AP: White House Sticking to Iraq Timetable

[Bozita]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq


White House Sticking to Iraq Timetable

1 hour, 3 minutes ago


By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Despite escalating violence that killed 10 U.S. service members over the weekend, the Bush administration is sticking with its timetable to turn over power in Iraq (news - web sites). The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sunday raised the prospect of extending the Bush administration's June 30 deadline for turning over power in Iraq, questioning whether the country would be ready for self-rule.

more...

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Since nothing is going to change, what's the big deal?

Bremer remains as ambassador, Chalabi as "president", and an increase in US troop strength. So, there isn't any reason to waver. Chimp can stand tall on this one!

[Jacobin]

16. Precisely.

It's a fake issue. NOthing will change after that date.

[w4rma]

2. This is going to be interesting to watch. They're clueless, imho. (nt)

[jburton]

3. Well, I'm sure Iraq will cooperate.

:eyes:

[thetone]

4. Appoint a Prime Minister

The US occupation force will appoint an Iraqi dictator, er-r, Prime Minister like it did in Iran in the 50s (the Shah) and Vietnam in the early 60s (Diem). Next, it will supply him with a gazillion dollars in military hardware. Then the US will split the scene and the Bushies will declare victory.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. No, you declare "Peace with Honor" and then

fly off the roof of the embassy in helicopters, punching anyone in the mouth who tries to climb on behind you.

[diamond14]

15. the Vietnam exit strategy...and 14 years of discussion to maintain

the 'honor and dignity' of the United States of America...blah, blah blah....we couldn't possible leave without having a 'democracy' in place, we needed to help the poor people of Vietnam, 'communism will take over the world if we don't stay...

the Vietnam 'quagmire' ended, as shown in your photo...the USA soldiers and 'civilian' personnel grabbed onto helicopters, pushing others aside, as gunshots rang through the air...

it all sounds like the Vietnam quagmire broken record...Iraq-mire...

IMO, at the end, the USA will be scrambling out, just like in Vietnam....remember Great Britain, and how they got out of Iraq ?



it would be best if we left NOW, while we still have some dignity....BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW !

[radfringe]

6. that's what they are saying today

but will they be saying the same thing tomorrow?

another flip-flip on the way?

[leftchick]

7. They prove how out of touch they are Daily!

HELLOOOO chimpster* there is a fucking Revolutionary War going on right now! You ain't getting your stinkin oil, bases and Embassy. The Iraqis don't want your "democracy"! Bring Our Troops Home!

[Ganja Ninja]

8. Exactly right.

The idea that we have to rebuild Iraq before leaving is ludicrous. The smart thing to do now is leave and let them settle the pecking order. Latter after we have replaced the unelected occupiers of the White House we can discuss aid/reparations if the Iraqi's even will have anything to do with us.

[Dark]

9. No, we shouldn't just pack up and leave,

we should let the UN take the helm while we slowly syphon our soldiers out of Iraq and let veteran peacekeeping and nation building forces secure and reconstruct Iraq.

[Iceburg]

11. Many posters here assume that the UN

wants to clean up this mess that the US has created. The UN is comprised of the very nations that were overwhelming against invading Iraq. Not one of these nations will now be willing to sacrifice their young, drain their treasuries, or risk political fall-out.

[Ganja Ninja]

13. I hate to break it to you but the UN doesn't want Bush's headache.

The UN has been run out of Iraq along with most of the humanitarian aid organizations. Remember the bombing in Baghdad? They aren't going back until things calm down. We can't do any more good there and the UN has no interest in getting involved in a civil war that Bush started.

[JoFerret]

10. That old stuborn streak again

.... geez, how many will have to die for his little resolve?

[yellowcanine]

12. Well I am relieved to hear that - after all, we know that

the "timetable" is the clear measure of "success" in Iraq. Ten U.S. soldiers died over the weekend but the timetable is holding. O.K. then.

[TryingToWarnYou]

14. Make no mistake...

this timetable is simply to get rid of the political burden that Iraq has become. If it was going great, they would be holding on to Iraq for an election showpiece. By dumping Iraq in June or July, theres plenty of time for the American voter to forget what an absolute clusterfuck Iraq turned out to be and how we got there.

Bush can then blame all the troubles on the Iraqis themselves and express "concern".

[moondust]

17. Timetables.

"I also need -- the next leader needs to be patient. You can't put the Middle East peace process on our timetable. It has to be on the timetable of the people that we're trying to bring to the peace table. We can't dictate the terms of peace. It means we have to be steady. Can't worry about polls or focus groups. Got to have a clear vision. That's what a leader does."

"Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Sanctions are loosened. The man may be developing weapons of mass destruction; we don't know because inspectors aren't in."

George W. Bunk*, Third Debate, 10/17/2000

http://www.foreignpolicy2000.org/debate/candidate/candidate3.html


"I also need...?" Can't impose timetables? Clear vision? Leader? Inspectors? :wtf: