ABC's Jake Tapper asks Reid if US had a moral obligation to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe

[sabra]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3371044&page=2

Benchmarks and Bickering: Where Are Dems on Iraqi Security?
Senate Democratic Leaders Assail Bush, Duck Question on Safety of Iraqi People
By JAKE TAPPER

<snip>

ABC News asked Reid whether the U.S. government -- including he and Schumer, who in October 2002 voted to authorize use of force in Iraq -- has a moral obligation to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe before the U.S. withdraws.

...

ABC News then asked Reid if he thinks the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out of the country.

"It is clear that the Iraqi people don't want us there," Reid said. "It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe. ... We can't do it. It's time the training wheels come off and they take care of their own country."

"With all due respect, senator, you didn't answer my question," said this reporter.

"This is not a debate," responded Reid.

"Will the Iraqis be safer?" asked this reporter.

"We're answering questions," Reid said, looking to call on someone else. "Anyone else have a question?"

:puke:

[MadMaddie]

1. And Reid should have responded are they safe now....?

[AX10]

2. Jake Tapper has been bought off too.

He was not a right wing shill a few years back.

PRICK!

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[Cha]

12. Yeah, jake's changed and

not for the better.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. as in.....how much did he make at Salon?

how much does he make for ABC?

that's all you need to know

[Cha]

15. Ah, Yeah, I didn't really

think of where he was getting his paychecks. Totally explains it.

[The Stranger]

34. Jake Tapper launched a hit piece on the Edwards campaign focusing only on "Coulter Cash"

back when Androgynous Ann was calling for him to be murdered by "terrorists."

[Dan]

3. Well, I can say this

(don't know where to find it, but suspect that this is very true)...as an occupying nation of Iraq, we have a legal obligation!

[Vincardog]

4. Well "WE" have failed miserably and are making matters worse.

[bdamomma]

9. and WE need to leave they do not want us in their country

they did not ask us to invade and ruin their country.

[MadMaddie]

6. We will have a financial obligation for sure.....but we also

need to present a workable and logical response as part of our obligation....and that response should be to gather the regions countries together and come up with a plan to hand over responsibility to them.

With this Administrations help they have proven to the world the US is so poorly led by ineffective leadership...how could the US actually be successful? The US had it's chance 3 years ago to do it right....there are no second chances in this real game of life and death.

As long as US troops are there and even when we leave there will be chaos for years to come...

This is the problem with invading a country on false pretenses...and not even taking enough time to listen to the experts....who warned that the region known as Iraq has been embroiled in religious and tribal war for hundreds of years.

[msongs]

5. all this because the dems still call it a WAR when it is an OCCUPATION

and international law clearly defines who is reponsible for the welfare of a country that has been defeated in a war and occupied.

and the failure of this occupation goes to Bush/Cheney and his appeasers both dems and repubs.

the appeasers are the ones who support bushco and the ones who SAY they oppose him but really do nothing to stop him.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Vincardog]

31. Roger that it is an Illegal OCCUPATION it must end. We have to leave so the violence can end

[TahitiNut]

7. It is, in fact, a valid question. By international law, an occupation force is required ...

... to provide security for the civilian population. But what's international law to an oil company but something to be manipulated for their private gain? What's international law to a regime that invaded another country based on a FRAUD? What's international law to We The People who put ribbons on our cars and talk about a "volunteer" military and applaud desertion?

We're a nation of cowards and outlaws, continuing to permit international crimes In Our Name.

The way is clear.

Impeach. Remove. Indict. Convict. Imprison. (Rinse. Repeat.)

- AND -

Before it's too late (if it isn't already), adopt the plan for exiting Iraq proposed by the Network of Spiritual Progressives. Then adopt the Global Marshall Plan.
http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070226095019665

• One of the core spiritual teachings of all our wisdom traditions, and increasingly of science, is that all life is interdependent. That means that it is impossible to tend to Americans’ well-being without also tending to the well-being of all other peoples on the planet and of the planet itself. Our foreign policy should be aligned with this insight. We need a foreign policy of universal care and generosity.

• Recent foreign policy has instead been predicated on the notion that we must look out for our own interests first. The unbridled pursuit of American self-interest has contributed to gross inequalities in wealth and opportunity around the world and fed anti-American sentiment and thereby terrorist recruitment. Increasing our efforts to dominate and control the world is not the solution. Instead, we need to demonstrate our care for all the world’s people.

• To that end, we propose a Global Marshall Plan that would dedicate 1-2% of the gross domestic product of the wealthiest nations, starting with the United States, to eliminating global poverty and healing the environment. Such a plan must be offered in a spirit of humility and generosity rather than as simply a more savvy way of advancing U.S. interests.

• In proposing such a radical shift in our foreign policy, we must acknowledge the very real fear of many Americans. So much in our culture tells us that the world is a scary place in which one must look out for one’s self. That makes a foreign policy of generosity look suicidal. We need find ways to evoke another, equally valid worldview, one in which each of us is nurtured and sustained by a spirit of love and caring that expresses itself through other human beings and through the bounty of the earth.

