U.S. Out Now! How?: Introduction
It started as Bush's war, but we all own it now—and it's time we took a hard look at what that means.
October 18, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
"You break it, you own it." So goes the "Pottery Barn rule" that Colin Powell invoked in his last-ditch attempts to dissuade President Bush from invading Iraq. "You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all."
In the end, of course, Powell caved to Bush's geopolitical whims, played the good soldier, and did as much as anyone to lie to the world and sell the case for invasion—an invasion driven by blind ideology, wishful thinking, and a feckless refusal to consider the consequences. Stupefyingly, the administration maintains that attitude to this day—refusing, for example, to address the plight of 2 million refugees because, you see, they'll all go home soon to a pacified Iraq.
Yet it's not just the administration that has its head in the sand; to varying degrees, we all do. For those of us who argued against invading, it is tempting to simply demand an end to "Bush's War" and wash our hands of it. But as General Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, told us, "Your conscience is not clean just because you're a peace demonstrator." In other words, just because you weren't in favor of going in doesn't mean you're not responsible for what happens when we pull out.
And pull out we will—if only because the military can't sustain current troop levels. Not that you'd know it from listening to the debate in Washington, with its farcical focus on timetables and surges and benchmarks. Take the grand unveiling of the Petraeus report, a PR blitz reminiscent of prewar opinion orchestration. First, Brookings Institution scholars Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon went on a Potemkin tour of Iraq and dutifully wrote an op-ed called "A War We Just Might Win." Only two qualifiers? No matter, the Washington commentariat took the cue and hastily fell in line. As did the media, some of which even bought Dick Cheney's canard that these two were "critics of the war." (Actually, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald forced O'Hanlon to acknowledge, "I was a supporter.") By the time General David Petraeus presented himself to Congress—his "report" long since leaked—the political theater had devolved into bad summer stock. General Petraeus was the very model of a modern major general; the Democratic candidates formed a spectral chorus; MoveOn played to type as the shrill left. And, most gratingly, Bush reprised his 2003 role: flinty-eyed, elbows on podium, warning of Al Qaeda evildoers on the one hand and genocide on the other.
Now, as then, this was a nice bit of political calculation designed to reconstitute the pro-invasion coalition of the worried, the gung-ho, and the humanitarian interventionists. True, Bush wasn't completely lying. Al Qaeda in Iraq is a threat—one entirely of Bush's making, but a threat nonetheless. (See: Al Qaeda in Iraq: How Dangerous Is It?) And there's the very real chance that withdrawal will precipitate more, perhaps even apocalyptic, violence. (See: Four Post-Occupation Scenarios)
There are no good options in Iraq, but the options narrow to the horrific the longer our leaders dawdle. Bush seems content—whether out of delusional optimism or cynical "strategery"—to run out the clock and stick the next administration with this mess; only 5 percent of Americans expect him to do otherwise. And the Democrats are playing the other side of the same game—content to let the GOP go down with its man.
So what is to be done? First and foremost, anyone running for or holding national office must be forced to answer these questions: What's your schedule for withdrawal, and what consequences do you foresee? Which comes first—withdrawal, a functioning Iraqi government, or a solid international peacekeeping force? What concessions would you make to get Iraq's neighbors to help? What degree of bloodshed are you prepared to stand by and watch?
We put such questions to five dozen military men, think-tankers, peace activists, academics, and politicians. Some of their responses follow, and we'll post the full interviews online, along with a list of those who refused to respond—including the architects of the war, leading presidential candidates, and the congressional leadership. Some, it should be noted, begged off because they were taking a summer break, even as Iraqi politicians were being criticized for doing the same. We hope that if we can't force them to reckon with reality, you can. As General Zinni notes, "the government is us. We made promises and commitments. The administration proposed the war; Congress—the voice of the people—authorized it; we are responsible for it. We can't claim, 'I didn't vote for him in the first place' or 'I changed my mind.' There has to be some sort of obligation that falls to us as a society for what our government does in our name."
Yes, Bush, a leader with all the impulse control of a petulant three-year-old, "broke" Iraq. But we own it now. Time to get ready with the apology, the checkbook, and whatever else is required.
