Two Words on Iraq:
[T]he Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections…they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote…intense American efforts to promote broader reconciliation have proved largely fruitless.There have been signs that American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after the recent improvements in security — which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, some officials now refer to their goal as “accommodation.”
The troop increase at the beginning of the year was intended to create the conditions to improve Iraq’s political stability, measured by so-called benchmarks, including a broad agreement on sharing oil revenues.
But those benchmarks remain largely unfulfilled. The administration’s critics in Congress have cited the lack of progress toward those benchmarks as evidence that the White House is on the wrong track and ought to begin a rapid pullout of combat forces.
And it’s not the first time.
Mission unaccomplished is a slap in the face to our soldiers that are risking life and limb for a cause they believe in. Way to get behind the troops you four eyed unamerican coward. I didn’t agree with the reasons given for starting this war , but I’m not going to speak negatively of our fighting forces. If you want to state the reasons for withdrawal then state them clearly, but our troops are capable of completing and accomplishing any mission given to them. Honestly Mr. Colmes, you make me puke.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:41 am
On Wednesday’s broadcast Alan Colmes dismisses those of us who don’t accept the official story of Bruce Ivin’s role in the anthrax scare as “conspiracy theorists”. Colmes is obviously ignorant of the questionable veracity of the alcoholic social worker diagnosing Ivins as homidical, as well as other red flags signalling that this is a government frame up. He should read up on what reasonable critics of the case against Ivin’s have to say–isn’t he supposed to be offering some balance to the government’s propaganda? Educate yourself, Mr Colmes: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/4/anthrax
August 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pm