• We commit ourselves to serving that spirit of love and caring rather than worshipping the false gods of weapons, power plays, and the free market.

[Strawman]

16. War is wrong? Repentance is necessary?

Sorry. We focus group tested those phrases on "NASCAR dads" and "security moms" and they liked "take the training wheels off" much better. They also want a "noo duhh reckshun.". Doesn't that have a catchy ring. Kinda sounds like "nude erection." It's very phallic and authoritative. Polls well with Hummer drivers who represent a demographic we think we can steal in several swing states in 2008.

Hugs and Kisses,

Mark Penn

:sarcasm:

[Robbien]

8. The Iraqis on the US bases and in the Green Zone might be a little

less safe if we left, but the rest of what's left of the 26 million (minus the Kurds) will be throwing rose petals on our departure.

[Strawman]

10. It's a fair question

It's clear that the Democratic leadership has a serious case of consultantitis and have been listening to their own Frank Luntzes. They think we the people are all a bunch of mean-spirited chauvinistic idiots who will only respond to the Democrats if they outflank the Republicans in terms of insensitivity with a message that says "fuck those people. We've done enough for their crazy asses."

That's what the party leadership thinks of the American people. That's their noo duhh reck shun I guess. DLC cynicism.

It's a fair question from Tapper. It's an intellectually dishonest position we've taken since Durbin's response to the SOTU and we got called on it.

Why not say something like: "We can't make them safe in the short term under any scenario, Jake. It's an untenable situation, our occupation of Iraq. There may be an increase of violence after we leave. It's an unfortunate result of a misguided war. It's the best choice among a bunch of lousy alternatives. We have to leave."

Not this hardass tough love "time for the training wheels to come off" bullshit.

When your country completely fucks up another country, Senator Reid, show some fucking respect and humility and don't add insult to injury, ok?

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. I agree that the current answers suck

The notion that this mess is primarily the fault of the Iraqi people is so obnoxious that any person of principle can barely stand it.

My issue is with Tapper, who never seemed to give a flying fuck about the safety of the Iraqi people until he could use it to call the Dems on their (actual) intellectual dishonesty.

Let's not forget, also, that predictions of dire results were also the key argument for remaining in Vietnam after 1970, and became near hysterical as the 70's progressed: bloodbath, massacre, purge, etc., etc., etc. Then it never happened, and the Red Cross called the transfer of power in Vietnam less aggressive than the liberation of fucking France after World War II (the ideologues use the Cambodian massacres to mask this fact). There was no bloodbath in Vietnam, period. And when you study the issue, it becomes clear that the predictions of bloodbath were tied up in rather despicable assumptions, mainly European racism at it again. Which leads one to wonder about the current projections, to be sure...

[Strawman]

20. I'm not familiar with Tapper's work

I'm sure the criticism of his work is warranted and you raise a very good point about Vietnam. To be honest, I do not know enough about Iraq to make an authoritative guess about what will happen post withdrawl, based on some of the things I have read, I believe it will be very bad, but I also believe that our continued presence there will only make matters worse. Something like TahitiNut's suggestion upthread in post #7 seems like a just, responsible attempt to move forward and attempt resolve the crisis in an ethical manner.

But I just can't join the group in a knee-jerk "the media sucks," "yay, give 'em Hell Harry!" chorus on this thread. That answer Redi gave is offensive. If it was such a magically compelling message that it ended the war tomorrow, I suppose I could hold my nose, but it won't.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. The answer is offensive

It is unbearable, even, an opinion only held by the very worst chauvinists in the country. It is despicable.

[piedmont]

24. The transfer of power in 1975 led to a communist government over all of Vietnam

It was a defeat, but the Vietnamese posed virtually no threat to the U.S. or its interests afterwards. If we leave Iraq and a similar transfer of power takes place, we'll being dealing with a government one can reasonably expect to be on par with the Taliban operating in the heart of the region we get an enormous proportion of our oil from, a region probably more volatile than the Balkans in 1914.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. I don't know that that's true

"on par with the Taliban..."

I doubt it. We might have a government that's on par with the government in Iran, and allied with Iran, but that's a different matter. We might have three governments that have to determine their relationships. That's another matter as well.

The hysteria over the possible "terrorist state" in Iraq shows a deep ignorance of Iraqi history or the communities of the Iraqi people.

But the point is the same. Just as in Vietnam, we are projecting based on a noxiously paternalistic Euro-centrism. Of course the situations are different. Obviously. But the approach is familiar. And if we learned from history that we should not have believed them then, on what basis do we believe them now?

[piedmont]

26. Hmm. I don't think we're off the map in projecting the shape of post-war Iraq...

Any government that steps into power there will rule because it is made up of or has the consent of the strongest armed factions currently fighting. All of those factions have so far displayed a level of brutality that doesn't leave any room for hope of a more benign state. The Al-Quaeda-linked factions have proven their willingness to kill Non-muslims outside the borders of Iraq. That I know of no communist groups had comitted terrorist acts on the west prior to 1975 (or after).
And of course one very likely outcome would be division into three states. If any one of them turned into another terrorist training center like Afghanistan under the Taliban, we'd be forced to go back in within a decade.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. Hmmm. No

All civil wars are brutal.