Comments:
Since Iraq became synonymous with President Bush's terror campaign, Americans have been besieged with "WMDs": words of mass deception. Bush stood before a banner reading "mission accomplished," said we are "winning," claimed that it's a "sectarian conflict" (not a civil war), and implied that you're "unpatriotic" if you don't support his war. His latest deceptive word is troop "surge."
Bush's solution to his Iraqi debacle is to escalate the number of troops. Gen. John Abizaid, the outgoing head of U.S. Central Command, stated recently that increasing U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.
With nearly 4,000 Americans dead, over 25,000 wounded and over $34 billion in reconstruction money, Bush has little to show. Instead, Iraq is in a civil war, with hundreds dying every month.
Bush has damaged America's credibility abroad for years to come, eroded America's morality and demoralized our military. Time for change in America is long overdue. Congress needs to apply pressure on Bush to stop him from continuing his open-ended and careless Iraq war and implement an exit strategy.
Posted by:MARK G. KILYKOctober 18, 2007 9:29:27 AMRespond ^
All the more reason to impeach Chimpy McKantspeak - he gambled with world peace and lost. So we pay the piper? He too must answer for his crimes, miscalculations, mistakes and abject failures because people in large numbers have died and been killed. Do the lives lost on his folly mean so little?
Posted by:captOctober 18, 2007 10:03:00 AMRespond ^
I guess, I don't see the Iraq war from your perspective. I didn't vote for Bush or any of the Texas Republicans in
Congress. They are not representing me. I do not take responsibility for the war or the deaths and destruction of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. The Iraqis have asked us to leave, but Bush and the Congress have refused to make that move. Kucinich is the only person running for President that has any moral responsibility and courage to not occupy a sovereign country. It is quite interesting that George went AWOL and Cheney failed to go to Viet Nam, but they don't have a problem sending other people to die. I do not take responsibility for Guantanamo, the secret prisons, rendition, the spying on the American people, the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqis. This falls directly on the shoulders of the Administration and Congress. Bush, Cheney,Rumsfeld and Gonzalez should have been impeached long ago. Taken to the Hague and prosecuted as war criminals. I do not have the power to change this disasterous war, but I have a duty to oppose it. I refuse to take responsibility for it.
Posted by:Vicki LawsonOctober 18, 2007 10:44:40 AMRespond ^
The contention - "we all own it now" - is ludicrous. It betrays a luxury of thought afforded to the assuredly-affluent liberal elite. And a weakness of mind on par with the neo-conservative track record. Since you seem to have forgotten: "your" troops are kicking in normal Iraqi folks front doors, entering their living rooms, and executing them. Mercenaries are killing people on a whim. This is why we call for "US out NOW."
We don't "own" Iraq. We OWE Iraq. And we owe them Big Time. What do we owe them? First: an end to the occupation. Then: war reparations. Then: hold those responsible accountable. That means prison for the ideological junta that controls our government, friends.
Nominal international non-military presence, incidentally, is widely recognized as a significant stablizing force.
And if that doesn't "work" - then we just swallow our medicine and try to learn from our mistakes.
Disappointing that Mother Jones is so far from the moral position on this issue.
By the way, quoting Zinni is no way to endear yourself to thinking people.
Posted by:MarkWayneOctober 18, 2007 2:28:50 PMRespond ^
I couldn't agree with you more.They must leave now.
Posted by:RICHARD LOBBYOctober 18, 2007 3:18:16 PMRespond ^
It perplexes me, how the republican party now labels OBL, and Saddam Hussien as terrorists. When in the 80s, Reagan was calling these two "Freedom Fighters".
If the U.S. is so interested in creating democracy in the M.E., why did the CIA in 1953 remove a democratic elected president of Iran and replace him with the Shah?
All former and current Bu$h administrators should be impeached, and trials of Treason held before being turned over to the Hague to face War Crimes Trials.
Confiscate their fortunes and give it to humanitarian projects in Afghanistan and Iraq. Have the criminals spend their life sentences in Gitmo experiencing the same, that has been inflicted on the innocent.
Then the world will see that the U.S. is serious about its War on Terror.
Posted by:StanimalOctober 19, 2007 1:15:10 AMRespond ^
.
President Bush giggled and grinned while discussing World War III today. "But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding [grinning] World War III [end grinning], it seems like you [begin giggling] ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge [end giggling] necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Bush has redefined the Iranian threat yet again, now the mere “knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," is excuse enough to attack Iran. Bush’s smirking and giggling performance during the speech marks him as not just as a fool, but a madman.
Then and now, “Jimi Hendrix’s frenzied rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” was an apt soundtrack for U.S. foreign policy.”
Then and now, the leadership of the United States is in the hands of psychopaths, cowards, incompetents, warmongers and profiteers.
.
Posted by:rabblerowzerOctober 19, 2007 5:50:44 AMRespond ^
This is the most racist, xenophobic attitude in the world. "Own"? Mother Jones should be ashamed and next time they should skip the AEI rejects and try interviewing some people who really know about Iraq like Amy Goodman, like Howard Zinn. I'm so furious right now, I'm asking myself if it's worth renewing my subscription?
Posted by:CarlyOctober 19, 2007 8:25:47 AMRespond ^
Kudos to MOJO for saying this. It's our (grandchildren's) tax dollars funding the Iraq atrocity, and our consent-of-the-governed that provides the authority. It's our responsibility, even for those of us who were opposed to it from the outset. Even those of us who never were irresponsible and naive enough to think that a vote for it somehow wasn't a vote for it. We have a moral obligation to do our utmost to make up for the harm done in our names. Problem: the US is not there to fix things, we never have been, and barring some sort of revolution at home we never will be.
Posted by:DanOctober 19, 2007 8:57:45 AMRespond ^
The Congress, Senate, and President haven't been the "voice" of the people for a very long time.If every American citizen not directly in the political machine had stood up and said at the beginning of this "We don't wan't any of our troops going into Iraq" they would still be there.
Posted by:ScottOctober 19, 2007 10:12:27 AMRespond ^
Whoa, whoa, whoa: "As General Zinni notes, 'the government is us. We made promises and commitments. The administration proposed the war; Congress—the voice of the people—authorized it; we are responsible for it. We can't claim, 'I didn't vote for him in the first place' or 'I changed my mind.' There has to be some sort of obligation that falls to us as a society for what our government does in our name." This sort of media driven thinking is what is rotting America from the inside out. "We" did not elect this president, The Supreme Court did (the 1st time around), "We" did not authorize this war, a Republican Congress granted the President the right to use Military Power IF other means failed (after "We" were completely lied to about WMD's). "We" voted said Rebulican Congress out of power and issued a clear mandate for the new Democratic Congress to get "Us" out of Iraq NOW. These are all well known facts, what isn't discussed is what the fact pattern equals. A slide from a Quasi Democracy to an elitist, self-interested Oligarchy, where as stated by Plato in "The Rebublic" a relatively small, wealthy or elite class of persons takes over government to the exclusion of all non-elitist and treats the previously functioning Rebulblic as its own private treasure trove to be raided at whim. That's where America stands today. So call "Us" fools or lambs being led to slaughter by a handful of elite power brokers but don't blame or try to pass ownership of this elitist war onto "Us". "We" want out of Iraq now, "We" have made this clear, "We" have been ignored and "We" will pay the price while "They" finish stealing the oil. Don't confuse "Us" (the American people) with "Them" (the Oligarchy Government that has taken over America's Federal Government, Republican or Democrat in name only). America - read "The Republic" read Plutarch's history of the "Fall of the Roman Rebulic". But mostly, Corporate American Media, please just shut your dirty, complicit mouths and let American's be heard w/o your nasty filter.
Posted by:captn72October 19, 2007 11:10:42 AMRespond ^
We own it...
Well hell yes we do. It does not matter what your personal opinion is, as an American you are a debtor. You owe the people of the world for the mess this coterie of fools as loosed on it. Just face it, no matter what your religious, political or racial makeup is, in the good ole USA you are one for all and all for one in the context of how we mesh with the wider world. Our current and past foreign policies have slowly and deeply tarnished our rep.
We as a people have allowed this zeolous lot of ignorant politicians to blot out the good we have done by either taking blind steps behind the foolish leader, turning a blind eye to the whole thing or letting the far left & right blind us with belligerent blather.
Hopefully you all will get the hint that there is no "snooze" button on this alarm, it is an immediate need to get out of bed.
