Hadley: We Have Not Failed In Iraq
Posted in H.L. News, Main Blog (All Posts) on December 4th, 2006 8:32 am by HL
Bush aide: ‘We have not failed in Iraq’
AP
Excerpt:
“We have not failed in Iraq,” Stephen Hadley said as he made the talk show rounds. “We will fail in Iraq if we pull out our troops before we’re in a position to help the Iraqis succeed.”
But he added: “The president understands that we need to have a way forward in Iraq that is more successful.”
H.L.s Take:
If thats not failure, I’d hate to be around when their idea of failure does happen. So what does it take for them to consider themselves failures? Nucllear Armageddeon???
December 4th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
‘The president understands that we need to have a way forward in Iraq that is more successfull’
Yes, and the Prez, my fellow Texan, knows as I do that the key is Iran. I dont mean ass kiss sessions with jihadists! Iran needs to cease all jihad warriors from crossing the eastern border of Iraq! In oder to stabelize the country you must stop this flow of freaks from the east! Iran should be given a dead line! If Iran continues its Jihad against America in the streets of Iraq, then Iran should start getting hit by air strikes!!! War is war, a fight is a fight!! Buck out!!!
December 4th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Buck you know that they don’t believe that Iran is sending weapons to Iraq to help the nuts that are killing their own people that is something that Bush made up. The military didn’t say that they have taken new 2006 made weapons from dead jihadists. That can’t be true because than it would prove that Iran is on the side of the Nut cases and not for the best interest of the ME.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Facts are facts! People are disputing them all around. It seems like everyone on this site & everywhere else starts bashing when they are verbally defeated. Tolerance & acceptance will result in changes. We have to consider others feelings & beliefs in order to understand where they are coming from. Being so quick to judge, AND twist what people are saying causes more frustration and intolerance. The sides have always been. Good vs. evil. That’s the way it is. We can only hope to help convert as many non-believers as possible by spreading the Word through our actions & words. That is what Jesus told us to(finish my work). Children are indoctrinated with the beliefs of their parents. They grow up and become whatever they become. It’s hard to change, even harder yet to convert. Any christians on here need to remember what being a christian means. Jesus would never have advocated hating anybody! We should not assume just because someone is muslim that they are a ‘muslim soldier’ or ’suicide bomber’ or ‘jihadist’. I believe allah is ordained by god in the same way satan is: to test people. We must not be so caught up in the physical things that we forget where the most important battles of our lives are being played out: in the spiritual realm.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
“We are an independent and a sovereign nation and it is we who decide the fate of the nation,” President Jalal Talabani said after meeting with Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn.
Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s top Shiite politicians, rejected the idea Saturday while in Amman, Jordan, saying it would be unrealistic to debate Iraq’s future outside the country. He said Iraq’s government was the only party qualified to find solutions.
In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. to be aired Monday, Annan said the level of violence in Iraq was much worse than other recent civil wars. He also agreed that the average Iraqi’s life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein’s regime.
“Given the level of violence, the level of killing and bitterness and the way that forces are arranged against each other, a few years ago when we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war. This is much worse,” Annan said, according to a transcript of the interview released by the BBC Sunday night.
–from the Boston Globe
Why are we still there? When we’re gone, they’re going to do what they want anyway. We already won, we got Sadaam. That’s what Bush wanted, right??? A civil war is just that. Let them handle it. I do have a question. Are we getting oil from Iraq? I searched online and can’t find an answer. If anyone has a link to some info, I’d like to have it.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
This site is starting to look like a corner. Where people go to,–well to get there fix. So let me participate in fun.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran],” is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement
December 4th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
But no war is ever prompted by one factor alone, and it is evident from the public record that many considerations, including oil, played a role in the administration’s decision to invade Iraq. Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that many factors — again including oil — are playing a role in the decision-making now underway over a possible assault on Iran.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
The fact that our nation’s politics is divided not between Democrats and Republicans but between the People Party and the Money Party is obvious to anyone who looks at the political system honestly (which is to say, not most journalists or Washington political hacks). Calls for “bipartisanship” and faux “centrism” that has nothing to do with the actual center of American public opinion are most often moves to prevent the political debate from analyzing the People vs. Money divide that actually fuels our politics. We already have plenty of “bipartisanship” — Republicans and a faction of Democrats who regularly join hands to screw over the vast majority of Americans
December 4th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
That the Bush administration seeks to foster regime change in Iran is not in any doubt. The very fact that Iran was included with Saddam’s Iraq and Kim Jong Il’s North Korea in the “Axis of Evil” in the president’s 2002 State of the Union Address was an unmistakable indicator of this. Bush let his feelings be known again in June 2003, at a time when there were anti-government protests by students in Tehran. “This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran, which I think is positive,” he declared. In a more significant indication of White House attitudes on the subject, the Department of Defense has failed to fully disarm the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran (or Mujaheddin-e Khalq, MEK), an anti-government militia now based in Iraq that has conducted terrorist actions in Iran and is listed on the State Department’s roster of terrorist organizations. In 2003, The Washington Post reported that some senior administration figures would like to use the MEK as a proxy force in Iran, in the same manner that the Northern Alliance was employed against the Taliban in Afghanistan
December 4th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
To whom it may concern! The number one reason to attack Iran is because they have killed americans……..enough said!!!! War is war!!!!
