President Obama Announces Iraq Troop Plan

"President Obama declared the beginning of the end of one of the longest and most divisive wars in American history on Friday as he announced that he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 and all remaining troops by December 2011.

"The decision, outlined before thousands of camouflage-clad Marines here, underscored the transformation in national priorities a month after Mr. Obama took office as he prepared to shift resources and troops from increasingly stable Iraq to increasingly volatile Afghanistan.

"But it also marked a sharp change in America’s attitude about Iraq after years of wrenching debate over war and peace. Despite some grumbling on the left and right, Mr. Obama’s pullout plan generated support across party lines on Friday, including from his rival in last year’s election and advisers to his predecessor, indicating an emerging consensus behind a gradual but firm exit from Iraq.

"The plan will withdraw most of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq by the summer of next year, leaving 35,000 to 50,000 to train and advise Iraqi security forces, hunt terrorist cells and protect American civilian and military personnel. Those “transitional forces” will leave by 2011 in accordance with a strategic agreement negotiated by President George W. Bush before he left office....

"Mr. Obama presented his plan at the same base where, in April 2003, with American forces nearing Baghdad, Mr. Bush declared that “we will accept nothing less than complete and final victory.”

"Nearly six years, more than 4,200 military deaths, tens of thousands of civilian deaths and $657 billion later, the definition of victory has evolved. If the uneasy but relatively democratic Iraq that is emerging counts as a victory of sorts, it proved to be longer, bloodier and more damaging to America’s reputation than anticipated.

"At the same time, the consensus behind Mr. Obama’s plan may stem in part from the subsiding violence since Mr. Bush changed strategies and sent more troops in January 2007, a shift that the new president, who opposed it, did not directly address in his speech. The urgency on the left to pull out faster has eased as casualties have fallen, while the imperative on the right to stay has waned with the successes of the last two years.

"Republicans who backed Mr. Obama on the issue said he owed his ability to pull out to the troop buildup. “The dramatic success of the surge strategy has enabled us to move from a discussion about whether the United States could bear the catastrophic consequences of failure in Iraq, to planning the way in which to consolidate success there,” Senator John McCain of Arizona said.

"Mr. McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate who clashed sharply with Mr. Obama over the future of Iraq during the campaign last year, called the withdrawal “reasonable” and said he was “cautiously optimistic that the plan as laid out by the president can lead to success.”

"Former Bush aides called it the logical next step after his agreement to pull out by 2011. “The specific timing is only slightly different but consistent with the goal of helping Iraq become self-sufficient in providing its own security,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, Mr. Bush’s last national security spokesman. “This is possible because of the success of the surge.”

"In a separate interview with PBS, Mr. Obama said the security progress of the last two years still left much undone in political reconciliation, citing a long-awaited law distributing oil revenues that has yet to pass. “Frankly, we have not made the kind of progress over the last year to two years, despite the surge,” he said.

"Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush moments before the announcement as a courtesy, aides said. But then during his speech, Mr. Obama implicitly rebuked Mr. Bush for getting into Iraq in the first place, noting that Iraq taught painful lessons about how and when America should go to war. Mr. Obama said America must go only “with clearly defined goals” after weighing “the costs of action” and building support at home and abroad. To that end, he vowed intensive diplomacy in the region, including outreach to Iran and Syria...

"The president’s venue underscored the shift in emphasis. About 8,000 Marines stationed here will ship out soon to Afghanistan, part of the 17,000-troop buildup he ordered. The Marines applauded when he promised to bring troops home from Iraq.

"Some Democrats had complained that too many troops would remain after August 2010 but tempered their criticism after the speech. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, who on Thursday called a 50,000-member residual force too big, on Friday called Mr. Obama’s plan “sound and measured,” while urging him to keep “only those forces necessary for the security of our remaining troops and the Iraqi people.”

"Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker who also criticized the residual force this week, said Friday that it should be “as small as possible” but praised the withdrawal plan as “good news because it signals that the war is coming to an end.”

