Australian mini-surge cheers Cheney

Well, now I'm convinced that victory is at hand. 70 people will make all the difference in Iraq.

Way to step up Australia!

A political puddle and a giant puddle of oil. Australia's BHP Biiilton was negotiating for Iraq's huge reserves with Sadaam and was implicated in the oil-for-food scandals. Now as the loot (oil rights/contracts) is about to be distributed to the key corporate interests this meeting takes place. Oil is the agenda, not Obama, and not the history of US-Australia ties.

This morning's NYT indicates that the loot may be even larger than initial estimates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/middleeast/19oilfields.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Duck its Cheney. You got to wonder if Dick is running from the Libby Case

He has become an embarrassment to their nation and will be out in the next election.

Wow! Seventy more troops! Victory is in the bag!

Does Cheney also mention that Al Qaeda's leaders have reestablished their control over their organization, set up a number a training camps inside Pakistan, and are once again moving beyond hit-and-run attacks within their own region to stage attacks on the global scale?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

Thought not. I'm sure he and the Chimp are too busy being the Founding Fathers of Iraq to worry about stopping the real terrorists.

Australia has 1,400 troops in Iraq and they are sending 70 more. What a commitment from such a staunch U.S. ally. Iraq very unpopular in Australia. I would almost guarantee you that the moment Aussie troops started getting killed and blown up, they would all be called back home.
John Howard is an imbecile if he 'cheers' Cheney. Cheney is a cowardly and crooked rat.

Victory for the Shiites (read: Iran) is at hand.

From Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Based on your experience, and you’ve lived there for four years, a year from now, what will we see going on in Iraq?

MR. ENGEL: A year from now? I think you’ll have the Shiites in control of Baghdad. There’s a major power struggle with Shiites coming across from the east, moving into the west. I think they will consolidate that control. And the U.S. forces will have declared victory, and will have been moved out to the Anbar province, and will end up fighting al-Qaeda in Anbar. So you’ll have a situation where there will be a more stable, but very Shiite partisan government in control of Baghdad, and the U.S. fighting al-Qaeda in, in western Iraq. So both sides get to declare victory. The government says there is more stability and a representative of a democratically elected government, and the U.S. administration gets to say, “We’re still fighting the war on terrorism; we’re still fighting al-Qaeda.”

MR. RUSSERT: What happens to the Sunnis?

MR. ENGEL: The Sunnis, I think, are in a very difficult situation. They are fundamentally—have a failed state on their hands. And I think, no matter how much success there is in Iraq in the south and in the north, if you have even a small failed state in the center of the country, it will be a serious, serious problem for decades, that will plague this entire region.

MR. RUSSERT: How much influence does Iran have on Iraq, the Iraqi government?

MR. ENGEL: Tremendous amount of influence.

Wow another 70 people, that'll do it!

With all of this talk about how many troops our allies have in Iraq as part of the coalition forces, I have yet to see a current, accurate count of how many troops various Middle East countries have to help us install democracy in Iraq. You'd think that they'd care a lot more than the US since it's occurring right in their backyard.

.01%

Mini-surge? Sounds more like a mini-dribble mate. Cheney must be pretty desperate if 70 additional guys makes him happy. They must be from the secret Vegemite torture squad.

Is there a point for Cheney going to Australia other then thanking John Howard for his support for this pointless Iraq war?

If the White House is serious about this war on terrorism, they need to get out of Iraq (we're done there, no more Sadam, no WMA's...), go into Afganistan & northern Pakistan - where Osama, Al Qaida, Taliban, you know, those responsible for the bulk of terrorism, including 9/11, are.

Do you think the terrorists are just hiding out from the US in that part of the world because they have nothing else better to do or are they planning the next attack from places where they feel safe because we're not killing them?

Paulo and to the other Right Wingers we now know where you get your talking points on Obama from Your Busted

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13302538/the_low_post_the_scum_also_rises

70 more Aussies in addition to the 1400 already in Iraq?

Your move Sen Obama.