Oak-e-samy ! Is that really you!!
December 4th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Anybody who dont think Iran is part of the war on terror is an idiot!!!
December 4th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
all im saying is that lran is next buck.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
As they should be……..there is going to be alot of ‘NEXT’
December 4th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Outlaw! The world knows it and thats all that matters! The key to solving Iraq is Iran, then Syria.
Or we can puss out in the biggest of ways like Hillary, and LA and H.L. want us to do!
Bush is takeing care of business!
December 4th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
‘We have not failed in Iraq’…I must agree with Hadley!
There are 500 times as many dead jihadists as dead Americans as proof positive of this!
The 3000 dead US soldiers in Iraq! That number sells it short! Dont forget the 3000 dead people on 9/11. Thats 6000! Think about that for a moment my fellow citizens!!!gone fore
6000 Dead Americans that had families, lives to lead, dreams to strive for……….gone forever!
Why?? Because of jealousy over Israel………………………and nothing more!
Lives Shit on………………………….By dumb ass islamic fools!!!
December 4th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Bush said he and al-Hakim discussed “the need to give the government of Iraq more capability, as quickly as possible, so that the elected government of Iraq can do that which the Iraqi people want, which is to secure their country from the extremists and murderers.”
December 4th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Hakim, after what he called a “very clear” meeting earlier with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, told reporters in Arabic that “we have asked for the American forces to stay in Iraq” to enable Iraqi security to deal with terrorists
December 4th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
this look,s like our site CON-REP # 1
GEORGE W BUSH ; SEE YA!!
December 4th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
That is what G.W. would say right now.
December 4th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
See ya tomorrow Buck out!!!
December 4th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-halliburton29jan29,0,6199862.story?coll=la-home-world
The LA Times article that I refer to reports that Halliburton will pull out of Iran after its current contracts there are wound down, Chief Executive Dave Lesar said: “The business environment currently in Iran is not conducive to our overall strategy and objectives.” Halliburton provided no details on when its current contracts in Iran would be completed or on the value of the work. The company generated about $80 million in revenue in Iran in 2003.
Our regular readers here know all too well that Seymour Hersh, the reporter that broke the Abu Ghraib torture story last year, wrote a few weeks back that the United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, and that secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites. Hersh quoted one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying: “The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible.”
Hours before he and Bush were sworn in to a second term, Dick Cheney, ex CEO of Halliburton said: “You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list,” he also added, “that the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward.”
So will Bush decide to take pre-emptive military action against Iran? This is the question that I pose to our readers.
Regarding the policy, or should I say “doctrine†of pre-emption, Bush in his State of the Union address in January 2002, labelled Iraq, Iran and North Korea an “axis of evil” and warned that he would not allow them to threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction. Well Iraq never had WMD, as reported by the experts prior to the invasion that the Secretary General of the UN subsequently deemed to be illegal.
we now have the farce of “democratic†elections and God knows what the outcome will be in Iraq in the coming months.
But what about Iran in the coming months? Well the major issue is Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is a known fact that Iran has a nuclear programme, and it is also well know that Israel acted unilaterally in 1981 and destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
In September 2004, it was reported in the Economist that that Israel was planning to buy 500 “bunker-buster†bombs from America, capable of penetrating six feet of concrete and destroying underground facilities. The Iranians, learning the lesson from neighbouring Iraq have spread out their nuclear sites across the country and has undertaken most of its’ nuclear progamme underground.
