Unless Bush gets some significant pressure from Congress, don't be surprised if the troops are in Iraq longer than the Iraqi leaders want, simply because Bush doesn't want to leave Iraq.

As I stated before, once the coalition troops have trained Iraqi military, police and security forces, once the December 15, elections have been concluded (thus resulting in an executive, legislative and judicial branch), and all responsiblities are met, U.S. troops can declare victory and come home. Not a moment to soon.

Once the distraction of Iraq is gone for Bush, things just might get even uglier for him here. He knows this. So, he'll keep preaching to the choir at military bases.

OK, but Bush says he only wants to stay in Iraq to keep it safe, so if Iraqi leaders are now assuring us that they will be able to protect the country themselves by the ned of next year, what is his stake in it? Why would he stay?(I have no doubt he probably will not mention this at all and not do anything and come up with no timetable, but what the hell would his motive be?)

But that's just the point. Iraq will never be safe. Thus, Bush will be "justified" in keeping U.S. trooops there indefinitely.

By the way, did anyone read the few details released about the conviction of the Muslim American student, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali of conspiring with Al Qaedda to assassinate President Bush in today's news? The details are very unsettling.

This was the defendent who lives in Falls Church, VA with his Jordanian father and was attending university in Saudi Arabia. He was arrested and interrogated in June 2003 in Saudi Arabia by Saudi authorities for at least a week, supposedly all captured on videotape. However, the evidence that was used to convict him was, "Notes provided by Saudi interrogators said Abu Ali had talked of several plots, including a plan to assassinate Bush." Notes? I thought the whole thing was on videotape!

A member of the jury, Nancy Ramsden said, "It was very telling. It was almost sort of a joke for him,? she said, referring to points in the tape where Abu Ali laughs and pantomimes the use of an assault rifle.

The defendent claimed he was tortured and coerced into confessing. His attorneys presented a doctor and a psychiatrist who said his account was consistent with being tortured. He also claimed that he had lines on his back that showed he had been whipped.

Ramsden said the jurors agreed from the beginning they did not believe Abu Ali was physically tortured. A dermatologist testified for the government that faint linear marks on Abu Ali's back were only surface scratches.

Excuse me? His entire defense was that he was tortured in Saudi Arabia and that his confession was extracted under the duress and was therefore inadmissable. Yet press reports tell us that the jury deliberated for 2 1/2 days. What the heck were they talking about for all that time?

Further, the press reports that there was no actual evidence presented of any active plots to kill the President. The only evidence reported in that regard was that the defendent didn't like Pres. Bush and wanted to see him dead.

In other words, this defendent (the valedictorian in his high school class in Virginia) was convicted based on a statement that was equivalent to "I'm going to kill you," with no weapon, no plot, no actual active conspiracy.

Obviously, we don't have all the facts that were presented at the three week trial. Press reports are extremely sketchy, as they so often are in trial cases. But I gotta wonder about what the heck this jury was thinking. I also have to wonder what the press was thinking, presenting such poor versions of the evidence together. I couldn't even find all of the above in one article. I had to piece it together from articles in a number of publications from around the world using Google news.

Something is very, very wrong.

The majority of members in congress, especially the senate, should be sued for congressional malpractice. If found guilty, they should be impeached, be fined, have assets seized, and be jailed.

The Iraq invasion and occupation would not have happened if they would have done their constitutional duty. They gave President Bush a blank check to conduct warfare in Iraq and now many or some of them are crying foul. They are more to blame than the President and his administration.

The Iraq situation is evident that there is much needed reform in the conduct of Congress. However, this will be hard to do since they rigged the election process in their favor. The campaign-finance laws make it literally and practically impossible for incumbents to be dethroned. Americans should be angered and disgusted that a congressional political aristocratic class has been forced on them by law.

I am all in favor of pulling out of Iraq. But their will be more Iraq type ordeals in the future, until the American people start demanding our Congressmen or Congresswomen to do their constitutional duty.

LTV

While I think your cynicisum is ill founded it does reflect a mood that seems to prevail in an increasing corner of the political spectrum.

The confused reflection of the stratagy to defeat Terroisum, stated clearly, in so many ways, by so many people, over the past three years, successfully turned the message into a fuzzball. Democrats and opponents to the Iraq war have so successfully clouded the message confusion reigns.

When a political leader makes a policy, and his political opponments miss state, refuse to understand, divert attention to the "straw man" for them to knock down and do so often enough and loud enough the public ends up with a very confused idea of the policy. This form of propaganda is described in, "The Mind of Adolf Hitler." A lie big enough, told often enough and loud enough will be partly believed by some of the people even though there are no facts to support its truth. Seems like they read the book and have no conscience about the source.

There's almost nothing that Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds all agree on, but they are now clearly unanimous on one thing - that U.S. occupation of Iraq should end promptly. Unfortunately, neither what Iraqi people think (about 4/5ths want immediate withdrawal) nor what Iraqi leaders negotiate matters to this Administration.
Now that a slight majority in the States is for withdrawal within a year (and a third opposed), it's surprising how few in Congress care what their own constituents think. There are a few dozen in the House, and one (Russ Feingold) in the Senate, who preceeded public opinion in taking a bold stance on a timetable. Those are our true leaders in foreign policy. One by one others follow.

I agree with Q.H. Worse than Iraq, or anything else, election scamery is the States' most pressing problem. Even after the recent report from the Government Accountability Office on cheating partisan-company-made electronic voting machines, why is there no outcry?

It's well seen that other than the Libertarian Party, parties can not be bothered with the Constitution, but, give Calif. Rep. Barbara Lee credit where credit is due for upholding constitutional duty as it pertains to war.

Incidently, has anyone approached Karen Kwaitkowski with the notion of running for president in 2008?

Will other Congressmen join Cynthia McKinney (GA), Jose Serrano (NY), and Robert Wexler (Fl) in their unqualified NO to war, and demand for immediate withdrawal?

Stockman: why do you think my "cynicism" (as you call it) is ill-founded? By the way, I don't see it as cynicism. I see it as looking at the available facts and realizing that the conclusions don't derive from those facts.

http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/11/17/exit_strategy

Exit Strategy
November 17, 2005

file under: Iraq War, Smash the State

It seems like everybody is coming up with an exit strategy from Iraq now. Rox (2005-11-17) tells me that John Murtha is now a man with a plan. Even Tony Blair is trying to work something out. According to the fashion of the times, I?ve got an exit strategy for the U.S. and U.K. forces to consider too. The best part about it is that it doesn?t set an arbitrary time-table and it only imposes three simple conditions to fulfill in order to get us out of Iraq with honor. Here?s the plan:

Map of metropolitan Baghdad thanks to GlobalSecurity.org.

My plan calls for:

Getting to here as quickly as you can while flying or driving safely.
Then, driving down this highway.

(graphic at link above)

Then, flying home, preferably on a large jet, from here.

("....")

You might complain that this exit strategy sets a time-table. Well, not really, unless immediately counts as a schedule. But in any case it?s not an arbitrary time-table. The war was never justified to begin with and the occupation continues to make things worse the longer it continues. You might complain that this exit strategy doesn?t solve all of Iraq?s problems, doesn?t give us the opportunity to Iraqitize (sic) or internationalize or train more police officers or root out more insurgents or guide Iraq further down the primrose path to liberal democracy. I agree that it doesn?t, but I consider its simplicity a virtue, not a defect. What have we been trying to do for the past 2 1/2 years, if not all that? How?s that been working out for us?

posted by Rad Geek @ 11:08 PM November 17, 2005