Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on May 20, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics


Six months after their last election a new government was put in place in Iraq less two KEY positions -Defense and Interior Ministers that do not have permenant appointments. Ten members walked out at the start of the session. The violence continues all over Iraq:

27 Killed in dozens of attacks
21 bodies found from death squads
People stoned a British vehicle that was bombed.

Bush tells us that the new government was needed to STOP this violence. Let's watch and see if the sectarian violence in Iraq ends now that a NEW Governmet is in place!




Iraqi Parliament Approves New Cabinet
May 20, 2006 6:16 AM EDT
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's parliament approved a national unity government on Saturday, achieving a goal the U.S. hopes will reduce widespread violence so that U.S. forces can eventually go home. But as the legislators met, at least 27 people were killed and dozens wounded in a series of attacks.
Police also found the bodies of 21 Iraqis who apparently had been kidnapped and tortured by death squads that plague the capital and another area. The wounded included two British soldiers whose convoy was hit by a roadside bomb in the southern city of Basra, police said.
In a show of hands, the 275-member parliament approved each Cabinet minister proposed by incoming Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The new ministers then took their oaths of office in the nationally televised session in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.
That completed a democratic process that began following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
In his first address, al-Maliki told parliament that he would make restoring stability and security the top priority of his new administration. He said he would "work fast" to improve and coordinate Iraqi forces so they can reduce attacks by insurgent groups and militias.
Al-Maliki said he would set "an objective timetable to transfer the full security mission to Iraqi forces, ending the mission of the multinational forces."
But his failure to fill the top two security posts illustrated the challenges ahead. Al-Maliki, a Shiite, said he would be acting interior minister for now, and he made Salam Zikam al-Zubaie, a Sunni Arab, the temporary defense minister.
That angered some legislators, and before the Cabinet was approved by a show of hands, parliament turned down a motion by Sunni Arab leader Saleh al-Mutlaq to postpone the session.
Al-Mutlaq then walked out with about 10 other Sunni deputies.
The defense ministry oversees the army, while the interior ministry is responsible for police.
The United States hopes the new national unity government of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can calm the violence and pave the way for Washington to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.
"This is a historic day for Iraq and all its people," deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiyah said at a nationally televised news conference as the legislators gathered.
"It is the first time that a full-term, democratically elected government has been formed in Iraq since the fall of the ousted regime. This government represents all Iraqis," said al-Attiyah, a bearded Shiite cleric wearing a white turban.
The legislative session began at about 1:30 p.m., two and a half hours later than planned as al-Maliki held last-minute meetings with other politicians, apparently to hammer out final agreements on some of the Cabinet portfolios.
U.S. and Iraqi forces didn't impose day time curfews or ban traffic in Baghdad and major cities, as they did during previous national elections and constitutional referendum. But security was heavy in the Green Zone and the capital's airspace was closed to commercial flights at Baghdad's international airport. The government and U.S. officials declined to say why.
About 100 stranded passengers and airport workers crowded around a television set in the departure lounge to watch the parliament session.
Meanwhile, violence continued in Iraq.
At 6:30 a.m. on Saturday, several hours before legislators began to arrive at the Green Zone, suspected insurgents set off a bomb hidden in a paper bag in a Shiite district of Baghdad, killing 19 people and wounding 58, police said. The blast occurred near a food stand in Sadr City where men gather to wait for jobs as day laborers, police Maj. Hashim al-Yaser said.
"It was a huge explosion," said Mohammed Hamid, who works in a bakery in the area. "We carried many of the injured to ambulances and helped remove the bodies."
Police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi said 19 people were killed and 58 wounded. Many of the injured were rushed to nearby Imam Ali Hospital, where hallways were filled with doctors and nurses treating and bandaging the wounded.
Sadr City is the stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who operates a powerful militia, one of many that exist in the capital outside the control of the government. Al-Maliki hopes to disband such militias and integrate them into the country's military and police forces as a way of reducing violence.
In the western border town of Qaim, a suicide car bomber killed at least five people and wounded 10 in an attack on a police station, the head of the local hospital said. Hamdi al-Alousi, the head of the Qaim hospital, did not have any details about the attack.
In the northern city of Mosul, a suicide bomber reportedly trying to target a U.S. military convoy instead killed three Iraqi civilians. Police Brig. Abdul-Hamid al-Jibouri said the attack took place in Mosul's eastern neighborhood of Sukar.
Elsewhere, police found the bodies of 21 people who apparently had been kidnapped and tortured, six in Baghdad and 15 in Musayyib, about 40 miles south of the capital.

Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on May 23, 2006
Drmiler
None of that changes these facts that:

The assessment of Saddam's military capability in Late 2002 was that he could ONLY operate in the central area of Iraq. He was unable to operate in ANY other country and had NO capability to attack the United States with or without WMD. You do not seem to get it-- He had no Air Force, Navy, Missiles or Army that was capable of being ANY sort of threat to the United States.

