"Say you won't go, Joe"

Indianapolis Star's Gary Varvel

Comments

[NW burbs]

Why is it that conservatives have such problems providing welfare to Americans but are all too happy to continue doling it out to Iraqis?

[Rightwinger]

Agreed. At least with the Iraq part.

[notquitehip]

That's easy. Americans have every opportunity to better themselves and make a good life for themselves. Those on welfare squander that opportunity by making bad choices.

Iraqis and others around the world don't have those opportunities without our help.

[NW burbs]

Yep, being born into poverty and being unable to afford to move out of neighborhoods which have no jobs and crumbling schools... sound like bad choices to me.

Every opportunity in the world my foot. It reminds me of the conservatives who whined "Why didn't they just pack up their cars and leave" about folks all along the Gulf Coast who didn't have cars in the first place, and wouldn't have had enough money for gas even if they did.

Just ask folks in West Virginia or Mississippi or Texas or any other state (there are 50 of them) with high concentrations of third world conditions.

What sort of elitist attitude does it take to realize poverty is constant in this country because people such as yourself choose to ignore chronic poverty's true consequences?

No wonder heartless conservatives lost their Congressional majority on Tuesday. Your ignorance of reality on the ground *in our own country* is astounding.

Not-quite-hip, you're actually not-quite-getting-it -- and you've proven exactly my point in my original post.

Why *do* conservatives have such problems providing welfare to Americans but are all too happy to continue doling it out to Iraqis?

I'm not talking about habitual welfare like that which Republicans routinely provide to profitable corporations. I'm talking about a crutch or a bridge -- some minimum we as a society provide to our fellow Americans only when they need help from we, their neighbors, so that they can indeed truly have any sort of an opportunity.

[anon2]

Diplomat tells Iraqis U.S. won't ditch them

By Aamer Madhani, Tribune staff reporter. Nadeem Majeed and Sinan Adhem contributed to this report

November 9, 2006

BAGHDAD -- Across the capital Wednesday, Iraqis balanced their hopes against fears about how U.S. policy will change on the ground in the wake of the Democrats' overwhelming victory in congressional elections and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's sudden resignation.

Rasha Tariq, 23, a college student, said she found herself near tears when she awoke Wednesday morning to the news that the Democrats had won the House and were on the cusp of taking the Senate.

Tariq said she worries the Democrats' victory will mark the beginning of a gradual U.S. pullout from Iraq and the disintegration of what little order is left on the dangerous streets of Baghdad.

"If it was up to the Democrats, we would still be living under Saddam's tyranny," Tariq said in an interview Wednesday in the Sadoun Street shopping district. "I'm afraid that this change is going to affect the American presence in Iraq. I don't want them to leave."

While understanding that U.S. involvement in Iraq will not be altered overnight, both politicians and pedestrians in Baghdad said Wednesday that they were sure the U.S. has reached a turning point in the war.

Early Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad met with Iraqi politicians and journalists to reassure them that the U.S. remains committed to helping Iraq succeed. He told the group, which gathered inside the Green Zone, that American policy in Iraq would not radically change as a result of the Democrats' victory.

Several hours later, President Bush announced that he had accepted the resignation of the chief architect of what has become an unpopular war stateside.

Ali Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman who attended the meeting with Khalilzad, said that he was "shocked" to hear of Rumsfeld's resignation. But ultimately, Dabbagh said, the Iraqi government sees the issue as an American matter.

"Whether it is Republicans or Democrats, Secretary Rumsfeld or someone else, we have received the assurances that the U.S. government will continue to work with Iraq for our countries' common goals," Dabbagh said.

Sadiq al-Musawi, a political analyst with the independent Iraqi Media Center, said Iraqis have been aware of the growing discontent among Americans over the daily bloodshed in Iraq.

He said the Democrats could distract the Bush administration from completing its task in Iraq by hampering it with investigations into the handling of the war, or it could force the administration to make tough but necessary alterations in its Iraq policy, al-Musawi said.

He is hopeful that the Democrats will take the latter route and force the Bush administration into bilateral talks with Syria and Iran about security. That is something the administration has been reluctant to do, even though some say it is crucial in cutting off the insurgency's financing and weapons supply.

Mixed opinions of election

Khalilzad acknowledged Wednesday that the daily bloodshed in Iraq has shaken Americans. But he emphasized to the Iraqis that Bush sees Iraq's success as important to U.S. interests.

"The president is the architect of U.S. foreign policy," Khalilzad said. "He is the commander in chief of our armed forces. He understands what is at stake in Iraq. He sees success as an imperative for America's national interest. He is committed to working with both houses of the American Congress to get support needed for the mission in Iraq to succeed."