"Mr. Obama called Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki from Air Force One en route here to brief him, and called Mr. Bush from the base just before addressing the troops. Yassen Majeed, an adviser to Mr. Maliki, said the prime minister was “very comfortable with the plan.”

“I think we’re ready to take over the responsibilities from the Americans,” Mr. Majeed said. “Our forces will be up to it, and we are even ready right now.”

"But others were cautious, including Sunni lawmakers worried about their influence in the Shiite-dominated government. “All Iraqis want the Americans to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible,” said Adnan al-Dulaimi, a senior Sunni politician. “We’re just afraid of the vacuum that this withdrawal may cause.”

Remarks of President Barack Obama – Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq

Conservative Commentator Shows No Mercy by Calling Bush the Great Underminer of Conservatism

Writing in POLITICO, Joel Kotkin captures the angst and bitterness that many conservatives must be feeling now at the conclusion of eight years of the Bush presidency. Kotkin quotes a decades old pop standard penned by Allan Roberts and Doris Fisher to set the mood for disgruntled conservatives:


You always hurt the one you love
The one you shouldn’t hurt at all
You always take the sweetest rose
And crush it till the petals fall
You always break the kindest heart
With a hasty word you can’t recall


Kotkin attempts to come to terms with Bush by writing: “Like the 1944 pop standard says, President George W. Bush has hurt the most all those he professed to love the most — from the conservative ideologues and born-again Christians to the free-market enthusiasts, energy producers and red state political class. Perhaps no politician in recent memory has done more damage to his political base. The most obvious recent equivalent, Richard Nixon, did cause harm to the conservative cause, but that damage was short-lived. It reflected his deviousness more than his policies. Similarly, Bill Clinton’s many personality flaws weakened the Democrats’ hold on the White House, but inflicted no permanent harm to liberalism. In contrast, the Katrina-scale disaster that has been the Bush presidency may leave his ideological backers in the wilderness for years to come. Over the past eight years, Bush has done more to undermine conservatism than all of the country’s college faculties, elite media and Hollywood studios put together.” That’s cold. Its obvious Mr. Kotkin has little if no empathy for Mr. Bush. Kotkin dismantles the Bush years with a dispassionate heart as he explains that: “Conservatism’s core values rested on notions of a strong national defense and free market economics. Bush has punctured these ideas in a way that transcends the effects of historically anomalous scandals such as Watergate or Clinton’s extramarital affairs. Bush has not only dinged the conservative car, he has totaled it.” Kotkin points to the defense of the nation as: “Arguably, Bush’s one success lies in his reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks and the ensuing lack of follow-up terrorist attacks on the homeland. But Kotkin is quick to add: “Yet a series of other blunders, notably the war in Iraq, has blemished this enviable record.” Kotkin provides at first a veiled criticism of the Iraq War that turns into a pessimistic assessment: “Despite the great efforts of the military, particularly in recent years, to calm that rich but cantankerous country, it is hard to see how it has been worth the cost in life, treasure and international reputation. The shoes thrown in Iraq and celebrated around the world epitomize not only ill manners but also the fact that even our supposed friends there don’t like us very much. If history is any guide, Iraq will end up as an authoritarian state with strong anti-American (as well as anti-Israel) leanings. The farther our sons and daughters get away from those ever-scowling people, the better most Americans will feel.” Kotkin adds of our misadventure in Iraq: “One unintended part of the Bush legacy will likely be a weaker, highly stressed military.” Kotkin laments: “Bush’s legacy for the cause of free market capitalism may be even worse. Our first MBA-holding president has turned out to be the worst economic manager since Herbert Hoover. The bailouts of Detroit and — much worse — the vile Wall Street profiteers now open the door to an unprecedented expansion of invasive welfarism throughout the economy. It’s hard to call proposals that build tennis courts in yuppie towns or subsidize performance artists in Flint, Mich., wasteful after the billions Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has lavished on his compadres in Richistan.” Kotkin concludes with some very damning criticisms of Bush: “In the coming years, the only legitimate opposition to the bipartisan pro-Wall Street policy will come from the scruffy populists of both parties, many based in the heartland regions of the country. Bush may even make quasi-Marxism respectable again. Hearing about $20 billion in new bonuses for government-subsidized Wall Streeters this year should be enough to bring out the hidden Bolshevik in even rational people. Ironically, the only people who should be thanking Bush — the environmentalists, the urban gentry, the welfare staters — are the very ones who have despised him the most. Now that he has helped put them in power, perhaps they could host a celebrity fundraiser for the new Bush library in Dallas. Serenaded by Barbra, scolded by St. Al, with a short film by Michael Moore, the program — hosted by Whoopi Goldberg — could help consecrate a lavish new sarcophagus that Bush has prepared for the conservative movement.” And just think that it wasn’t too long ago that Bush and his administration held the conservative movement in the palms of their hands by promising an era of the conservative dominance of American politics. It’s amazing how little a lot of unfounded hubris can bring to a political party. And America is better off that Bush will cease to be president within a matter of days. Even the conservatives agree.

The Vice Presidency of Dick Cheney: His No Regrets Legacy of Disgrace and Dishonor

The Philadelphia Inquirer has written an editorial on the soon to be former Vice President, Dick Cheney. Vice President Dick Cheney was the experienced Washington pro whose decade’s long familiarity with the corridors of power in our nation’s capital was supposed to serve as the mentor to the newly elected, younger, more charismatic, but less experienced compassionate conservative George Bush. At least that’s how the media touted Cheney’s own recommendation of himself to serve as Bush’s Vice President. George Bush was touted as a bipartisan leader whose governing style would bring Americans together for the greater good of the nation. The oddity of all the hype was that nothing ended up working like it was supposed to. Bush viewed the presidency much as a CEO who headed up a corporation and he ended up delegating many of his powers away to those who served under him. Bush decided and others governed; at least that’s what the American people have come to understand from the masses of books written so far about the Bush Presidency. But instead of offering advice and guidance; Cheney saw an opportunity to take advantage of Bush’s lax leadership style and assumed powers far beyond any other vice president in American history. In fact, Bush and Cheney acted with such indiscretion that they quickly assumed powers that superseded the Constitution. The Bush Administration, under advisement by its own Justice Department and with the support of an acquiescing Congress that was firmly controlled by the Republican Party, made the legal distinction that the Constitution intentionally allowed for a hierarchical, unified executive branch of the federal government that placed the President at the apex of the nation’s government. Bush and Cheney effectively gave themselves complete control over the government and they governed for eight years with those principles in mind. Now, however, the eight years of Bush rule are nearly over and the administration; suffering from pitifully low public opinion ratings and soon to be displaced by a Democratic President and Congress, have launched a “Legacy Project” to smooth over the rough edges of public sentiment by giving the administration their own opportunity to define the first draft of the historic record of the Bush Administration. Bush went to bat first to give an overview that would define the shape and fill the contours of history from Bush’s ‘first hand’ knowledge of what really happened. Later, other administration officials would fill in the details to provide the administration with an exemplary record of accomplishment. Enter Cheney. The Vice President who never bothered with telling the truth in the past, because governing, from Cheney’s point of view, didn’t mean that his take on events needed to line up with the facts. For Cheney, truth was a commodity that he used to construct a reality that always placed the Bush Administration in the most unassailable position possible, thus protecting the administration against criticism. This practice of switch and bait that was played with the truth worked well enough for Bush to gain a second term in office before the frequency of telling lies could no longer outpace the truth. And once the truth about the Bush Administration’s deceptions gained general acceptance among the citizenry, Bush lost the trust of the vast majority of the American people. Now all we are left with is farce: “In an interview just before Christmas with the administration-friendly Fox News, Cheney offered no regrets about the invasion of Iraq, the illegal tapping of American citizens' phones and e-mail by government agents, or the torture of terror suspects. He defended former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said he "did a good job" - despite the failures in Iraq. In an earlier interview with ABC News, Cheney suggested the administration would have invaded Iraq even without the bogus intelligence claiming Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. That certainly conforms with what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said took place at the very first National Security Council meeting 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks. At the meeting, O'Neill says, the main topic of discussion was regime change in Iraq.” To add justification to going to war with Iraq after the terrible events of September 11th, 2001, the Bush White House forged documents, twisted intelligence reports and spread false claims that Saddam Hussein controlled stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that he was prepared to unleash on America and its allies. When former ambassador Joseph Wilson “accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq in a New York Times commentary, it was a top aide to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby who outed “the name of Wilson's wife, CIA official Valerie Plame,.. to reporters in 2003. After years of denying the torturing of terrorist suspects; “Cheney said recently that he approved of the administration's use of coercive interrogation tactics, including waterboarding - which is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. But Cheney doesn't think rules apply to the White House. He seemed proud of the broad expansion of executive power that he helped craft and implement... So much for checks and balances, let alone the Constitution.” The time for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney has long passed with just days left in their terms of office. But it is not too late, nor should it be overlooked that once out of office, Bush, Cheney and other suspected lawbreakers in the administration be investigated with all appropriate dispatch and if found.