Posted by:Nick JahrausOctober 19, 2007 5:07:54 PMRespond ^
captn72...we put those people, the Houses of Congress in there. We continue to pay taxes, the greater proportion of which goes to the war. Did you stop paying your war tax via the War Tax Resistance League? Karl Jaspers, long before Zinni (a slight misspelling of an old commedia dell'arte comic character), noted that ALL Germans, including himself, were responsible for Hitler and the Fascism that took on the face of NAZI (an acronymn, you know). Did you stop working at a job that, in one way or another, pays for/plays into the war? You, like all of us, are The Good German. Live with it. Own it. Don't play self-righteous frightened perfume spitting skunk with the rest of us.
Posted by:jimsecorOctober 19, 2007 11:20:30 PMRespond ^
Not getting involved is consent. We're getting our bread and circuses. Mostly our bread, extending far beyond literal foodstuffs to everything made with starvation-wage labor in the third world, from resources extracted from the third world on terms of trade that amount to theft. We as Americans are in a position where we can gain access to the political machinery if we choose to. Our "leaders" keep us fat and happy (or at least fat and neurotic), because that's all we demand of them. For a start, we should not accept Hillary's weasel words: she voted for an invasion of Iraq. No one with enough neural activity to maintain a pulse honestly thought Bush would refrain from invading when authorized. Why did she vote for an invasion? I don't think she's personally bloodthirsty enough to have wanted it herself. But a whole lot of the voting public are, and she showed no leadership whatsoever. That's, if not the reason, at least a major reason we invaded Iraq. The punditocracy showed us that we had been attacked by millions of airplanes knocking down millions of towers. (The accompanying fine print said that it was just two towers shown millions of times from hundreds of angles, but a million pictures are worth more than any number of words.) The punditocracy cried for war, and we lined up behind them like rabid sheep. We were mad, we were out for blood, and we didn't care whose. (As long as it wasn't ours.) Of course there were exceptions, giving blood and singing "Let It Be Me", but the bloodthirsty outnumbered the blood donors by a hundred to one. And the exceptions weren't doing anything effective, like scraping together the price of a movie each month and donating it to MoveOn. (If just 1% of the population gave a dollar a day, it would be more than is spent by the whole country in a presidential election.)
Posted by:DanOctober 20, 2007 7:27:13 AMRespond ^
Sorry, I didn't quite get the Jimi Hendrix reference...
Posted by:PaolaOctober 21, 2007 5:03:53 AMRespond ^
The best apology Americans can come up with is, yes, withdrawal. I understand all the concerns above because Americans, I guess, want to save face as well as everything else that can be saved at all costs. For the rest of the world, however, the huge criminal war into which the U.S. entered knowing that there were no WMS nor a link between Saddam and al-Qaida nor anything else Bush said there was, requires somebody to pay dearly. Other countries in the past have had to pay for the consequences of their mistakes, even with their downfall. In other words, the world wants a propitious victim as a catharsis for all the crimes and violence committed. There is no substituting or transferral of responsibilities.
Posted by:Jim GalcasOctober 21, 2007 7:54:05 AMRespond ^
Sorry, you are falling into a standard psycopaths' ploy. I've done it - so you have to go along with me. No. From all respects - moral, geopolitical, economic, legal, the US has to pull out of Iraq. They should then pay and pay and pay to repair the damage that they have done, and individuals that committed the country to an illegal war should be brought to justice.
Posted by:James McFaddenOctober 21, 2007 10:33:53 AMRespond ^
I completely agree. The world thinks the US is a democracy, but we are an idiotocracy that is ruled by a few rich white men.
Posted by:Terris LinenbachOctober 21, 2007 10:53:22 AMRespond ^
I was responding to Vicki Lawson's comment, not the article's authors who understandably are called The Editors because they are ashamed of the fear lurking underneath their own words.
Posted by:Terris LinenbachOctober 21, 2007 10:56:17 AMRespond ^
To those who are troubled by the phrase "we own it", all it means is that we have to pay for it. Which we do, regardless of our opposition to the whole process every step of the way.
I don't see the phrase as implying that Iraq is ours to do with as we please -- so just change one letter: "we owe it." And let's get on with dealing with it.
Whether or not we accept any degree of personal responsibility for this criminal enterprise, the fact remains that, as residents and citizens of this failing republic, we have to bear the costs -- the financial costs and the costs of political and violent blowback.