This weekend the Financial Times had an editorial about the possible diplomatic options that might be available and it states that US and the EU together need to devise compelling incentives and sanctions and enlist regional allies. To forswear the nuclear option Iran needs security guarantees that ultimately only the US can provide. For instance, US allies in the Gulf are tentatively discussing security architecture that would bind in the Saudi-led Gulf Co-operation Council with Iran and a sovereign Iraq. If the US and the EU were to back this, that could advance desperately needed regional and international stability. But for that the second Bush administration would need to recognise the limits of US military power and revive its under-employed diplomacy. It will take the combined clout of the two to make any headway with Iran.
But facts are that US and EU diplomatic relations have still not recovered since the illegal invasion in March 2003, there is no sovereign Iraq and there is unlikely to be any real sovereignty there in the foreseeable future, so the possibility of a diplomatic solution to Iran seems very remote at present.
So why is Iran of such strategic interest to the USA? Well, writing in the January 2005 issue of Le Monde Diplomatique, Walid Charara explains: “Behind the ideological window-dressing of the new ‘democratic messianism,’ there are two main reasons for the Bush administration’s uncompromising determination. First, there is Iran’s geo-strategic status. It is an independent and middle-ranking regional power that has engaged in military cooperation with Russian and China…[T]his makes it the last bastion still to be holding out against a permanent U.S. takeover of the Middle East. [Second,] Iran is the last surviving ally in the region of those states and organizations still opposed to Israel.â€
Like Iraq in 2002, will we be subjected to a plethora of scare stories about the Iranian bomb, Iranian support for the resistance in Iraq and Iranian backing for terrorism?
Well it has already started, last week the BBC was called to account by Media Lens, over its’ biased news coverage of an Iranian threat. Media Lens say: “Even as the staggering catastrophe that has befallen Iraq continues to be played out, the BBC and other media are yet again preparing the public mind for war. If the public can be convinced that this latest ‘threat’ is real, then politicians can again unleash their bombers with impunity. How many more innocent people have to die before journalists wake up to their moral responsibility to protect human life, to treat Third World nations as something more than Western playthings, to challenge warmongering propaganda, and to develop their powers of independent, rational thought?â€
But maybe there is hope, last week the Editorial Board of the New York Times warned the US administration against military intervention in Iran, insisting it would do “more harm than good,” they go on to say “these hawkish rumblings eerily recall the months before the American invasion of Iraq, when some of the same officials pressed hardest for military action” and “we hope that this time, wiser heads in the administration will intervene before it is too late.”
December 4th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
moderation is a swell example of the civility that lubricates the tension of social irritations.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
What’s the debate? The Bush war is lost. Her policy is failure and defeated. One by one, the rats are falling off the sinking ship. Yesterday it was Bolton. Good riddance! Next? Rice? That’s the rumor going on.
It’s going to be fun watching the clowns on fire trying to strip down and save themselves. But even funnier is to see the idiots that support the clowns because they have no idea that the gig is over.
Press the panic button ’cause the curtain came down and nobody’s going to save ya!
December 6th, 2006 at 12:05 am
LA if the Bush war is wrong than why is it that the Democrats are going to let them send more troops to Iraq? They got voted in by telling the people that they were going to get the troops out of Iraq so now it comes out that they lied about what they were going to do or do they not have the nuts to do what they said. Seems to me that if the Democrats are sending more troops in than there is no debate because that would mean that you are wrong adn they agree with Bush. As for Bolton he retired because of the DUMB AS* dems telling everyone that they would no approve him for the UN again which is one of the biggest mistakes that they have made right now but there will be alot more and Bolton and the troops in Iraq arae the first 2 of many that they will make.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Dems and Repubs are in the same category. Rats on the sinking ship. Not all, but the controlled are. You know what I mean.
Why did Bolton retire? Because every nation in the world, except for the ones that such up to Bush policy, those that have no sovereignty, told the US that there is no US credibility until he was gone. That’s why he’s gone. He was a complete asshole. I’d rather tell him that to his face than post it here.
As far as more troops in Iraq, that won’t make a world of difference. That’s a smoke screen right now.
