Bush tries to impose new terms of victory [Iraq]

RedPlanet

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2413011,00.html

A FRESH attempt by President Bush to redefine success in Iraq was undermined within hours by the American military and Iraqi official.

“I define success or failure as whether or not the Iraqis will be able to defend themselves. I define success or failure as whether schools are being built or hospitals are being opened. I define success or failure as whether we’re seeing a democracy grow in the heart of the Middle East,” he told ABC News.

And there is little more heartening news from the results of the $30 billion (£16 billion) to $40 billion American reconstruction effort. Since the invasion not a single Iraqi hospital has been built, according to Amar al-Saffar, in charge of construction at the Health Ministry.

In fact, no hospital had been built since the Qaddumiya hospital opened in 1986 in Baghdad, he said. When the war started it had 20 intensive care unit beds. Now it has half that, with many patients forced to buy their own oxygen supplies on the black market.

The only significant attempt to build a hospital was a project promoted by Laura Bush, the First Lady, in Basra. She frequently praised the $50 million paediatric hospital being built in the southern city. But Mr al-Saffar said that through financial mismanagement — the bane of postwar reconstruction across the country — it had never been completed.

Another senior Health Ministry official was surprised that Mr Bush had latched on to healthcare as proof of progress in Iraq. “It is the worst situation that the Ministry of Health has been in in its entire history,” he said. Healthcare had become so dire that half of those who died of injuries from terrorist attacks might have been saved, according to Bassim al-Sheibani, of the Diwaniyah College of Medicine, writing in the British Medical Journal.

Doctors told The Times that almost everyone who was seriously wounded in the daily explosions and shootings would die for want of proper medical attention. And, according to Mr al-Saffar, the country’s medical workers were themselves in the line of fire — 120 doctors and 80 pharmacists have been murdered, and 15,000 doctors had fled abroad.

We all knew that Bush would try to move the goalposts in Iraq. It's not the first time.
However i didn't think he'd be so stupid as to use healthcare as a yardstick. I suppse the claim of Iraqis able to "defend themselves" is in actuality, a comment about the "right to bear arms".
In Bushworld: if Iraqis are going around w/ guns they are thereby able to "defend themselves", well done GWB.:rolleyes:

This article also reminds me of a claim made by Manic Moran, whom posted fairly recently that the hosptial situation in Falljah had improved.
I can't find the thread anymore, but i believe that the tone of the Iraqis quoted in this article contrast starkly with that of MM.
Maybe someone can find the thread, or MM would comment?

Akrasia

RedPlanet wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2413011,00.html



We all knew that Bush would try to move the goalposts in Iraq. It's not the first time.
However i didn't think he'd be so stupid as to use healthcare as a yardstick. I suppse the claim of Iraqis able to "defend themselves" is in actuality, a comment about the "right to bear arms".
In Bushworld: if Iraqis are going around w/ guns they are thereby able to "defend themselves", well done GWB.:rolleyes:

This article also reminds me of a claim made by Manic Moran, whom posted fairly recently that the hosptial situation in Falljah had improved.
I can't find the thread anymore, but i believe that the tone of the Iraqis quoted in this article contrast starkly with that of MM.
Maybe someone can find the thread, or MM would comment?

Bush knows that the overwhelming majority of U.S. media won't challenge his lies. He can say whatever he wants

Sgt. Sensible

Interesting point about people dying from injuries in hospitals, so as the Lancet report claims, the death toll is severely underestimated.

Meanwhile

We do not negotiate with terrorists (except ehh, when we do.)

US in secret truce talks with insurgency chiefs

AMERICAN officials held secret talks with leaders of the Iraqi insurgency last week after admitting that their two-month clampdown on violence in Baghdad had failed.

Few details of the discussions in the Jordanian capital Amman have emerged but an Iraqi source close to the negotiations said the participants had met for at least two days.

They included members of the Islamic Army in Iraq, one of the main Sunni militias behind the insurgency, and American government representatives. The talks were described as “feeler” discussions. The US officials were exploring ways of persuading the Sunni groups to stop attacks on allied forces and to end a cycle of increasingly bloody sectarian clashes with members of the majority Shi’ite groups.

US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq.

