us 5 years of relative peace in Iraq to actually win some people over.

The fact is no matter what we say or do, no matter when we say we will leave or when we do leave, the insurgency will not change. Look at the Algerian conflict---it parallels this very well---or Viet Nam. In the end both of those conflicts were lost because leaders in lands far-far away didn't think things out. Couple a growing dislike for both conflicts at home (as is the case here) and there you go.

What's odd is that people are defending Rice when she clearly refused to set even a ten year time table. The admin needed a new home for its military bases and Iraq was the best choice. Saudi Arabia was costing us too much (Bin Laden: where is he) but we couldn't simply cut and run from the region all together. They felt we needed to protect our interests in the region and as such they are moving us in "indefinetly". They thought toppeling an unpopular dictator would give them an open door and a warm bed to crawl into; however, they failed to analyze the situation beyond their grandeous ideals.

As you said Rice could have answered the question, but she didn't. She chooses not to think for herself, but instead tows the line. She deserved the tounge lashing she got and then some. The admin has been asked these questions time and time again and always responds the same way. Rummy, Rice, Powell, you name'em, have all given the same answer. As time has progressed so has the disdain toward the answer. The senator in question wasn't "bullying" the witness. The witness, and those like her, have repeatedly dodged this question and MANY senators are getting tired of the canned answer. It's not bullying to demand an answer from a witness especially when there have been multiple attempts to get this answer (I would venture a guess of about a dozen attempts in the last two years from the senate).

 

[Tide]

faust,

You think by setting a 5 year timetable we will somehow alter the insurgency?

Oh, for crying out loud! I didn't TELL you what I think. I told you what I thought Condi's position is. Are you people so full of venom that you have to put words in people's mouths?

Just for the record I will tell you what I think. At the time and to the present I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq . The evidence was flimsy (wrong gauge aluminum tubes for centrifuges was hysterical) and I didn't think the consequences were fully thought out.

Regarding WMD, Saddam did, in fact, have them. He used them on the Kurds and in the Iran-Iraq war. The world's intelligence agencies and leaders from Arab nations all said he had them. There is no record or documentation of them having been destroyed. It wasn't that much of a stretch to believe he still had them. Nevertheless, the evidence was not airtight. It is a stretch, however, to call it a lie. Adequate justification for going to war? I doubt it but I don't think it's all black and white.
Does Bush have other geopolitical aims for the region? Almost certainly. Do any of us have facts to back that up? No we don't! Unless you have SCI you don't have access to that kind of information (and I don't think anyone here does).

In any case, the US in there and I think it would be a grave error to withdraw immediatey.

Regarding the exchange between Ms. Rice and the Senators, I thought it was made clear very early on that the Secretary of State did not want to answer the timetable question, for whatever reason. It's pretty tacky for a Senator to persist tenaciously when he's been given clear indications from a member of the Executive Branch (remember separation of powers?) that she's not going to answer the question. We're not talking criminal investigation here and there is no reason why respect and manners shouldn't prevail. Moreover, she is not the person with the authority to decide on withdrawal or a timetable.

Nevertheless, the spinmeisters will have a field day with it. I guess it makes them feel better or something but the shrillness and animosity are neither productive nor informative.

In the meantime, I look forward to your posting pictures of those permanent air bases being built in Iraq. :)

 

[SOS2008]

When a publication can either pick their most favorable or unfavorable photo of a subject, viewers can see for themselves what kind of person the subject of the photo is. Very effective since the public doesn't see the photos not selected.

I was referring to broadcast news—no particular photo. Heavy eyelids make her look pissed off in general, but I think the extra strain was showing. As you said, “It's beside the point, in any event.”

People may note that liberals are just as concerned about leaving Iraq in chaos as Bush supporters may be. The difference is whether one falls for the nation-building spin. This is a policy worthy of serious debate that seems to be ignored. In the meantime, the Bush administration does not want to admit to failure, or to lose their last hold on their base. They want people to accept a long-term vision—with no mile stone measurement--so they don’t have to answer to anything while they try to recover popularity.

An exist strategy is needed, preferably with international efforts, which would be helpful to everyone including Iraqis. I have yet to see anyone substantiate how a plan would be truly detrimental, and find it illogical that people think having no plan is a good thing.

 

[Skyhunter]

In the meantime, I look forward to your posting pictures of those permanent air bases being built in Iraq. :)

And be arrested for espionage.

[edit] I never said air bases, I said permanent bases. This has not been confirmed, however there is base construction going on with a permanent nature along with temporary base construction as well. [/edit]

 

[loseyourname]

Doesn't the US have bases in a lot of countries?

 

[Townsend]

Doesn't the US have bases in a lot of countries?

Yeah...all over the world pretty much.

 

[SOS2008]

Doesn't the US have bases in a lot of countries?

Yes (I think about 65 major U.S. military installations worldwide) presumably with permission from the governments of those countries to attain mutually beneficial goals.

We lost our presence in Iran, countries like Egypt only pretend to be pro-West, and all the countries including the Saudi's are facing immense pressure from their populace about U.S. presence there... What should we do, what should we do?

 

[Skyhunter]

Yeah...all over the world pretty much.

And there are those that still say America is not an empire?

It is the presence of American bases and soldiers (infidels) in Saudi Arabia that prompted Al Qaeda to attack the US.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Doesn't the US have bases in a lot of countries?

Yeah ... and if it is a secret base, you can spot them by the people standing outside with the Yankee Go home signs.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yes (I think about 65 major U.S. military installations worldwide) presumably with permission from the governments of those countries to attain mutually beneficial goals.

Yeah, Like Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines... :rofl:

"You keep me in power as a despot and I let you harrass the Chinese"

Mutually beneficial ... Yup.

 

[Astronuc]

How Scary Is This?

By BOB HERBERT, Op-Ed Columnist, NY Times, October 24, 2005

The White House is sweating out the possibility that one or more top officials will soon be indicted on criminal charges. But the Bush administration is immune to prosecution for its greatest offense - its colossal and profoundly tragic incompetence.

Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressed the administration's arrogance and ineptitude in a talk last week that was astonishingly candid by Washington standards.

"We have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran," said Mr. Wilkerson. "Generally, with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita ... we haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."


Mr. Wilkerson gave his talk before an audience at the New America Foundation, an independent public policy institute. On the all-important matter of national security, which many voters had seen as the strength of the administration, Mr. Wilkerson said:

"The case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."

When the time came to implement the decisions, said Mr. Wilkerson, they were "presented in such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn't know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out."

Where was the president? According to Mr. Wilkerson, "You've got this collegiality there between the secretary of defense and the vice president, and you've got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either."

One of the consequences of this dysfunction, as I have noted many times, is the unending parade of dead or badly wounded men and women returning to the U.S. from the war in Iraq - a war that the administration foolishly launched but now does not know how to win or end.

While not "evaluating the decision to go to war," Mr. Wilkerson told his audience that under the present circumstances "we can't leave Iraq. We simply can't." In his view, if American forces were to pull out too quickly, the U.S. would end up returning to the Middle East with "five million men and women under arms" within a decade.

Nevertheless, he is appalled at the way the war was launched and conducted, and outraged by "the detainee abuse issue." In 10 years, he said, when this matter is "put to the acid test, ironed out, and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen."

Mr. Wilkerson said he has taken some heat for speaking out, but feels that "as a citizen of this great republic," he has an obligation to do so. If nothing is done about the current state of affairs, he said, "it's going to get even more dangerous than it already is."

 

[pattylou]

Thanks Astronuc. Wow.

Nevertheless, he is appalled at the way the war was launched and conducted, and outraged by "the detainee abuse issue." In 10 years, he said, when this matter is "put to the acid test, ironed out, and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen."

It is shameful. Incredibly so. That's one of the main reasons I have wanted to leave this country since last november, and a major factor for why I began participating on political boards with a decent percentage of foreigners ---- As a means of saying to the world that current foreign policy is not representative of my American ideals and values.

(I also submitted a picture to "Sorry everybody" dot com, but I don't know what page it's on.)

And, not trying to derail, just piping up that these actions have indeed been shameful.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As if this was some big secret...

Watch PBS

 

[edward]

the U.S. would end up returning to the Middle East with "five million men and women under arms" within a decade.

It may be a lot sooner than ten years if the Bush adminstration insists on keeping its current "quarterly" changing of our reason for being in Iraq.

First we had WMD, then Iraqi freedom, then Democracy for Iraq, then defeat the insergents, then defeat global terroism. And not it is to "fight Radical Islam wherever it endangers peoples who love freedom."

When it comes down to making a decision on which side to support , moderate Isalm will support Radical isalm. That will leave us facing an enemy numbering close to one billion.

 

[Astronuc]

I heard this today - http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/GLAA001.shtml

How America Lost Iraq
Aaron Glantz

In Iraq, most of the corporate journalists, when they venture outside their heavily guarded hotels, travel with US troops and base their stories on what the military tells them. Not so- Aaron Glantz, who went to Iraq totally un-embedded. And what he learned initially was not what he had expected. Most Iraqis welcomed the Americans and patiently accepted the hardship and destruction as a final sacrifice on their way to freedom. But as the occupation dragged on, and as living conditions and the security situation steadily worsened, the Americans were no longer viewed as liberators, but as oppressors. Glantz's eyewitness account gives insight into what is fueling the insurgency in Iraq.

Aaron Glantz

Aaron Glantz, a reporter for Pacifica Radio, has been to Iraq many times. He is the author of "How America Lost Iraq."

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld blew it from the beginning.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It may be a lot sooner than ten years if the Bush adminstration insists on keeping its current "quarterly" changing of our reason for being in Iraq.
First we had WMD, then Iraqi freedom, then Democracy for Iraq, then defeat the insergents, then defeat global terroism. And not it is to "fight Radical Islam wherever it endangers peoples who love freedom."
When it comes down to making a decision on which side to support , moderate Isalm will support Radical isalm. That will leave us facing an enemy numbering close to one billion.

Yes ... on THAT front.

Then we get the litany of others from Venezuela to China.

Africa's still miffed on the Aid for Aids shortchange for joining the coalition of the willing.

Turkey still holds a grudge over the Airport thingy.

The Phillipines and Spain are miffed because of their treatment when they left Iraq.

France is still pissed the US served Burgers and Freedom Fries at the Nato meeting.

Canada is seeing a revival of the softwood lumber thingy.

Japan is livid the US wouldn't support their UN bid.

Ummmm ... Have I missed anyone?

Oh, yes they told the president of Taiwan to STFU about independence.

Have I mentioned the US MIGHT have a problem with isolationism?

 

[Skyhunter]

Have I mentioned the US MIGHT have a problem with isolationism?

When isolationism is forced, I believe it is called "shunning"

Good to have you back TSM.

 

[SOS2008]

First we had WMD, then Iraqi freedom, then Democracy for Iraq, then defeat the insergents, then defeat global terroism. And now it is to "fight Radical Islam wherever it endangers peoples who love freedom."

Barbara Boxer just made this statement: "Secretary Rice rewrote history yet again, claiming that rebuilding the entire Middle East has been the Bush Administration's stated mission ever since 9/11." Doesn’t Rice know the neocons (who may have always had this goal) are now distancing themselves from Bush because he has botched their great vision?