If we ever fight war, it’s got to be based on truth, not lies.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Ok LA here we go again. Bolton retired because of nonsovereign countrys telling the US that with him there our credibility was gone. Do you know just how dumb that sounds. As long as this guy is in the UN the people that don’t have a country don’t believe the US. that’s funny. WHO CARES about what a bunch of nomads thinks. And until people like you get that through your head this country is screwed. The USA is the lone SUPER POWER and every tom, dick, and harry has his hand out trying to get money from us. The only countrys that are pissed at us are the ones that aren’t getting aid from us or the ones that have had their aid cut off because of the dumb crap that they are doing. For someone that is so up to date on the world events you are about the dumbest person I have heard from. You want to quote people that have been either listed as the worst president or been out of office for the last 23 years or just plan say that this is why we did this or that and you can’t back any of it up. You want to believe what a congressman who has been out of office for 23 years say fine but don’t be telling people that they are living in the past because you just set a fine example of that. There have been alot of changes in 23 years but if you have your head in the sand I guess you wouldn’t have noticed.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:15 am
“WHO CARES about what a bunch of nomads thinks.” Are you referring to your family with that statement?
“And until people like you get that through your head this country is screwed.” I’m amazed that you think i am so powerful.
“The USA is the lone SUPER POWER and every tom, dick, and harry has his hand out trying to get money from us.” I don’t think that China considers itself a lackey in the global power context. They have a formidable military and they hold US debt beyond our GNP’s capabilities right now.
“For someone that is so up to date on the world events you are about the dumbest person I have heard from.” Are you losing your will to argue? So I’m dumb? What is your point then?
“You want to quote people that have been either listed as the worst president or been out of office for the last 23 years or just plan say that this is why we did this or that and you can’t back any of it up.” I assume your referring to President Carter? He said what he said about Israel because he’s honest. That’s what it’s all about. I guess some people just don’t like the plain truth. President Carter doesn’t need me to back him up. He has spoken and the US and world has listened. Doesn’t that piss you off? You can’t control what he says and he’s more credible than you’ll ever be X 1M.
Whatever you’re saying, it’s getting weaker and weaker and weaker.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Outlaw==>Where all are we putting our hands out? Where are we putting guns in someones back telling them to them to clean out the register & fill the bag?
December 7th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Hey LA if Carter is soooo right about Israel that why is it in the NY Times Kenneth W. Stein who has been with Carter for 23 years and is a professor of Middle Eastern history and political science at Emory University resigned because of “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments.†In Carters book that just came out. So if his #1 advisor is saying that he is lieing than gee I guess he is Lieing since his advisor knows more about the ME than Carter or I would guess YOU. So you still want to say that Carter is 1M times smarter than I am. Try again he’s just as dumb as tits on a boar hog.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
onthefence I never said that we are putting guns in peoples backs and making them empty the register. I said that they are asking us for money. You want to have an idea about how much aid we give read this. And the liberals buddy clinton thinks it should be more.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=37896
We provide foregin aid to 150 different countrys.
Oh LA for future refrence you might want to know that even though you don’t think that China considers itself a lackey in the global power context. They have a formidable military and they hold US debt beyond our GNP’s capabilities right now. They get 3.1% of the foregin aid that the US gives out so I guess you were WRONG AGAIN.
December 10th, 2006 at 6:53 am
LA, if Jimmy Carter was worth half the salary that was paid him the hostages would have been turned over IMMEDIATELY or the hatchling radical republic would have been carpet bombed back into the early Persian days! Water would flow like a ocean from the Caspeian Sea to the Persian gulf!
December 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Outlaw ==> What else would Stein do? Stay? I’m glad another tool is gone.
Carter and countless others have said the same thing. Do some research. When a former President says it, it must be true. Why not? But the difference between Carter and a Bush is that one is a natural liar and the other an honest man.
It’s pointless to argue this with you. Your thinking is so narrow and sad.
Buck ==> You’re a hateful person. What else is there to be said?
December 17th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
What else is there to be said? Lets see! Lets do some vocabulary!.
nev-er (nev’er) adv. 1. not ever; at NO time 2. not at all; in NO case; under NO conditions; to NO degree. 3. NO dice; Nothing doing; less than none!
Sentence example: The palestinians will NEVER obtain statehood!
ha ha ha ha ha ha
December 17th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
LA, how do you feel when Fa-twat and Hammas rip into each orther???
December 18th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
LA I want to thank you for opening my eyes. But the difference between Carter and a Bush is that one is a natural liar and the other an honest man. I now know that Carter is the liar and Bush is the honest man. If that were not the case than Carters number one guy would not have quit him and would have supported his lies.