A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez told al-Jazeera TV the US was now willing to talk to any insurgent group apart from al-Qaeda in Iraq, to reduce sectarian bloodshed.

Things aren't really going to plan.

Akrasia

I define success or failure as whether or not the Iraqis will be able to defend themselves.

heh, How can this be a measure of success? before the War, the Iraqis didn't need to defend themselves. Is Bush's measure of success whether or not the Iraqis can defend themselves from another invasion by a lunatic imperialist army?
Or from the extremists that the war created?

AbusesToilets

What other measure of success would you be looking for?They're trying to reach a point of stability in Iraq,where the country isn't riven by sectarian violence and the Government can take on the insurgents on their own.There's not going to be any significant rebuilding of Iraqi society until the insurgent stop attacking

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

This article also reminds me of a claim made by Manic Moran, whom posted fairly recently that the hosptial situation in Falljah had improved.
I can't find the thread anymore, but i believe that the tone of the Iraqis quoted in this article contrast starkly with that of MM.
Maybe someone can find the thread, or MM would comment?

Certainly. I said that there were two originally existing hospitals in Fallujah, one (private) which got a $5m rennovation, and one (public) which got $20m. Neither would qualify as new construction and be mentioned in the article above but obviously would have been the priorities as they were already a good startpoint. Even then, it takes a while: The Najaf Teaching Hospital, for example, started undergoing reconstruction in early 2004, and has only recently completed the third and final phase.

Only a year ago, (Sept 9th 2005), Asama al-Najafi, Minister of Industry and Minerals, laid the foundation stone for a new construction $46m hospital in Fallujah. I believe that even in Ireland, it takes more than a year for a hospital to go from foundation stone to opened.

NTM

meepins

AbusesToilets wrote:

What other measure of success would you be looking for?They're trying to reach a point of stability in Iraq,where the country isn't riven by sectarian violence and the Government can take on the insurgents on their own.There's not going to be any significant rebuilding of Iraqi society until the insurgent stop attacking

There never will be nor was there any intention to rebuild Iraq Mr.Naeivity. It's ridiculous statements like this that boil my blood.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3904382605215032226&q=dispatches+iraq

Channel 4's dispatches on the criminal wasting / embezzling of the monetary resources for infastructural redevelopment.

AbusesToilets

meepins wrote:

There never will be nor was there any intention to rebuild Iraq Mr.Naeivity.

I think the average Iraqi might disagree with you on that one.The reality of gross financial mismanagement and embezzlement,while disgusting,isn't surprising .It doesn't take away from the will of people wanting to live normal lives

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

no, but it does take away from the idea that the americans are doing all they can to rebuild the place properly. Which is what meepins was implying. Did anybody here implyu that the iraqi's didn't want their country rebuilt?

meepins

They don't have a choice now do they.
U.S went in and immediately sold the whole country off.

Jimboo_Jones

Manic Moran wrote:

Certainly. I said that there were two originally existing hospitals in Fallujah, one (private) which got a $5m rennovation, and one (public) which got $20m. Neither would qualify as new construction and be mentioned in the article above but obviously would have been the priorities as they were already a good startpoint. Even then, it takes a while: The Najaf Teaching Hospital, for example, started undergoing reconstruction in early 2004, and has only recently completed the third and final phase.

Only a year ago, (Sept 9th 2005), Asama al-Najafi, Minister of Industry and Minerals, laid the foundation stone for a new construction $46m hospital in Fallujah. I believe that even in Ireland, it takes more than a year for a hospital to go from foundation stone to opened.

NTM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5264240.stm

Well, there may be more hospitals, though it looks like they are having trouble supplying them. And life looks pretty grim there.

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

Certainly. I said that there were two originally existing hospitals in Fallujah, one (private) which got a $5m rennovation, and one (public) which got $20m. Neither would qualify as new construction and be mentioned in the article above but obviously would have been the priorities as they were already a good startpoint. Even then, it takes a while: The Najaf Teaching Hospital, for example, started undergoing reconstruction in early 2004, and has only recently completed the third and final phase.

Only a year ago, (Sept 9th 2005), Asama al-Najafi, Minister of Industry and Minerals, laid the foundation stone for a new construction $46m hospital in Fallujah. I believe that even in Ireland, it takes more than a year for a hospital to go from foundation stone to opened.

