Iraqi Parliament: Troops out in 3 years

We should probably stop using the term 'Terrorist' and use the more appropriate term "Criminal." While the civilized world is certainly terrorized, the response is dictated by our understanding of the problem. Organized terrorists are nothing less than organized criminals. .....................

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/11/27/mumbai-terrorist-or-criminal/

Are these treaties? If so, doesn't the Senate still have to approve them before we are also bound by them? And then there's the $1 trillion dollar question (since nothing seems to cost less than that anymore): Will the Senate ratify it?
.
These are important questions because, as I understand it, the agreement expects certain U.S. troop levels during the phase-out. So, if the phase out is longer than 16 months from the date Obambi takes office, would withdrawing them sooner violate that agreement? (Or does anyone really care?)

what about OUT NOW don't these cretins understand? Get the rolled up paper out! Time to discipline the puppy!
-- - -
http://firedoglake.com/2008/10/07/announcing-the-accountability-now-2010-primary-project/

Sounds like a timetable to me! Why does shrub want to cut and run? Why does he hate the troops?

Mark,

5,000 Americans killed in Iraq? What's you source. AP has 4,206.
.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gqgQCcv26kB1dkgZRZNHmbn_1J8gD94MV9IO1
.
Can you reconcile the two?
.
Second source
.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

BO should thank President Bush and Senator McCain for this victory. If the dems would have had their way two years ago, the US troops would have come home defeated.

Once again President Dubya speaks in front of a captive audience, who had no freedom of choice whether or not to attend, and probably were "reminded" by their superior officers to "clap when appropriate".

Yeah, let's clap for someone who used daddy's connections to avoid serving his country but had no qualms about sending several hundred thousand Americans to fight in a war to produce his "legacy".

T & T,
.
You get to operate on a time table after you have won. Just think if FDR (probably your hero) had said to Churchill, "OK, we'll do the D-day thing, but if we ain't done by the end of Dec, 1944, we're pack it in and heading back across the Atlantic. Good Luck from there on."

the US troops would have come home defeated.

Posted by: Terry | November 27, 2008 2:02 PM

Defeated from what? WIthdrawing the troops in a 3 year time table does not assure any sort of victory Terry. There is no victory in this matter just pride. And sometimes one must swallow their pride.

Scotty,

No victory? We have victory NOW, the 3 yrs is the gradual w/d to allow Iraq to ciontrol its own destiny in a peaceful and stable manner. You nned to let go of your hatred for President Bush.

Terry, my hatred for Bush - the worst President in our history - has nothing to do with my opinion on this matter. Get over it already! If we won a war against someone like Hitler then its a victory. The US invading a sovereign country has done nothing to deter terrorism. We have not won the war on terrorism and most probably never will. So If its victory you want then I suggest you sit back and not hold your breath!

Scotty,

I guess you had a problem when Clinton invaded through bombing Iraq back in 1998? I missed all the liberal protest of that act of war on a soverign nation.
.
President Bush is a lot better than Peanut Farmer Carter ever was.

Terry how old are you? What is the relevance to this story of your moot points?
While Carter may not have been such a great President, he is certainly smarter and more respected in the international world forum then Bush will ever be. As for the Clinton remark, um, as far as I recall that was not an invasion that has caused the deaths of millions. Please stop while you're ahead. Your ignorance is showing.

Scotty,
.
Old enough to have the Carter ploicies effect by adult life.
.
Smarter? So what? He was inept.
.
More respected? He was loved by the Soviets as they expanded their sphere of influence - Afghnanistan, Central America. The Iranians didn't respect him, because they knew he was weak. Carter left the US as an international weakling and if it wasn't for the 1980 election, this world would probably look a lot different.
.
Do you want to also compare economies during Carter's and Bush's presidential terms? The whole terms, not just a point in time like you loons like to do. Compare the avg inflation rates, unemployment rates, interest rates. Go ahead and make that comparison.
.
The Clinton invasion was justified for the same reason as the Bush invasion - WMDs.
.
As far as the "millions" killed, please show a link that shows "mllions" killed in Iraq. Pearl Harbor was only a 4 hour (not 4 day) bombing and didn't kill millions, but I think most Americans (perhaps not you Scotty) would call that an act of war on a soveriegn country.
.
Scotty, as far as ignorance - I think you gov't education is showing.
.
Game, Set, Match.

man do i love it when terdumb tries to give an education and proves the lack of his own by his ENDLESS inability to write a proper sentence or even spell basic words.

not to mention the distortions, historical rewrites and red herrings he throws out on a daily basis.

you've failed an entire generation ter.

