Rawstory: Bush, Cheney see Iraq as '51st state': Max Cleland

[wakeme2008]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Max_Cleland_Bush_Cheney_see_Iraq_0514.html

Bush, Cheney see Iraq as '51st state': Max Cleland
David Edwards and Mike Sheehan
Published: Monday May 14, 2007

Print This Email This

Former Sen. Max Cleland says the Bush administration sees Iraq as "the 51st state."

Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, Cleland, a decorated and disabled war veteran, said of Bush, "It is this president that vetoed full funding of the war, actually more money for the troops that he requested, but he rejected the exit strategy. ... It is time for an exit strategy."

Cleland also said after hearing a clip of Vice President Cheney, "This administration for five years has tried to make Iraq the 51st state. It won't work. It belongs to the Iraqis. ... We can't micromanage Iraq."

..more at link...

Somehow this does sound like Bush/Dickie... :grr:

[jefferson_dem]

1. James Fallows predicted the "51st State" scenario in 2002.

Amazing how right he was ---

The Fifty-first State?

Going to war with Iraq would mean shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power the moment victory was achieved. These would include running the economy, keeping domestic peace, and protecting Iraq's borders—and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades. Are we ready for this long-term relationship?
by James Fallows

.....

ver the past few months I interviewed several dozen people about what could be expected in Iraq after the United States dislodged Saddam Hussein. An assumption behind the question was that sooner or later the United States would go to war—and would go with at best a fraction of the support it enjoyed eleven years ago when fighting Iraq during the Gulf War. Most nations in the region and traditional U.S. allies would be neutral or hostile unless the Bush Administration could present new evidence of imminent danger from Iraq.

A further assumption was that even alone, U.S. forces would win this war. The victory might be slower than in the last war against Iraq, and it would certainly cost more American lives. But in the end U.S. tanks, attack airplanes, precision-guided bombs, special-operations forces, and other assets would crush the Iraqi military. The combat phase of the war would be over when the United States destroyed Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq's government, armed forces, and stockpile of weapons.

What then?

The people I asked were spies, Arabists, oil-company officials, diplomats, scholars, policy experts, and many active-duty and retired soldiers. They were from the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. Some firmly supported a pre-emptive war against Iraq; more were opposed. As of late summer, before the serious domestic debate had begun, most of the people I spoke with expected a war to occur.%%callout%%From Atlantic Unbound:

James Fallows argues that before getting ourselves into a war with Iraq, we must think long and hard about its possible consequences.

MORE AT LINK --> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200211/fallows

[wakeme2008]

2. Thanks one of the things I love about DU is people have

saved old links that come back so telling in the future. :hi: