Key Bush Quote From Today

Yesterday I posted that it appears we are starting to play hardball with the Shi'ite majority in Iraq. I'd say the quote below from Bush today makes it fairly clear he's waiting on more than information to announce a plan. I'd look for more arrests and pressure on Al-Sadr, perhaps even Maliki, if things don't start to move politically in Iraq.

Key Quote: "The key to success in Iraq is to have a government that's willing to deal with the elements that are trying to prevent this young democracy from succeeding," the president said.

Comments

[denny]

Gates says NO surge. Now what? More of the same won't cut it. 7 more dead American soldiers and 47 dead Iraqi's found shot with signs of torture. Iraq Sucks!

[Darth Malice]

We either need to win or get out.GW get a clue!

[Dan Riehl]

Gates says NO surge.

When and where? I haven't seen that reported.

[Darth Malice]

I have not seen it either,but it would not shock me.They need at least 50,000 more troops pronto.I was watching Pat Buchanan on Tucker.I am glad he is no longer a Republican.

[Crickets Chirping]

wtf are you smoking...it's because we brought "democracy" to the country that the Shia were voted into power.

Seems kinda "indian giver" to play hardball with them now, eh? Now that they were "selected" diebold style, fair and square...

Meanwhile in "autonomous" Sadr City....

[Darth Malice]

Never cared about them voting.I only care about making sure they are no longer a threat.

[Dan Riehl]

Seems kinda "indian giver"

Actually, it isn't. If they aren't responsible and seek to govern Iraq as a whole, and instead disallow Sunni participation, as they are doing, then they are not acting like a responsible democracy. We make such judgments about other countries all the time and given our role in Iraq, we have every right to "meddle," if you will.

[Darth Malice]

Dan we should make it clear to the world we will leave you alone as long as you don't harbor threats.Will be like the Borg,we only attack if threatend,but we go all the way when we do.

[Realish]

So they can have a democracy as long as they run it in a way we deem responsible -- i.e., they produce the outcomes we want.

You people really are sociopathic.

[Darth Malice]

No,just realistic

[Phoenix]

"sociopathic"? Hardly. We have invested heavily in democracy for Iraq, and fair representation, the essence of democracy, is being eroded by the Shi'ite majority. That must be stopped. It's that simple.

To bring it on down to soulville, Realish, how would you like it if republicans took over 85% of our country? You know...just sort of took it over with a big F.U. in your face?

Darth, their voting was important. Anything that gives an individual a feeling of being part of a whole is a good thing. It is as important as his individualism remaining intact with his power to vote and then to live in freedom. That is what will stop the threat you mention. Otherwise, we're right back where we started. I love the purple-finger-people.

democracy

[Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.

[ol pete]

We invaded because they were a threat? How can anyone actually believe this?

Next someone will argue that we have a right to "meddle," i.e. run the country because we don't think they are responsible. Good grief. Just establish the One World Dictatorship with the Godless psychopath Hero Bush now and skip all the PC talk.

[Phoenix]

ol pete - do you skim the surface of life like a little block of wood on ice?

No one with any sense believes we invaded Iraq because they were a threat. They just happened to be there, that's all. And we need a base there.

How's that?

[yyy]

Ya know, it seems to me that if we invaded Iraq in order to establish some bases there, that it has ended up being a losing proposition the ROI is shamefully low...

For $300 billion and no end in sight, not to mention dead American soldiers, dead Iraqi civilians, destroyed infrastructure, big, big hits on America's reputation as a white hat, Al Quada where it never was before... I would hope we might have found a less costly way to better protect our 'interests' in the Persian Gulf. Of course, the side effect of civil war in Iraq, an emboldened Iran and Lebanon going down in flames, is just a neato bonus I suppose, or maybe the neocons still entertain dreams of empire, still think we can invade, take over or topple a few more ME governments..

I wouldn't hire George W. Bush to cut my lawn, I'd be afraid I would come home and my house would have been burnt to the ground in a pre emptive strike against potential rodent infestation and all shrubs and trees uprooted in his attempt to 'birth' a new garden.

Geeze, you people are just as stupid as ever.

Here's a prediction for you: Increasing troop strength is going to do nothing but get more troops killed and prolong the debacle unless we're talking tens of thousands, in which case, we might get lucky and the Iraqis will stop killing each other and start killing us again as the top target, which I suppose, in the sick twisted situation Bush has created would be progress.

[Phoenix]

yyy,

Do your improvident thought processes ever allow you out of the lee of the left?

>I would hope we might have found a less costly way to better protect our 'interests' in the Persian Gulf. <

What a tiny, narrow, militant mind you nurse.

Speaking of narrow, tiny minds.... why did I answer? Time for a break from the riehl world I guess.

[Renate]

Democracy in the Middle East - as in "Palestine" has given legitimacy to Hamas and Hezbholah.(sp) So terrorists vote themselves in and then the world has to grant them legitimacy. What we need to be talking about is FREEDOM. FREEDOM of CONSCIENCE. There is none in Iraq right now. This is why a Muslim turned Christian in Iraq can be executed as they are in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Democratically elected governments are not the same as FREE governments (as the US is). We have lots of Christian men and women fighting in Iraq to make a way for Islam to condemn their Christian brothers and sisters to death. This is what bothers me most about what is happening in Iraq. Iraq's new government includes Sharia law. That is why Maliki checks with the Imams before making decisions. Democracy is not the answer, freedom is. Yet, I do still support this battle in the War against Islamists, yet with Sharia law included in Iraq's governing laws, I sadly believe that Iraq will not change. When our leaders helped with the drafting of Iraq's laws, this was a major flaw.