Ok Terry here is one source that shows over 1 million deaths since the begining of the Iraq war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
And Carters administration is oh so 30 years ago. I see you dont make comparisons with the Clinton economic success compared to Bushs! You are so stuck in the past ist frightening.
AS for the total deaths, sorry to burst your ignorant bubble but innocents as well as combatants are included in this figure. Not just American soldiers of which you seem to think only counts.
Get off the Carter years and move on already!

Scot,
.
Did you look at the source or methodology of the group that claimed that over 1 million people died in Iraq? If you had, you might have noticed that they didn't count any bodies. The number was arrived at by extrapolating the results of a poll of 1,499 respondents concerning the number of dead suffered in their household. 78% of those polled said they had no deaths in their immediate household; 16% said their household suffered one death, 5% said they had two deaths, 1% said they had three deaths, and 0.002% said they suffered 4 or more deaths. Based on a 2005 census that showed 4,050,597 households, they extrapolated (rather than counted) the number of dead by applying a multiplying factor, thereby coming up with a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 people dead, leaving a fuzzy mean of 1,220,580.
.
Thus the 1 million + death figure was nothing more than a guess. They didn't count feet and divide by two. Furthermore, the validity of the numbers requires one to assume the number of households remained the same, there were no duplicate data, and that all of Iraq was affected by violence in a uniform manner. The first assumption is doubtful, inasmuch as many people and their families fled Iraq as a result of the conflict. There is no way to tell whether the second assumption is true. The third assumption is demonstrably false as many districts in Iraq were not affected nearly as much as those in the south and west. Nor, for that matter, is there any way to determine whether the respondents were telling the truth. There were (and are) many partisan reasons for people to be less than truthful and to inflate the results on such a survey.
.
Not surprisingly, the Iraqi government and the U.S. military dismissed the results as a ridiculous exaggeration. The Iraqi government's Health Ministry, which actually did something resembling a body count (since they had the morgue, hospital and "forensic institute" statistics), placed the death toll from violence at around 151,000 for the period between 2003 and 2006.
.
The bottom line, Scot, is that no one really knows exactly how many people were killed by violence in Iraq. However, it should be fairly certain to anyone who doesn't believe everything they are told that the 1 million + figure doesn't even come close to being accurate. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that many people do not accept the 1 million + number as the truth. Consequently, I wouldn't be so sure that the number you threw around "burst" anyone's "bubble."

Turd,

Critic my typing skills all you want, lear how to capitalize the start of sentence first.
.
As far as distortions, historical re-writes, and red herrings - name them and let us discuss.

Scotty,

Your Wikipedia article has a range of 150,000 - 1,000,000. If you have a range of items, try looking in the middle for statitical relavency. What you don't mention is how many of those civilians were killed by the enem. How many of those deaths were caused by al Qaeda? Iraqi army under Saddam? Sunni-Shia squabbling?
.
If you want to count the innocents, lets look back at past wars and compare. Do you criticize Truman for dropping the a-bomb on Japan twices and the 1000's he killed? How about the bombing of German industrial cities and the 1000's they killed? It is a sad truth, that civilians deaths are a part of war, but they are.
.
Compare the monthly average unemployment figures between Clinton (1993 - 2000)and Bush (2001 - 2008), along with the interest rates and inflation rates - you might be surpised as what you find. And only one of these two presidents inherited a slowing economy.
.
Sorry to burst your ignorant bubble, but I think you will be surprised by the similarities.
.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Monthly/H15_FF_O.txt
.
It will nice to make the comparison with Lord Barrack Obama, the most merciful, in four years

Bla Bla Bla Terry. Here's the real stats on Clintons legacy:
President Clinton’s Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.

* Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
* Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
* Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income has increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
* Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
* Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation is at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and it is down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.
* Highest Homeownership Rate on Record: The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent for the third quarter of 2000, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.
* 7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.

Bush doesnt even come close my dear so just please go away!

Scotty, you little boy, you forgot to mention that also under President Bill Clinton, Michael Jordan returned to the Bulls and they won three additional champioships.
.
So my statistics from the Bureau of Labor Standards and the Federal reserve are not the "real stats of the Clinton Legacy"?
Not sure where you cut and paste your info from, but the 8 month recession of July 1990 thru March 1991 was not the second coming of the Grapes of Wrath. That recession didn't even come close to matching the previous recession of 1981-82. Get your facts straight
.
The economic expansion, that started in April, 1991 and ran thru February, 2001 was a great economic expansion.. Definitely the longest in US History (at least since the 1850's).
.
Can you tell me a Clinton policy that led to the expansion? Was it his tax increase in 1993? I doubt it, since tax increases slow down an economy - listen to some of the dems calling for the postponement of BO's proposed tax increases on the rich in this recession.
.
Yes Bill Clinton was the president during these times and he needs to thankful for all those computer geeks and the personal computer and internet boom. The real driver of the economy of the 90's.
.
Here are some Clinton's legacies:
.
Failure to go after al Qaeda - 9-11.
.
Fannie, Freddie, and sub-prime mess that has its roots in the 90's and believe it or not President Bush was trying to tighten regulations on them in 2003, but was stopped by the democrats.
.
Corrupt accounting practices (lack of SEC oversight) of the late 90's that led to coporate failures of 2001 & 2002.
.
Scotty, not what you have studied or if you have studied anything, but if you or your parents have ever paid for an econ or any related business course - please go seek a refund.
.
P.S. Scotty - I'm not your "dear".

Terry, Google Clintons economy and you will find everything I posted as fact not fiction as you prefer. You will also see thousands of factual information related to his economic policies that brought our country into the best and most productive economy in our lifetime.
Oh and as far your ignorant statement: Failure to go after al Qaeda - 9-11.
Excuse me but I believe Bush was President when 9/11 happened and he also failed to listen to all the intel regarding this attack which by the way killed many friends and a family member of mine! So PLEASE stop blaming Clinton for Bushs failures!
Not to mention it was Bush the first and Regan who armed and created Al Qaeda in the first place!!!!
If your tax cuts you republicans love so much work then explain to me the economic mess we are in now.
Your little moot points about Clinton dont even come close to compare his historic legacy to Bushs worst President ever status.
So it is you that needs to be educated my dear, but being that you are a Republican, being uneducated is exactly where they want you to be so they can continue to scare and lie to you as you still believe them.
P.S. you lost the election by a landslide because of your ignorance.

The short version since SWAMP didn't post long version:

9-11 happened due to Clinton having failed to capture or kill bin Laden after many attacks on the US - first WTC bombings in 1993, Khobar Towers, African embassy bombings, USS Cole, etc... bin Laden roamed freely and could have taken out easily.
.
al Qaeda was spawned from the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan, when the enemy was the Soviets - a much greater threat the dems always just wanted to appease. With your logic (?), you would blame FDR for the rise of the Soviets since he partnered with Stalin during WW2?
.
The tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 have nothing to do with the recession of 2008. As a matter of fact when the highest individual income tax rate has been lowered in this country, the ecomomy has seen its 2nd, 3rd, and 5th longest expansions out of 33 expansions since the 1850's.
.
The economic mess we are in now is due to the sub-prime mess. On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law that ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy and also "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e. protection against exclusionary redlining). Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns. On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57. This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
.
Notice that the dems jumped on board as soon as "economic opportunities" were made avialable in their communities. In English, that meand making loans to those who can't pay them back.
.
The elction was lost for a few reasons - one Republicans quit acting conservative - reason GOP lost in 2006, two- a true conservative was not on the top of the ticket, and three - the timing of the financial crisis (w/o that Mccain might very well be president - he was leading in the polls up until that point).