Posted by:Bill PeltzOctober 21, 2007 1:14:56 PMRespond ^
Own the debacle in Iraq! Mother, you've got to be kidding! Bush, Cheney, Condi and the rest of the crew that we've been trying to impeach have got to go down in smoke! Truth is, yes, we'll all have to pay for the lies and sins that this pack of hyenas have foisted on us, but bear responsibility for their lies,lawlessness and total lack of conscience and humanity. No way!!!!
Posted by:Peter MacMackinOctober 21, 2007 1:28:40 PMRespond ^
If I could remove my comments I would. My previous self was an idiot as well and should have read and thought more before posting. It's true - Congress got us into this mess because they were afraid of their own electorate who are the actual idiots. The American people will never have health care, long-term care, or freedom from credit card debt. And they deserve that fate because they're the ones who thought "Freedom Fries" were damn tasty.
So they're getting what they deserve and the contrarians such as myself who called Dianne Feinstein and Barbar Boxer and Tom Lantos in complete futility have a few choices: one, shut up and pay taxes or two, leave the country. Australia is looking better and better every day.
Posted by:Terris LinenbachOctober 21, 2007 4:24:25 PMRespond ^
As other here have eloquently stated, Mother Jones is way off the mark. We don't own Iraq, but do owe them and the rest of the world a huge commitment to rebuild it and bring to justice those who perpetrated this horrible mess.
Posted by:Keith SwensonOctober 21, 2007 5:38:27 PMRespond ^
Bill Richardson is for immediate and total withdrawl from Iraq. Diplomacy, and a combined UN/local peacekeeping force would oversee the transition to peace. Yes, we should help the refugees, and partially fund the rebuilding of infrastructure, humanitarian aid is the price we have to pay for the folly of this administration. Please do not call me a "good german", I spent a lot of time volunteering for Kerry in 2004. I now spend quite a bit of time volunteering for Richardson. My husband fought in Gulf War One: Desert Storm,he has seen the conflicts in the area firsthand & he and I were againt this war from the start. In the very beginning, back when Bush made his axis of evil speech, my husband said "it's all about oil", this is true now and has always been true.We do not "own Iraq". American citizens who never voted for Bush did not make this purchase, and Mother Jones, who are you do dictate return policy? The same argument against withdrawal was used in Viet Nam, and yes, there was a blood bath after US withdrawl and it was awful, but at least the US wasn't doing the killing. Look at Viet Nam now. From all that I have seen, that country is better off without us, and I truely believe that Iraq would be as well. At this time, the is no such thing as winning a war. There are no winners
in war.
Posted by:Brenda SiegelmanOctober 22, 2007 3:32:15 PMRespond ^
You can't have a solid international peacekeeping force without a withdrawal. If the Americans are still running the show, withdrawal, a functioning Iraqi government, or a solid international peacekeeping forces of any other nation are part of the invasion. The Americans - every single one of them - have to be on their way out before any other nation would attempt to fix the disaster created by American militarism.
Posted by:steerpikeOctober 24, 2007 1:07:29 AMRespond ^
jimsecor, To suggest that I stop paying taxes is absurd. My point is simple: The Majority of American's have now clearly voted down the occupation of Iraq and will do so again next year. What has been and will be the result of our clear message to our Government? The occupation of Iraq continues and will continue unabated, with some fresh paint applied as public pressure warrants (a token "drawdown" or withdrawal of "combat troops", etc.). If our Government is so much in the service of its people then why does this occupation continue, why the continued building of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, why the massive Green Zone? Why, why, why? Answer these questions in any honest way and a troubling reality sets in. You, me and everyone reading this "post to nowhere" have zero influence on our government, zero ability to shape foreign policy. You could become a congressman tomorrow and this would still be the case. Why? Because the congress is a tool of the Elite (Corporate and private contributions win elections not my tax dollars), the Supreme Court is packed by the Elite and the White House is the controlling Elite. Presidential and Senatorial elections are purely Elitist events or at this point, a "shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic". I don't care if private American Citizen's are collectively the owner, borrower, lender, or whore of Iraq. It doesn't matter to me what we "owe" Iraq, Iraq is mearly another money making scheme of the American Elite. It's their latest ponzi scheme buit for profit for this same group of Elitist. You can't debate the failure that is U.S. foreign policy, you can't debate the total inertia of congress to do ANYTHING of merit (foreign or domestic). Stop paying my taxes? How about I just go outside and piss in the breeze for all the difference that would make. You want the hard and difficult to admit truth about leaving Iraq? Traditionally whenever occupation forces have left a Country of occupation that Country has been better for it in every way despite what are so trustworthy "Leaders" are telling you about this occupation and what the ghastly results would be should we take our foot off the throat of Iraq (see Vietnam, the Phillipines at the turn of the 20th Century, India, Algiers, the list is truly endless). Anyway, if all of the above isn't true then answer this simple question, with it being so clear that we're undermanned in Iraq and the President's need to "surge" into Iraq so great, why no debate, real discussion or implementation of a military draft in this Country? Think about it. P.S. - Our Presidents potentially over 28 consecutive years: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton (and maybe even then Jeb Bush). Is this is a sign of Democracy at work or Oligarchy at play?
