"War in Iraq Has Come at Too Great a Cost" (Harry Reid, Congress)

[Sprinter]

Pelosi: CRS Report Yet More Evidence That War in Iraq Has Come at Too Great a Cost

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on a recent report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service that the war in Iraq is costing $10 billon a month:

“The CRS report is yet more evidence that the war in Iraq has come at too great a cost to the American people, our troops, and their families.

“Think about what $10 billion a month would mean to protecting Americans from terrorism, improving security at our ports and airports, and increasing border security. Think about what $10 billion a month would mean for the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, and for the education of our children. Think about what $10 billion a month would mean to lowering the deficit so that future generations are not burdened with debt.

“The American people are outraged at the Bush Administration’s misplaced priorities – that is why Congress will hold the Administration accountable with votes this month to end the war and redeploy the troops. This will include a vote on legislation to begin redeployment of our troops within 120 days and to conclude by April 1, 2008, with the exception of those remaining in Iraq to fight terrorists and protect our diplomats.

“The date-certain legislation gives our Republican colleagues another opportunity to join Democrats in heeding the wishes of the American people, who want to wind down this war and bring our troops home.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases

Will Bush be able find a way to keep his war going much longer?
Could the story below be part of his desperate attempt to "stay the course"?

"Will Turkey invade northern Iraq?

A claim Monday by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd from northern Iraq, that Turkey had massed 140,000 soldiers on its border with Iraq rattled nerves on both sides of the border. Turkey's military had no comment, and the Bush administration said there has been no such mass buildup."
Will Turkey invade northern Iraq? - Yahoo! News (broken link)

[Hawkeye48]

If The Speaker wants date certain legislation to pull all the troops why would she want to except the ones fighting terrorists? What's the point of the legislation? Isn't that the mission of all our troops over there? To fight terrorists?

[TXboomerang]

The fallout in the Middle East when America leaves will be a disaster. Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm just ready to get our troops home so I don't have to see Harry Reid give another depressing comment on the topic. Only problem is what happens after we leave will only spark more and more boring, gloomy, whiny reports by our media.

[bily4]

No - we need to stay to fight and protect the Kurds from the Turks. If we don't, the terrorists will come over here...or something...(sarcasm)

[Zippy7fo]

Its time to quit...This is embarassing and more American bravado getting us no where. As if Terrorists can't buy plane tickets or cross the border. How f-ing absurd. Congratulations Neocons and Rethuglicans...

[KoZmiC NinJa]

It cracks me up that people still call an illegal annexation / occuation
a 'war'.
So, using this logic, I can break into my neighbors house
and shoot him for my war on crime ?

[expgc]

Originally Posted by Zippy7fo

Its time to quit...This is embarassing and more American bravado getting us no where. As if Terrorists can't buy plane tickets or cross the border. How f-ing absurd. Congratulations Neocons and Rethuglicans...

Yeah, alot of people want us to quit. I certainly don't like our children dying in that hell hole. However, if we quit do you really think the terrorists are also going to just quit? You are pretty hung up on bravado as you have used that word in other posts. I don't think its bravado at all, its the survival of our country and making sure the terrorists are kept busy over there and not over here. Yes, they can buy airline tickets and cross borders. We are controlling the airlines pretty well these days don't you agree? I haven't heard of any terrorists hijacking anymore of our planes. Yes, the borders are still vulnerable and all Americans should be outraged by this Presidents and this Congress's unwillingness to protect us from the threats on our southern and northern borders. As I stated on an earlier post, let our service people really fight this war and not be policemen and policewomen as we have reduced them to in other conflicts. It's absurd that anyone would believe in such a defeatist posture.

[Mooseketeer]

Originally Posted by expgc

Yeah, alot of people want us to quit. I certainly don't like our children dying in that hell hole. However, if we quit do you really think the terrorists are also going to just quit? You are pretty hung up on bravado as you have used that word in other posts. I don't think its bravado at all, its the survival of our country and making sure the terrorists are kept busy over there and not over here. Yes, they can buy airline tickets and cross borders. We are controlling the airlines pretty well these days don't you agree? I haven't heard of any terrorists hijacking anymore of our planes. Yes, the borders are still vulnerable and all Americans should be outraged by this Presidents and this Congress's unwillingness to protect us from the threats on our southern and northern borders. As I stated on an earlier post, let our service people really fight this war and not be policemen and policewomen as we have reduced them to in other conflicts. It's absurd that anyone would believe in such a defeatist posture.

You do realise there were no terrorists in Iraq until the US invaded it , bombed their infrastructure and made one of the most secular Islamic Nation on earth a radicalised people ? Saddam was a dictator and a monster but he never had any links with Bin Laden ( in fact they hated each other, Saddam thought he was a religious nut), WMDs, and was never a threat to any of us. A threat to his own people and the kurds yes but pretty harmless to us. The Iraqis had suffered enough and then we go and invade them. It is not a war, it is an occupation. All that for access to the best oil reserves in the middle East. Gee , I wonder if there is a link...
Strange the US does not try to bring democracy to other places like most of Africa ( Mugabe springs to mind as someone who needs taking down if Bush is such an idealist, may I suggest he invades Zimbabwe)

Other places that the US could "bring democracy" to :

The Western Favourite
Dictators: Islam's man of action
Ziauddin Sardar on Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan
New Statesman - Dictators: Islam's man of action (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040030 - broken link)