NTM

This was obviously one of the hospitals the Americans deliberately bombed in 2004. Out of billions of dollars, why have so few new hospitals been built? 45 million is nothing, sure that figure goes missing every other week. I would like to know how much has been spent on securing the oil for export whilst the Iraqi people queue everyday at the pumps. I can almost imagine Cheney saying - 'its perfect, when we secure the oil, we can always say its just for the benefit of the Iraqi people, to get them on their feet'.

Akrasia

In other revisionist news, George Bush recently said this

BUSH: Well, listen, we've never been "stay the course", George. We have been, "We will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics"…

Yes, we are at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia

Akrasia

In other revisionist news, George Bush recently said this

BUSH: Well, listen, we've never been "stay the course", George. We have been, "We will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics"…

Yes, we are at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia

Manic Moran

Frederico wrote:

This was obviously one of the hospitals the Americans deliberately bombed in 2004.

Wasn't bombed too badly, although the Mehdi Army had used it as a command center during the Najaf fighting. The main problem was the internal condition and equipment, apparently. It's a seven-storey building, if it had been bombed, then I think structural integrity would have required its demolishing, not repair.

NTM

meepins

Frederico wrote:

This was obviously one of the hospitals the Americans deliberately bombed in 2004. Out of billions of dollars, why have so few new hospitals been built? 45 million is nothing, sure that figure goes missing every other week. I would like to know how much has been spent on securing the oil for export whilst the Iraqi people queue everyday at the pumps. I can almost imagine Cheney saying - 'its perfect, when we secure the oil, we can always say its just for the benefit of the Iraqi people, to get them on their feet'.

Read Greg Palasts 'Armed Madhouse' or even go to youtube theres one of his speeches there

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

Wasn't bombed too badly, although the Mehdi Army had used it as a command center during the Najaf fighting. The main problem was the internal condition and equipment, apparently. It's a seven-storey building, if it had been bombed, then I think structural integrity would have required its demolishing, not repair.

NTM

The overhead pictures I saw the main structure was literally cleaved in two, that was some bomb that hit it. Many reporters at the time were speculating, quite rightly too I think, that the military were going to go in very very hard and didnt want casualties on tv from the local hospital.

Personally I believe the American military were told they could throw the handbook out the window and they could do whatever they wanted as long as they crushed the insurgents and terrorists in Fallujah. Fair enough, but it was messy and as usual bad for the longterm.

I read in many interviews, reports, etc that quite a number of Iraqi's who supported the invasion felt that Fallujah was a turning point and created much resentment against the occupation.

Manic Moran

Frederico wrote:

The overhead pictures I saw the main structure was literally cleaved in two, that was some bomb that hit it. Many reporters at the time were speculating, quite rightly too I think, that the military were going to go in very very hard and didnt want casualties on tv from the local hospital.

Are we talking about the same hospital? From health-now.org

NAJAF, 15 Jul 2004 (IRIN) - Sadr Teaching Hospital in the southern city of Najaf has been closed since early April, a victim of the fighting between Shi'ite cleric Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi militia and US-led Coalition forces, according to local people.

During a visit to the area, IRIN managed to look inside the hospital to find a magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, diagnostic machine sitting damaged in one wing, apparently too big for looters to steal. In the room next door, wires and boxes of test kits lay tangled and strewn about.

Outside, hundreds of rubbish bags filled with boxes of prescription medicines are piled waist-deep on the asphalt. In one bag are hundreds of pink antibiotic tablets from Jordan. In another are vials of what look like vaccination ampoules from Germany.

While many of the medicines seem to be undamaged, hospital guards say the bags were taken out of the hospital after raw sewage flooded a basement storage area and made the drugs unusable.

"Most of the equipment was looted after the US troops left," Fadhel Karim, 26, told IRIN as he stood outside the hospital waiting for the bus. "I feel very sad about it. Any good citizen will refuse to allow this, since this hospital serves patients from all of southern Iraq [an estimated 6 million people]."

While there is disagreement over why the hospital has been closed for so long, US troops, a Red Cross representative, hospital guards and administrators agree on at least one point about the closure. The Mehdi militia forces took over the hospital in April, using its upper floors to launch attacks against US-led troops and hold the main road.