Posted by:captn72October 24, 2007 1:03:39 PMRespond ^
The story says: "We'll post the full interviews online, along with a list of those who refused to respond—including the architects of the war, leading presidential candidates, and the congressional leadership."
Please do, and please include the link prominently on the Mother Jones home page.
Posted by:Interested readerOctober 29, 2007 8:41:10 AMRespond ^
I agree with Interested Reader. I want to see the list of those who refused to respond and it would be great to be able to do that without poking around for hours trying to find it! The least you can do when you suggest people go to your site to get information is to make it easy to find that information.
Posted by:TPwritesOctober 29, 2007 7:42:30 PMRespond ^
There are too many people saying "there is no good alternative," when in fact there is a halfway decent alternative (to "stay vs. go"): i.e., to-wit: substitution of UN or Arab League or other multi-national forces for our troops. Admittedly, it might be difficult to recruit such a force, and a lot of thought would have to go into what kinds of troops would be committed where (e.g., wouldn't it be nice if Sunni troops were stationed in Sunni neighborhoods, if only they could then communicate rather than blowing heads off any more innocent Iraqis than absolutely necessary? This idea is mentioned in Robert Dreyfuss' article, but only towards the end and in passing. It needs more attention (e.g., in your "categories" immediately above this comment box).
Posted by:James T. RanneyNovember 15, 2007 5:36:15 AMRespond ^
Well I cant say that we "own" Iraq, it is much more accurate to say we OWE Iraq (as someone else has already pointed out).
I see many americans dont want to take responsiblity and thats the crux of our problem as a nation. When we are ineffective we think we can distance ourselves from blame. I was always against the war and invasion but that dosent excuse me, as an american citizen, from responsibility. It is the american people who must control the govt and its our long term apathy thats helped get us to where we are today. We arent willing to stand up and change things as a nation and until we are, we must accept all blame and responsiblity for our nations actions. Until we claim our power as a nation of people, we wont be able to use it properly or reign it in...we just will continue to distance ourselves from responsibility as it continues to get worse and worse. Acknowledging our responsibility is to acknowledge our power and only then can we move forward in a positive manner. I suggest people vote for Kucinich and bypass the corporate owned press and get rid of our corporate owned govt.
Posted by:KayceeDecember 10, 2007 8:29:02 AMRespond ^
Leave it to Colin Powell - close, but no cigar.
The actual Pottery Barn sign I've seen posted in real world antique shops reads "You break it, You buy it." And there's a real world of difference.
Also, Colin got it right about owning the Iraqis' problems after overthrowing Saddam's regime, but no way do we similarly "own" their hopes or aspirations. The most wide spread and deep seated hope and aspiration among real world Iraqis is for the US occupation to end.
Bill from Saginaw
Posted by:william t. streetDecember 11, 2007 2:23:58 PMRespond ^
I am old enough to remember Viet Nam, and the pull out there. I remember Nixon saying"If we dont beat them there, we will have to beat them here!" and "If we pull out there, they will follow us here!"There was talk of uncontrolled civil war, generalized mayhem and madness, and Communism taking over the world. None of that happened. There was an escalation in the fighting for a short period, followed by peace meetings and resolution. I am not responsible for the mess this administration has made,and Im not responsible for the mess they will leave behind. Halliburton is, let them and Blackwater along with Kellog Brown and root, clean it up[and PAY for it themselves]
Posted by:resadaDecember 14, 2007 4:11:51 PMRespond ^