Posted on 08/21/2007 12:15:03 PM PDT by johnny7
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Iraqi government's progress towards meeting targets set by Washington to reduce violence by reconciling warring Shi'ite and Sunni Arab sects has been "extremely disappointing," the U.S. ambassador said on Tuesday. "Progress on national level issues has been extremely disappointing and frustrating to all concerned, to us, to Iraqis, to the Iraqi leadership itself," Ryan Crocker told reporters, just three weeks before he delivers a key report to Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Oops, he’s off message. Off with his head.
“Ryan Crocker”? Sounds like a character out of a Tom Clancy novel.
Gee... given that Ryan Crocker spoke with reporters, there sure are not many actual quotes from him in that article. Wonder why?
“Iraqi government’s progress towards meeting targets set by Washington to reduce violence by reconciling warring Shi’ite and Sunni Arab sects has been “extremely disappointing,” the U.S. ambassador said on Tuesday.
I’m sure he said more than that, but this is what’s fit to print. This is the new media/DNC meme folks. Militarily they can’t say the surge isn’t working and politically to say so is dangerous. Thus, they will continue to focus on the other half of the coin.
Someone remind me about how America’s political progress was between 1776-1789?
Who cares about the Iraqi Government, as long as they have a Military and Police force to stomp the terrorist? Democrat Majority Press, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, ect...
America had a big head start on creating political consensus with a national Constitution vis a vis 150 years of near self-rule for 150 years prior to our Revolution — but, it still took more than a decade to accomplish and there were lots of problems to overcome after the ratification. Similarly, even with our massive aid, it took Germany and Japan nearly a decade to create their own democracies.
If anything, Iraq had a much bigger challenge and they’ve had but three years to accomplish similar objectives.
These milestones were forced on the President by a Congress that wants the effort to fail. And, they may well get their way. Of course, they will blame any failure on Bush, and they will get away with that as well.
At your service.....though I'll only carry the story up to 1786. All thirteen colonies agreed to declare independence, established our first Constitution (the Articles of Confederation), defeated the greatest military power on the planet and secured a favorable peace treaty. In addition, we instituted the first Northwest Ordinance to create a process to peacefully admit new states. All the while we had only one minor rebellion, Shays Rebellion, in which fewer people died than in a single routine day in Iraq. All of this happened before the Constitution convention was even called. Next bogus comparision please????
They don't have much of one though each faction does have militias which have proved quite efficient in stomping out their enemies.
Ditto what you said.
the question was “political progress” you cited military and violence
the states operated as independent entities, sound familiar? there was total disagreement and no consensus. the legislature did little. smaller states were at war (politically speaking) with the larger states. the constitutional convention was bitter and came about only because the leaders of the time so the country tearing apart at the seems and not as a united union. granted the violence aspect was not comparable, but politically the US was not in great shape at all.
These problems do not begin to compare with the mess in Iraq. Here are a few achievements in that decade: we declared independence, established the first Constitution (the Articles of Confederation), defeated the greatest powere on the planet, secured a favorable peace, instituted the first Northwest Ordinance thus creating a peaceful means to settle the west. More people die in a single day in Iraq than died in the most significant rebellion in these ten (actually thirteen years) years: Shays Rebellion. This threadbare comparison is completely bogus.
Not in great shape? It was a paradise compared to Iraq. Let's get real. The Iraqis would be extremely lucky to be governed under the same conditions as operated under the Articles.
No Consensus? Well....there was enough "consensus" to defeat the Brits, get a favorable peace, and establish the Northwest Ordinance (all pre-1787). BTW, how many people died in these so-called political "wars" between the states?
Again, the Iraqis would be lucky to have the same degree of political consensus, safety, and civility as Americans achieved under the Articles. Were the Articles perfect? Of course not. But by any standard of success they were alway light years compared to the political mess in Iraq.
Since when the Oil Law and other laws are becoming of such importance for the defeatists and traitors? They have been pushing all along for the "bad security and violence" issue and now because the security has been much better, they are going for these less significant issues.
The US is not leaving Iraq and we are winning this war against the islamic terrorists. Now go and indulge in your bitterness. Aren't you tired of being defeated all the time? Aren't you tired of wishing for stuff that are not going to happen? You have been wishing for years for a US defeat in Iraq and it has not happen and it is not going to happen but thanks the Lord the opposite is true and that is we are winning this war.
you keep referring to the violence, I’m talking about political environment. politically the US wasn’t functioning all that well at all. There was great disagreement about federalism, trade, taxes, banking, and slavery. You paint a nice little picture by focusing only on the military and violence aspects and totaly ignoring the political divide and debate of the times.
Again, your near entire post focus on military victories not the political situation. I’m talking about the rift between the Hamiltons and Madisons. The disagreement over federalism and nationalism/ federalists and antifederalists.
There was a divide in the US, not political consensus, stop the revisionist history.
No wonder Democratic Underground cites your posts! (put your id in an internet search engine, which forum is better suited for you?) Good luck with that Ron Paul thing.
Let’s review:
The final draft was written in summer 1777 and adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777 in York, Pennsylvania after a year of debate [took one year and then had to be re-written again...not exactly perfection and consensus demonstrated there]
Example, lack of agreement re: “One criticism by those who favored a more powerful central state was that it lacked taxing authority; the federal government had to request funds from the states. A second concern was its one-state, one-vote plank. The larger states were expected to contribute more but had only one vote, though they could remedy this by dividing into smaller states”
Hence why his posts appear at Democratic Underground (enter his ID in yahoo.com and scroll towards the bottom, twice he was cited favorably by DU).
there was enough “consensus” to defeat the Brits
yeah, and there’s been enough consensus to defeat al qeada in the anbar province
Reuters? Expecting news from Reuters is comparable to expecting science from the Goracle. Toss it!
I never claimed the political process was perfect, only that it was far better than Iraq. As to the political environment, the U.S. Congress under the Articles oversaw the defeat of the Brits, approved via a vote the favorable peace treaty, and the first Northwest Ordinance. Those are major political accomplishments that compare favorable to any revolutionary period in human history. What more do you need? Washington worked for this Congress and reported to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.