I read in many interviews, reports, etc that quite a number of Iraqi's who supported the invasion felt that Fallujah was a turning point and created much resentment against the occupation.

This is true. There are also interviews which indicate approval amongst some Iraqis (Including Fallujans, per the BBC) for the Fallujah operation because it indicated that the government was willing to use force when required and not merely be meek. Face and appearance of strength are very important concepts over there.

NTM

AbusesToilets

Mordeth wrote:

no, but it does take away from the idea that the americans are doing all they can to rebuild the place properly. Which is what meepins was implying. Did anybody here implyu that the iraqi's didn't want their country rebuilt?

The point i was making is that there will be no significant rebuilding until the insurgency is defeated.People are happy to lambast the US for not rebuilding Iraqi infastructure,yet this is made untenable by the level of insurgent attacks and intimidation.So when the Coalition forces take the steps to defeat the insurgency,while trying to get the Iraqi forces to stand up on their own,they get slammed.
I don't see what's naive in that statement Meepins.I think those who are embezzling taxpayers money should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible

fly_agaric

Frederico wrote:

Out of billions of dollars, why have so few new hospitals been built?

Out of the "billions of dollars" - how much goes on "security" do you think?
I mean you all think that US and British troops are fair game for the glorious and heroic Iraqi Freedom Fighting Martyrs because they are occupiers don't you? Right on Brothers!
Members of the glorious and heroic Iraqi Freedom Fighting Martyrs would tend to take an even dimmer view of those Iraqis who would collaborate with the schemes of said occupiers and be seen take their shilling!
That would make it somewhat difficult to recruit workers without paying danger money I Imagine. Then you pay even more danger money either to soldiers or private security people (you know how private verything is always better these days:rolleyes:) to protect them.
End result - lots of money down the toilet and the only people who perhaps do well out of it are some of the private security companies.

Frederico wrote:

I would like to know how much has been spent on securing the oil for export whilst the Iraqi people queue everyday at the pumps.

Hasn't done much good has it? Oil exports are lower than before the war AFAICR.

meepins wrote:

There never will be nor was there any intention to rebuild Iraq Mr.Naeivity. It's ridiculous statements like this that boil my blood.

So why don't you tell us about the real plan then eh oh Swami!

RedPlanet

Sure it's all moot now isn't it?
Everybody knows the yanks have lost.
They went in there guns blazing like silly ignorant cowboys up against a meagre 3rd world country armed with ragtag forces and "dead-enders", and what happened?
They've been humiliated, their plans in ruins.
The only thing they can do is desperately try and spin it in the most favorable light.
Oh, and i suppose try and point fingers at anybody and everybody but themselves.

America, global SuperPower, most mighty military in history VS religious nuts and "dead-enders" armed with AK's and "improvised explosive devices".
Result?

0-1

meepins

Darlings did you even watch the documentary posted?

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

The only thing they can do is desperately try and spin it in the most favorable light.
Oh, and i suppose try and point fingers at anybody and everybody but themselves.

Op-Ed in Friday's Washington Times.

Even as we pursue "security," "stabilizing" the Shi'ite-dominated, Shariah-guided Iraqi government—and, thus, creating a natural Iranian (Shi'ite) ally — makes zero strategic sense. But, see here, say supporters of the president's Iraq policy: If we don't secure and stabilize the Shi'ite-dominated, Shariah-guided government in Iraq, that same government falls, America suffers defeat in jihadist eyes, and Shi'ite-Sunni war breaks out in full force.

Well, which scenario is better for the U.S. of A? I vote for civil war. It seems obvious when Shi'ite and Sunni jihadis — and their Islamic world sponsors — are busy slaughtering one another, they have much less time to plan their next attack on Americans, in the region or stateside.

There is a certain logic behind it. If the two sides really want to spend their effort whacking each other, maybe we shouldn't stop it? I don't agree that we should let it happen, but the argument is there. Of course, I wouldn't want to hear anyone lamenting "Ah, we must do something to stop the genocide"

NTM

meepins

You are joking right?