The Hidden Danger Posed By Afghanistan

Bob Herbert has uncovered a ticking time bomb set by Bush and set to go off during the early stages of Barack Obama's presidency. Afghanistan, a nation that borders Iran and Pakistan; two nations that pose their own conundrums for American strategists. With the shifting sands of Iraq still holding our commitment of masses of troops, contractors, and civilians, the perceived plan is for Obama to deploy thousands of American forces to a region of the world populated by a fierce population known for its ability to ward off numerous invades for centuries. The American's chances do not appear better than their predecessors. For support of this "quagmire" thesis Herbert quotes: "Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who is now a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, (who) wrote an important piece for Newsweek warning against the proposed buildup. “Afghanistan will be a sinkhole,” he said, “consuming resources neither the U.S. military nor the U.S. government can afford to waste.” Another expert; "Michael Gordon noted that “Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain." Afghanistan would not be an easy military mission for the U.S. even if we were well prepared for extended conflict; however, because of our long military engagement in Iraq, we are not ready. Our troops are too few in numbers and need rest while our war equipment is in need of repair and replacement. We missed our time for victory in Afghanistan and the possibility to kill or capture Osama bin Laden when Bush withdrew and incredulously switched his war efforts to Iraq. If we fight in Afghanistan, we will also be drawn into Pakistan because "radical Islamists" may fight in Afghanistan, but they use Pakistan as a safe haven to collect their forces. Going back into Afghanistan means we have wasted five years and are back to square one after Bush's diversionary mission to Iraq achieved nothing but to make us militarily and diplomatically weaker. Sure, we have an America-friendly government in Afghanistan led by President Hamid Karzai; but that's only because Bush created a puppet government when he installed Karzai in office. But Karzai's authority only extends over the major cities in Afghanistan including the capital city Kabul; beyond, in the more rural areas of the country that amount to perhaps 80% of the total landmass; the Taliban is back in complete control. Still, Mr. Herbert and many other Americans see the inevitability of our military presence in Afghanistan escalating, leaving Herbert with the following advice for Obama: "If Mr. Obama does send more troops to Afghanistan, he should go on television and tell the American people, in the clearest possible language, what he is trying to achieve. He should spell out the mission’s goals, and lay out an exit strategy. He will owe that to the public because he will own the conflict at that point. It will be Barack Obama’s war." My advice is if it is to be war, let it be a war led by a ferocious diplomatic offensive that involves the Taliban warlords who will listen to reason and the leaders of Iran and Pakistan who seek stability in the Central Asian region as a whole. We must not discount the potential for a diplomatic solution in a region that is unafraid of lasting wars of attrition.