The Dictator on Europe's Doorstep
Dictators: Dreaming of the USSR
Andrey Kurkov on Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus
New Statesman - Dictators: Dreaming of the USSR (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040031 - broken link)

The Religious Authority
Dictators: Reform and the mullahs
Ali M Ansari on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran
New Statesman - Dictators: Reform and the mullahs (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040032 - broken link)

The Nuclear Threat
Dictators: The depths of evil
Jasper Becker on Kim Jong-il of North Korea
New Statesman - Dictators: The depths of evil (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040033 - broken link)

The Personality Cult Leader
Dictators: Central Asia's new idol
Lucy Ash on Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan
New Statesman - Dictators: Central Asia's new idol (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040034 - broken link)

The Mandarin
Dictators: Between the Party and the markets
Xiao Jia Gu on Hu Jintao of China
New Statesman - Dictators: Between the Party and the markets (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040035 - broken link)

The Oil Profiteer
Dictators: Africa's brutal secret
Hector Rodrigues on Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea
New Statesman - Dictators: Africa's brutal secret (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040036 - broken link)

The Absolute Monarch
Dictators: Oil, torture and the west
Damian Quinn on Abdullah Ibn Abdul Aziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia
New Statesman - Dictators: Oil, torture and the west (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040037 - broken link)

The Modernising Sheik
Dictators: Meet the CEO, Dubai Inc
William Wallis on Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai
New Statesman - Dictators: Meet the CEO, Dubai Inc (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040038 - broken link)

The Last Latin Autocrat
Dictators: Goodbye to all that
Ben Davies on Alfredo Stroessner, former leader of Paraguay
New Statesman - Dictators: Goodbye to all that (http://www.newstatesman.com/200609040039 - broken link)

To read the nominated worst despots visit our dictators survey at New Statesman - The world's top 10 dictators (http://www.newstatesman.com/dictators - broken link)

Worst for freedom of speech
1 Kim Jong-il, North Korea
2 Isaias Afewerki, Eritrea
3 Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan
4 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran
5 Senior General Than Shwe, Burma
Source: Reporters Without Borders' press freedom index 2005

Most corrupt
1 Yoweri Museveni, Uganda
2 Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan
3 Hu Jintao, China
4 Raul/Fidel Castro, Cuba
=5 Laurent Gbagbo, Ivory Coast
=5 José Eduardo dos Santos, Angola
Source: Transparency International annual report 2004. This is not a list of the most personally corrupt dictators, but a list of how much each country's population perceives corruption in government

Largest armies (active troops)
1 China 2,255,000
2 North Korea 1,106,000
3 Pakistan 619,000
4 Iran 420,000
5 Burma 375,000
Sources: Centre for Strategic and International Studies and International Institute for Strategic Studies

Military spending as percentage of GDP
1 Eritrea - 17.7
2 North Korea - 12.5 (estimate)
3 Jordan - 11.4
4 Oman - 11.4
5 Qatar - 10
Source: CIA World Factbook. GDP figures for North Korea are estimates

Longest in power (in years):
1 Cuba: Fidel Castro - 47
2 Libya: Muammar al-Gaddafi - 37
3 Gabon: Omar Bongo - 31
4 Equatorial Guinea: Teodoro Obiang Nguema - 27
5 Angola: José Eduardo dos Santos - 27

research by Daniel Trilling and Karolin Schaps

[rd2007]

Originally Posted by Zippy7fo

Its time to quit...This is embarassing and more American bravado getting us no where. As if Terrorists can't buy plane tickets or cross the border. How f-ing absurd. Congratulations Neocons and Rethuglicans...

ha, yet another left wing name caller in need of a dictionary..

here ya go: neoconservative

Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: "nE-O-k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means
- neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun
- neoconservative adjective

the rethuglican name was pretty cute though..

[ElkHunter]

Originally Posted by Mooseketeer

You do realise there were no terrorists in Iraq until the US invaded it , bombed their infrastructure and made one of the most secular Islamic Nation on earth a radicalised people ? Saddam was a dictator and a monster but he never had any links with Bin Laden ( in fact they hated each other, Saddam thought he was a religious nut), WMDs, and was never a threat to any of us. A threat to his own people and the kurds yes but pretty harmless to us. The Iraqis had suffered enough and then we go and invade them. It is not a war, it is an occupation. All that for access to the best oil reserves in the middle East. Gee , I wonder if there is a link...
Strange the US does not try to bring democracy to other places like most of Africa ( Mugabe springs to mind as someone who needs taking down if Bush is such an idealist, may I suggest he invades Zimbabwe)
Bunch chopped out:

We've always assumed that hindsight is 20/20. In the case here, it's about 20/50.

No terrorists in Iraq before we got there? What, did we do, take them with us and plant them when we started? Iraq has been housing terrorists for years and wouldn't let anybody go in after them.

You are correct when you say that Saddam did not have a direct link to Osama. However, he allowed him to hide in Iraq and work out of there and then protect him when he come back (or his people)

We're not fighting the Iraqi's. Never have.

We're also not trying to shove our democracy down their throats. All we're trying to do is hold the boogers off while they come up with their own form of government. Notice when we finally got Saddam, we didn't prosecute. We turned him over to their new government and let them try him.

The majority of the Iraqi's are in favor of a new government, their were just not strong enough to put it in place by themselves.

I've seen rumor's fly on here and within a few months those rumors are suddenly thought of as fact.

Take a hard look back and tell us why you think, we went there in the first place.