Manic Moran

I'm not joking that that was a quote from the op-ed piece.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm

NTM

AbusesToilets

I can see a lot of revelence in what he says.Certainly with respect to obscure and ill defined objectives for the war.Also,the point about energy independance is well made.IMO i think that that should be the driving aim of any administration in the foreseeable future.A successful shift away from total dependance on foreign oil would free the US form having to compromise itself towards those dubious regimes that control much of the worlds supply re:Saudi Arabia

RedPlanet

Oh yeah?
Can't you just imagine all the goodwill America's meddling will have created?
Particularly after it takes Iran to sort Iraq out for them.

Jimboo_Jones

Manic Moran wrote:

There is a certain logic behind it. If the two sides really want to spend their effort whacking each other, maybe we shouldn't stop it? I don't agree that we should let it happen, but the argument is there. Of course, I wouldn't want to hear anyone lamenting "Ah, we must do something to stop the genocide"

NTM

Maybe there is logic in there, but it is the logic of the coward. Maybe the US and UK shouldn't get involved in this sort of thing if they do not have the guts to see it through.

Akrasia

the washing times is the u.s. equivilent of the daily mail, and it certainly shows.

I love the quote

hey have much less time to plan their next attack on Americans, in the region or stateside

Next attack? Iraq has never initiated a single attack on america or americans other than those actively engaged in attacking or occupying their country

RedPlanet

Maybe what we'll see is a civil war along ethnic lines.
American's hoping it lasts and lasts while secretly arming both sides.
But eventually ****e and Sunni will make peace once america is out of the picture and their puppet government gone.
Nothing unites people like a common enemy.

Jimboo_Jones

I guess your saying that there isnt a common enemy in Iraq at the moment, as there certainly doesn't appear to be much unity there at the moment.

fly_agaric

RedPlanet wrote:

American's hoping it lasts and lasts while secretly arming both sides.

Why do you think people in the US (govt. or your average citizen) hope for a long lasting civil war in Iraq and that the US weapons makers plan to sell weapons to both sides?

I suppose "RedPlanet" probably refers to a wish to see the world turn into a big happy communist paradise [under your benevolent leadership perhaps] but sometimes I think it refers to the place you point to in the sky and call "home".

fly_agaric

Please read the charter regarding attacking the post and not the poster.
Another remark like the above and you will get a ban.

AbusesToilets

RedPlanet wrote:

Maybe what we'll see is a civil war along ethnic lines.
American's hoping it lasts and lasts while secretly arming both sides.
But eventually ****e and Sunni will make peace once america is out of the picture and their puppet government gone.
Nothing unites people like a common enemy.

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement,or is it a case of letting anti-US sentiments get the better of you.The US gains nothing in your scenario.One of the main aims of the NeoCons agenda in invading Iraq was to establish a stable,friendly trading partner that would be a counter to Iran and the hegemony of OPEC.That scenario doesn't work if the country is involved in civil war.

Frederico

fly_agaric wrote:

Out of the "billions of dollars" - how much goes on "security" do you think?
I mean you all think that US and British troops are fair game for the glorious and heroic Iraqi Freedom Fighting Martyrs because they are occupiers don't you? Right on Brothers!
Members of the glorious and heroic Iraqi Freedom Fighting Martyrs would tend to take an even dimmer view of those Iraqis who would collaborate with the schemes of said occupiers and be seen take their shilling!
That would make it somewhat difficult to recruit workers without paying danger money I Imagine. Then you pay even more danger money either to soldiers or private security people (you know how private verything is always better these days:rolleyes:) to protect them.
End result - lots of money down the toilet and the only people who perhaps do well out of it are some of the private security companies.



Hasn't done much good has it? Oil exports are lower than before the war AFAICR.



So why don't you tell us about the real plan then eh oh Swami!

About 15% to 20% (of reconstruction costs) goes on security I believe.

US and UK forces are fair game for the insurgency who see them as occupiers, crusaders, supporters of Israel.. when you are in a foreign country firing approx 250,000 rounds of ammunition a day in anger, you are bound to create more enemies than you can kill.

Blue37

Manic Moran wrote:

There is a certain logic behind it. If the two sides really want to spend their effort whacking each other, maybe we shouldn't stop it? I don't agree that we should let it happen, but the argument is there. Of course, I wouldn't want to hear anyone lamenting "Ah, we must do something to stop the genocide"

NTM

What logic for America?? Have you any understanding of global politics??!