The Bush Years: It’s Been a Rough Eight Years, No Question

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial on the Bush years comes up short in its half-hearted attempt to go along with the current White House spin that Bush “is betting history will be kinder to him than any possible present-day assessment of his tenure.” Too many missteps and failures to lead will accompany Bush’s trip through the pages of history yet to be written. As for the numerous assessments of the Bush Administration that have found their way to print; they all share a common theme of disappointment. The Inquirer admits: “Bush departs the White House as one of the least popular presidents in recent times, with some critics confident enough in their historical perspective to nominate him in various "worst" categories.” The editorial writer tries to produce an acceptable reason for such a lackluster record: “Maybe that's because Bush is viewed widely as having stumbled so badly on key policies. By now, it's a familiar litany: Bush led the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq; eroded core freedoms by snooping on Americans without court approval; squandered global goodwill with the harsh interrogation and open-ended detention of terror suspects; undermined environmental protections; favored the rich with tax cuts; and botched the Hurricane Katrina rescue.” It’s a very formidable task the writer takes on to make so many major blunders sound even slightly less disastrous when judging a president’s tenure in office. After eight years of portraying the tough, decisive commander in chief who was hell bent of doing what he felt was right; without regard to historic consequences because, Bush boasted, I’ll be long gone before the history can accurately judge my administration. Tough sentiments: but recently, a different Bush has emerged, one who is suddenly concerned that his legacy is accurately portrayed. This new, more reflective Bush is actually voicing his hope that historians will write their tombs in accordance with Bush’s own memories of how and why events happened as they did. He’s taken great care to lose unimaginably huge numbers of e-mails that might have given historians valuable insights into what actually occurred over the past eight years. He has also launched a “legacy project” that consists of talking points designed to put the Bushies in the most favorable light possible. The most salient and often quoted talking points boast that Bush "kept the American people safe" from further danger after the September 11th, 2001 World Trade Tower tragedy. Bush also claims to have “revived the post-2001 economy with his tax cuts” as well as maintaining "the honor and dignity of his office." What a crock! The Inquirer editorial admits that: “Only after 2,975 were killed on his watch in the worst-ever terrorist attack did Bush respond with stepped up antiterror measures. The Iraq insurgency - a veritable demonstration project for terrorists - never would have happened had U.S. forces not gone after Saddam Hussein on the basis of faulty claims that the brutal dictator had weapons of mass destruction.” The Inquirer further admits that: “The Bush military intervention in the Gulf, coupled with Abu Ghraib abuses, could make Americans less safe, to the extent that they fuel Islamic fanatics' anger. That's an especially grim future for the already suffering families of the more than 4,800 troops killed and thousands more wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan fighting.” Bush also took measures that laid the groundwork for the worst economic conditions in decades: “As for priming the economy with hefty tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest, that maneuver heralded the end of balanced budgeting while shifting to the states the burden for many domestic needs. Then there's the current economic crisis: Bush leaves office with nearly two million more Americans looking for jobs as a result of the recession, two million-plus facing mortgage foreclosures, and untold numbers looking at smaller retirement nest eggs.” And as far as “preserving the honor and dignity of the office, that has to be about more than just avoiding the sex scandal that marred Bill Clinton's presidency,” the Inquirer admits. Finally, at the end of their assessment of the Bush record, the Inquirer makes some laudatory remarks: “There should be less debate about other bullet points from the Bush record: his stellar leadership on fighting AIDS in Africa, his smart focus on school achievement through the No Child Left Behind Act, the groundbreaking achievement of a prescription-drug benefit for retirees and other Medicare recipients, and Bush's unsuccessful call for sweeping immigration reform.” Yes, the Inquirer is right: “It's been a rough eight years, no question.” Now it’s up to Obama to mix Bush’s mess.

Bush's Bubble of Unreality Suddenly Bursts

Steve Chapman, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune comments in the Baltimore Sun: "When President George W. Bush had to duck a pair of shoes thrown at him by an irate Iraqi journalist at a news conference in Baghdad, the depressing part was not just that his administration has managed to alienate many Iraqis. It was also that the president of the United States had to go to Iraq to find himself face-to-face with anyone who openly rejects his policies. Here in the land of the free, that is almost unheard of. When Mr. Bush ventures into contact with ordinary Americans outside the White House, his aides do their best to keep him from realizing that many of his constituents regard him as a disaster...maybe Barack Obama will take a different approach and accept the fact that occasionally seeing people express dissenting views is just part of the president's job. And not just on visits to Baghdad."