-- SCAM

WOW!..a whole 70 troops..thanks Howard,they can give our guys waterbottles during the timeouts of the civil war that our own Cheerleader in Chief has us involved in.

Obama was right,Howard is going the same way that the Republicans in this country are going......out the door.

First of all, Australia's military isn't even 40,000 total (including support personnel). Anyway, Australia has been a great ally in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

And, Bud, please don't be using transcripts from Tim Russert and Richard Engel, an admitted hater of the U.S. military and another far left loony reporter who can't speak the truth. And Russert, is another left wing political operative working as a "journalist" on network TV news.

The post from Meet The Press is very accurate. The way you achieve stability is to ethnically cleanse an area of your enemies. This is how the Shiites gained control of Basra and southern Iraq. This is how they will gain control of Baghdad too. Then there will be "peace". So the end result of our invasion will be a Shitte run Iraq that is friendly to Iran. Hmmm...Is this what are troops are fighting and dying for Mr President?

This same scenario is what the US, NATO and now the UN are doing in Kosovo. The way to achieve "peace" there is to allow the majority ethnic Albanians to cleanse the Serbian province of Serbs. Then Kosovo can become an independent country. The only problem with this is that it forces a Serbia, a sovereign nation, to give up a province. This is a very dangerous precedent if it is allowed to happen. This would be akin to the UN forcing the US to give up Texas to Mexico because of the large number of Mexicans living there.

70 people. Now that's what I call results!!!

Dale great link. The problem Paulo, Bruce and such have is when they get on bogs like this they get it handed to them because they are so miss informed. I agree with the article and have listened to Sean, Glen and Rush off and on to try to understand where 40% of the people still support this admin. It's amazing how gullible people are, I suggest you go to their web sites and you'll discover why the true reasoning and that is $$$$$. Give Sean your credit card and you can join the conservative club, buy a book and I’ll sell you more. It is really sad it's also Marketing 101 you have 40% of the market believing something keep selling it.

Although, I would like to know why we do not see more libel litigation?

Dale, Rolling Stone is your source? Your source of record for non-biased, factual news? No wonder you're all mixed up. Here are MY talking points about our "esteemed" junior senator.
1. Two years as a U.S. Senator, who hasn't accomplished much, if anything.
2. A little known state senator who didn't accomplish much, if anything.
3. Viewpoints are far to the left.
4. Not up to the job of president. That job takes courage, guts, the need to make difficult and not always popular decisions.
5. Is for higher taxes.
6. Is for bigger government.
7. Not a supporter of the military.
8. Too lenient on criminals.
9. Pro-abortion.
10. All hype and no substance.

You see, no mention of his middle name nor some school he attended as a young boy.

I guess I am confused. I thought a troop was multiple people...like a Boy Scout Troop has many members. Why do they call individual soldiers a troop?

John D unlike your Republican Friends Obama is in the forfront of veterans issues. He sits on that committee he has gotten 50 million out of the Republicans for homeless veterans. He is all over the Walter Reed story. I am still not sure I will Support him . But your FOX NEWS liars are making it closer

lochnessy,

I have often wondered why we call a "soldier" a "troop".

My guess is it's a catch phrase started by the rightwing robots,kind of like "mission accomplished","cut and run","slow bleed","a new way forward"....I could go on and on with Republican marching orders,hut one,hut two.swiftboat,swiftboat..yuk,yuk,yuk,
sig heil KKKarl Rove.

John E.

I think your guess is right. It must be part of the marketing plan.

John D,
1. What should he have accomplished as a US Senator?
2. What should he have accomplished as a IL State Senator?
3. What viewpoints are far left? Give specific evidence of his radical leftness.
4. How do you measure courage and guts? What makes you believe he has none?
5. Show us where he has said he will raise taxes for everyone.
6. Show us where he has said he wants to enlarge government.
7. Prove he doesn't support the military.
8. What facts do you have that he is too lenient on criminals?
9. Pro-aborion? That verbage only works w/ the lowest common denominator.
10. All hype and no substance? If there is no substance why are you and your pals taking so much time and spending so much money trying to torpedo his candidacy?

John D:

Let's take your points one at a time, shall we?