I can picture it now. Americans pull out leaving sectarian civil war to carry on. Within about 45 minutes the Iranian tanks will roll into Baghdad to "protect" Shias from further slaughter.

Result: An Iranian puppet-state in Iraq

Ya real logical from an American point of view :rolleyes:

Nah, I'm afraid ala Vietnam the poor fools are in this one for the long haul

Hobbes

Had to laugh in recent Bush interview he is claiming he never said "Stay the course" when it came to Iraq.

Sgt. Sensible

Hobbes wrote:

Had to laugh in recent Bush interview he is claiming he never said "Stay the course" when it came to Iraq.

91 US troops dead (and one captured, so as good as dead) so far this month and 8 or 9 times that wounded. He'll be saying he never said 'bring it on' next.

Frederico

The Irony of all this ..

Now America will experience another Vietnam, quite obviously, unless Bush slimes out of Iraq and blinds the US populace (which doesn't seem too hard these days).

What that means is that the US will be weak now and countries with aspirations will just be able to blatantly stand up. I don't think this was part of the NeoCon fantasy.

fly_agaric

Frederico wrote:

About 15% to 20% (of reconstruction costs) goes on security I believe.

Then take away all the danger monies I mentioned [as I said - the Iraqis who would work on these projects are probably in more danger from the wonderful Iraqi insurgents and militias than the US troops or private security "contractors" are] and then corruption (both US and Iraqi) + major private sector gouging (the wonders of the free market). There will not be much left to actually get something done IMO - even when the security situation allows for it.

Frederico

fly_agaric wrote:

Then take away all the danger monies I mentioned [as I said - the Iraqis who would work on these projects are probably in more danger from the wonderful Iraqi insurgents and militias than the US troops or private security "contractors" are] and then corruption (both US and Iraqi) + major private sector gouging (the wonders of the free market). There will not be much left to actually get something done IMO - even when the security situation allows for it.

The Bush administration arrogantly ignored almost all warnings that this might/would happen from day 1. Let's just say it how it is, there are quite a few hardworking good people in Iraq, American and Iraqi, but at the end of the day the US administration puts 10 times more effort into rushing cluster bombs to Israel than it does to building hospitals in Iraq.

The will has never been there to help the Iraqi people, that was very far down the list of objectives.

ISAW

AbusesToilets wrote:

The point i was making is that there will be no significant rebuilding until the insurgency is defeated.

This is spinning in the most extreme form! Why does the place need to be rebuilt? Because it was destroyed. Who destroyed it? And you try to shift this responsibility on to someone else.

People are happy to lambast the US for not rebuilding Iraqi infastructure,yet this is made untenable by the level of insurgent attacks and intimidation.

But it isnt their fault the place is rubble in the first place! Using this logic I can burn your house down and loot it and then blame you for attacking me when I have someone else deliver a brand new TV while I am picking through the debris.

So when the Coalition forces take the steps to defeat the insurgency,while trying to get the Iraqi forces to stand up on their own,they get slammed.
I don't see what's naive in that statement Meepins.

Whats naive is that you dont save something by destroying it in the process! And while the symptom of the invasion is insurgency it was the Us that caused the invasion to happen. You dont remove a symptom by introducing a cause.

I think those who are embezzling taxpayers money should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible

Start with "savings and loans" and move on from there. The military NASA etc. have all wasted taxpayers money. You dont thave to invade another country to waste even more! Why not stay at home and tackle you own problems and dont visit them on other people in a way where you own poor are sacrifices for some "vision" which is totally concocted and unrealistic and " let freedom ring" "stay the course" and "bring it on" are shown up for the empty tough guy talk from those who never was prepared to suffer loss or put their own life on the line for this "vision".

lostexpectation

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/10/post_411.html#014151

My attitude about our – look, I'm into campaigning out there: People want to know, can you win? That's what they want to know. I mean, there's – look, there's some 25 percent or so that want us to get out, shouldn't have been out there in the first place – and that's fine. They're wrong. But you can understand why they feel that way. They just don't believe in war, and – at any cost. I believe when you get attacked and somebody declares war on you, you fight back. And that's what we're doing.


we weren't attacked by Iraq.