In a smattering of interviews in central Baghdad on Wednesday, Iraqis expressed mixed opinions over the Democrats' victories.

Jassim Saed, who owns a small novelty shop on bustling Sadoun Street, said he listened closely to the rhetoric from the Democratic and Republican candidates through campaign coverage on Arabic-language satellite television.

He said the Democrats echoed many Iraqis' frustration with how the U.S. planners of the war have operated on the ground. But Saed believes the Democrats have yet to articulate what should be done differently to improve the situation for Iraqis.

"The new Congress has to show something new in their policy," Saed said. "They need to tell Iraqi people that they care and they are serious in finding a solution for the situation here."

Dr. Sami Ismael, 58, said he hopes the Democrats' victory will push the Republicans to make necessary changes in tactics.

With the national police infiltrated by militia and the Iraqi army having often proved itself ineffective, many Iraqis have grown to see the U.S. troops as the only forces they trust. Last month, Gen. George Casey, the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said increasing the number of troops on the ground remains an option.

"Whatever they do, it can't get any worse," Ismael said.

Rumsfeld divides Iraqis

Mohammed Dayini, a spokesman for the Sunni National Dialogue Council, said he wished Rumsfeld had resigned earlier.

In many Iraqi circles, Rumsfeld was a divisive figure, the personification of U.S. missteps in the 3 1/2-year-old war. Many agree with critics in Washington who say Rumsfeld's greatest misstep in the war was ignoring Gen. Eric Shinseki's estimate that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would be needed for the postinvasion U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"He is the one responsible for the criminal acts at Abu Ghraib and the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died at the hands of the U.S.," Dayini said.

Al-Musawi was more charitable in his analysis of how Iraqi history will remember Rumsfeld.

"He will be recalled as the man who designed the war that brought down the dictator Saddam Hussein," al-Musawi said. "He will also be remembered as the man who made many miscalculations that caused much suffering for the Iraqi people."

----------

amadhani@tribune.com
Copyright (c) 2006, Chicago Tribune

[NW burbs]

Anon2 quotes the Trib, "Diplomat tells Iraqis U.S. won't ditch them"

...Anon2, wasn't Bush saying the exact same thing about Rummy last week (before the election) despite the fact he had Rumsfeld's letter of resignation already in hand?

Why does anyone even trust the Bush Administration on anything any more?

[Rightwinger]

I never trusted this goof. Never voted for him once. I hope the Democrats do impeach him.

[NW burbs]

Rightwinger, Tell your thoughts on impeachment to your right-wing friends who tune in to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Scarborough and the others.

Talk about giving the Republicans a big Super-Distracto topic to keep the Dems from cleaning up the mess the GOP's failed conservative policies have left behind.

[Rightwinger]

George Bush and his administration is the mess.

I'm sure TFB and other like minded individuals agree.

[TheReallyRightGuy]

How does any government admit that it spent $300 billion and lost 3,000 lives on a fools errand?
What we need is a positive attitude. We need to point to all the working public works projects, ignore all those mired in graft, note that there are still X million Iraqis alive, forget the bodies, proclaim that this is not a time for perfectionism, and say that what we have is "good enough."
If its not going to get better, this is the cheapest way out.

[notquitehip]

NW,

In your mind, doesn't anyone have any responsibility for themselves? I didn't say "being born into poverty and being unable to afford to move out of neighborhoods which have no jobs and crumbling schools," you did. Staying in those conditions is the bad choice. People who take responsibility for themselves move away from those conditions all the time. If you have nothing, as you suggest these people do, it doesn't take much more than motivation to get off your duff and move on to someplace where you can prosper.

The people that got hit the worst by Katrina made bad choices beforehand that set them up for that situation. Given a week’s notice of the coming storm, they could not even sustain themselves for two days after it hit.

It’s the liberal elitist and patronizing attitude that the government has to baby-sit grown adults for them to be able to survive that is pathetic.

“I'm talking about a crutch or a bridge -- some minimum we as a society provide to our fellow Americans only when they need help from we, their neighbors, so that they can indeed truly have any sort of an opportunity.”

Who do you think you're fooling? You’re not talking about any crutch or bridge, you’re talking about a life-long welfare lifestyle that some people would rather have than commit themselves to the self discipline it takes to prosper. Prospering doesn’t even take a lot of intelligence, usually being reliable and punctual is enough for most employers.

[mike]

This is a nice piece of propoganda. In a recent poll, 74% of Iraquis wanted us to withdraw within a year, and 61% favored attacks against our troops. That boy is definitely in the minority.