Dale, Rolling Stone is your source? Your source of record for non-biased, factual news? No wonder you're all mixed up. Here are MY talking points about our "esteemed" junior senator.
1. Two years as a U.S. Senator, who hasn't accomplished much, if anything.

>> Your opinion. The same can be said for other presidential candidates of either party.

2. A little known state senator who didn't accomplish much, if anything.

>> Your opinion. The same comment about previous governmental experience can be said for other presidential candidates of either party.

3. Viewpoints are far to the left.

>> Your opinion. Just how far is "too far" anyway? I can say that pResident Bush's viewpoints are too far to the rught. Again, just my opinion.

4. Not up to the job of president. That job takes courage, guts, the need to make difficult and not always popular decisions.

>> In the view of millions of Americans, pResident Bush has proven that he's not up to the job of president either. While your adjectives should be applied to ANYONE who is president, they certainly aren't exclusive to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

5. Is for higher taxes.

>> Someone has to pay for the $2 TRILLION dollars in debt that pResident Bush has saddled us with in his 6 years in office. Unless you want to eliminate numerous government programs that help the less fortunate of our citizens - that are promises our government made to them decades ago.

6. Is for bigger government.

>> pResident Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, the biggest increase in the federal government in decades, not to mention the money needed to fund this department annually from this point on.

7. Not a supporter of the military.

>> How? By not wanting to waste American lives in an occupation of a country that unleashed a civil war - one that pResident Bush's administration NEVER planned for and has no idea how to stop? Should we have troops stationed there over 60 years like we have in South Korea?

8. Too lenient on criminals.

>> Again, just your opinion. Please post links to Obama's position on current laws or pending legislation that supports your allegation.

9. Pro-abortion.

> So are a majority of Americans.

10. All hype and no substance.

>> Who among the current crop or Republican presidential candidates are NOT "all hype and no substance"?

John D:

Let's take your points one at a time, shall we?

Dale, Rolling Stone is your source? Your source of record for non-biased, factual news? No wonder you're all mixed up. Here are MY talking points about our "esteemed" junior senator.
1. Two years as a U.S. Senator, who hasn't accomplished much, if anything.

>> Your opinion. The same can be said for other presidential candidates of either party.

2. A little known state senator who didn't accomplish much, if anything.

>> Your opinion. The same comment about previous governmental experience can be said for other presidential candidates of either party.

3. Viewpoints are far to the left.

>> Your opinion. Just how far is "too far" anyway? I can say that pResident Bush's viewpoints are too far to the rught. Again, just my opinion.

4. Not up to the job of president. That job takes courage, guts, the need to make difficult and not always popular decisions.

>> In the view of millions of Americans, pResident Bush has proven that he's not up to the job of president either. While your adjectives should be applied to ANYONE who is president, they certainly aren't exclusive to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

5. Is for higher taxes.

>> Someone has to pay for the $2 TRILLION dollars in debt that pResident Bush has saddled us with in his 6 years in office. Unless you want to eliminate numerous government programs that help the less fortunate of our citizens - that are promises our government made to them decades ago.

6. Is for bigger government.

>> pResident Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, the biggest increase in the federal government in decades, not to mention the money needed to fund this department annually from this point on.

7. Not a supporter of the military.

>> How? By not wanting to waste American lives in an occupation of a country that unleashed a civil war - one that pResident Bush's administration NEVER planned for and has no idea how to stop? Should we have troops stationed there over 60 years like we have in South Korea?

8. Too lenient on criminals.

>> Again, just your opinion. Please post links to Obama's position on current laws or pending legislation that supports your allegation.

9. Pro-abortion.

>> So are a majority of Americans.

10. All hype and no substance.

>> Who among the current crop or Republican presidential candidates are NOT "all hype and no substance"?

Well, the great Australian micro-surge is gpoing to be far outbalanced by the British withdrawal.

BBC is reporting that Blair will announce a timetable tommorow that includes having 1500 of the 7000 forces they have in a Iraq withdrawn within the next two weeks.

We're on our own folks. It's past time we wised up too.