The communists were, in fact, aiming for expansion.

"We'd be forced to go back in.."

No, we wouldn't.

We have TWO and only two obligations:

1) Remove all troops and desist from further meddling and military adventurism
2) Provide significant financial and diplomatic support for rebuilding of Iraqi (or tri-state) society.

Period. We are not forced to go in anywhere, and the asinine interventionism is actually counterproductive.

[piedmont]

29. So the Afghanistan intervention after 9/11 wasn't necessary in your view?

"The communists were, in fact, aiming for expansion."
But had never carried out attacks on the west.


"We have TWO and only two obligations:

1) Remove all troops and desist from further meddling and military adventurism
2) Provide significant financial and diplomatic support for rebuilding of Iraqi (or tri-state) society."

With which I totally agree, but #2 only if there's a government there to work with.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. What is the fetish with the "West"

Attacks on the West? Whatever.

The point is that the logic of communist expansion, as imagined by decision-makers in this mythical and sacrosanct "West," was a trope to justify all sorts of military adventurism, just as the logic of the "terrorist threat" today justifies all manner of nastiness and nonsenses. And if the logic seemed so clear then, we might wonder exactly what seems so clear about our logic now that is as faulty as our logic was then.

As for whether the emergence of a "terrorist State" akin to the Taliban would necessitate further military intervention, that sort of thing has to be decided on a case by case basis. In any case, such an emergence is not a foregone conclusion, nor is it a foregone conclusion, should it happen, that military intervention would be the most useful form of approach.

Finally, there will never be a "state" or "government" in Iraq of any legitimacy so long as we continue the occupation. That's virtually a given. And any future dealing with Iraq (or the tri state) would have to be accomplished through intermediaries in any case, as we have ZERO in the way of ethical footing to deal with it. We should pay reparations to a global body or series of NGO's in order to build a wall between US policy and the Iraqi state(s). Our conflicts of interest are so great as to constitute a stumbling block to any fair dealing. We are the villain here, and the criminal does not go over to the victims house to drop off checks of restitution.

[PA Democrat]

11. Did the media have a moral obligation to do actual reporting in the lead up

to the invasion of Iraq, or is cheer leading for a war an acceptable moral standard for "journalism"?

[bigwillq]

14. He should'nt have dodged the question

Get a spine Reid and give an honest answer.

[VP505]

18. I saw that question being asked

I think Reid decided no answer would be better than one the Reich could use to smear him, I would have preferred for him to have answered, that's a question better asked of Bu$h as its his war. I am not trying to defend Reid but I don't blame him for ignoring an obvious flame bait question.

[bigwillq]

19. Your reasoning is what makes me so mad

Reid didn't want to have anything put on the record, good or bad. Spineless.

[kevinbgoode]

21. He answered the question.

He said: "And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe. ... We can't do it"

What he should have said to Tapper was: "This isn't a fortune telling service and we don't have a crystal ball. I answered the question based on information we have today. The Iraqi people are not safer than before our invasion. The American troops can't make them safe. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe. Ask THEM."

[Rex]

22. That is such a silly argument. Like clown poetry or kids in a sandbox.

Right now there are many oppressors in Iraq and the Middle East, like it or not we are the biggest. Terrifying just won't describe American military firepower. So here we are, the hated kid and we find 3 or 4 other 'kids', big and mean with horrible weapons, all trying to destroy the others but all working to kick the hated kid's ass, law of nature or something.

Reduce one group, especially the hated kid and things become more stable. Maybe not tranquil, but better than when the hated kid was kicking the shit out of all the others. It is real simple.

[Marrah_G]

27. I think we do have an obligation to help them

But I think what we are doing now is causing far greater harm then good. This situation will never be resolved through military might. We need an administration capable of getting the fighting parties together and to help them reach some form of agreement. That is the only way the Iraqi's will be safe again.

[Canuckistanian]

30. I think it's too late for that

America is now a hated colonial oppressor, just like England was during the last days before India's independence.

About the only thing the US can do to prevent further bloodshed is:

1) To encourage the Arab nations surrounding Iraq to agree to a solution to prevent escalation

2) To enlist peacekeeping troops from the UN or other eastern or middle eastern countries

and, most importantly,

3) The US must make a pledge to GET OUT and STAY OUT of Iraqi politics and business affairs, including a complete troop withdrawal

There is NO way that American forces on the ground can do any good at this point. And they're only making the situation worse, by all accounts.

[Marrah_G]

32. I very much agree

[Ganja Ninja]

35. If Iraqi's want to be safer all they have to do is stop killing ...

each other. We have American citizens dying in Iraq and that's who we have a responsibility to. Five years is plenty of time for the Iraqi's to have prepared to take control of their own affairs. It's time to bring the troops home and concentrate on the fight with al Qaeda. We have a responsibility to keep the American people safe here at home. Why does that seem to be taking a back seat to this insane war in Iraq?