Results based means we get the oil.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Typical political parrot repeats corporate slogans once 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.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
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?
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.
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! :)
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.
They certainly will! And it's nice to see that sloganeering is alive and well. :)
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).
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. :)
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.
Separate names with a comma.