The Intel at the time said that he had no active nuclear program and that his most likely WMD was limited to OLD ARTILLERY shells filled with gas. HOW the HELL would that have threatened this country? You are so full of bull shit just like Bush and Cheney. The facts are now clear, Saddam was NO THREAT to this country nor would ANY Rogue Dictator Attack the world’s most powerful country because of the consequences of such an attack. This WAR was because Bush and Cheney wanted to remove Saddam NOT BECAUSE Saddam was ANY danger to the United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on May 23, 2006
And you totally ignore again what is posted. You CANNOT ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that democrats believed Saddam had WMD's. All you have done is make excuses for them and then claim you are not a democrat. What a load of BS.


The facts are now clear, Saddam was NO THREAT to this country nor would ANY Rogue Dictator Attack the world’s most powerful country because of the consequences of such an attack. This WAR was because Bush and Cheney wanted to remove Saddam NOT BECAUSE Saddam was ANY danger to the United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You have not presented one fact yet col. All of this is your opinion and you have nothing to back it up with. Pathetic.
on May 23, 2006
The Americans are just unwilling to confront facts about Iraq. They unfortunately view those who take a contrary position with alarm. I recently had a taste of this syndrome on this weblog itself. The fact is that the lawless US administration has made a vibrant country into a graveyard and they say that they have brought Democracy to Iraq. The Coalition has only brought economic collapse, sectarian violence, Government sponsored Death Squads and yes, war crimes like Abu Gharaib and the recent violence against civilians that Rep John Murtha wants to investigate. Like an ostrich some burry their heads in sand and declare that facts are lies. It is just sorry state of affirs.
on May 23, 2006
Baghdad, 23 May (AKI) - The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.

On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."

In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.

The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organisation - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organisation was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more.

He added that Abu Nidal's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups was the reason for his death in Iraq, in the summer of 2002.
on May 23, 2006
The Americans are just unwilling to confront facts about Iraq.


Bahu, you just as col, do not present facts. I have already proved you wrong in your last posting here. You are another anti-American hack. Why don't you go to Iraq and fight with the terrorists?
on May 23, 2006
Drmiler
None of that changes these facts that:


IT CHANGES EVERYTHING you ignorant hack. What I posted "directly" refutes what you wrote!


These are YOUR words.....not mine!


There is NO WMD that in any war placed the United States in Danger. Your experts were full of SH*T. Saddam was NO military threat and had NO capability to attack this country in March 2003. The Iraq war was something Bush wanted to do and lied about WMD to get Congress to approve the war.


So you've been shown to be wrong yet once again. Either that or you"re a damnable liar or an ignorant clown, your pick!

The assessment of Saddam's military capability in Late 2002 was that he could ONLY operate in the central area of Iraq. He was unable to operate in ANY other country and had NO capability to attack the United States with or without WMD. You do not seem to get it-- He had no Air Force, Navy, Missiles or Army that was capable of being ANY sort of threat to the United States.


You don't seem to get it. No missles huh? Then just what were those thingy's they were shooting at our planes with? No air force? Then what were those things they found buried in the sand outside of Bagdahd? DO NOT try to tell me that those advanced MIG's were no threat, because you'd be full of it!
on May 23, 2006
IslandDod

Even if Saddam had WMD, which we know he did not, he had no way to use it against the United States. In addition, NO dictator would attack the world’s most powerful country because of the consequences of such action.
on May 23, 2006
Even if Saddam had WMD, which we know he did not, he had no way to use it against the United States. In addition, NO dictator would attack the world’s most powerful country because of the consequences of such action.


Col, the U.N. still has unaccounted for WMD's in Iraq. We know he had WMD's, we just don't know what he did with them. A dictator would certainly attack the U.S. All this is your speculation. I notice you still ignore the posts that dispute everything you have said.

Political hack for the democratic party. That's all you are.
on May 23, 2006
ID, I have to commend you for keeping a slight cool when presenting you replies to the one-way brain of Col. Sometimes I say it's pointless to continue to argue with people like him, but now I realize that it's worth it. Every time you put one of his responses down, he tries to fight back but ends up short on ammo and every time he gets worse. I think we can use Col as a meter to measure what's going on in Iraq. The more ground he loses, the more ground the terrorist are losing in Iraq.

#48 by Bahu Virupaksha
Tuesday, May 23, 2006


You know Bahu, at one time on this site I had some respect for you work because you seemed to put a lot of work in you articles and expressed yourself with what sounded like sincerity and well educated. But now , after the last few articles and replies I have seen from you lately, it seems that I was wrong about you. I no longer have that respect for you cause you are only expressing yourself in the same manner Col does when replying or posting articles, you have a specific agenda that will ignore all other facts just to put your opinion across as a fact.

The Americans are just unwilling to confront facts about Iraq.


That is a lie cause everyone knows whats going on in Iraq. But unlike people like you and Col, most of us have faith that what we are doing is the right thing and just like some Iraqis have lost their lives, so have we lost some of our soldiers but we hope that thier lost lives were not in vain.

They unfortunately view those who take a contrary position with alarm.


Isn't that the point? When someone has a different point of view you debate them and put up all your facts to prove your point. BTW, don't be a hypocrite cause you wouldn't be posting articles about your opinion and then replying back to those who post on them if you didn't find their views alarming as well.

The fact is that the lawless US administration has made a vibrant country into a graveyard and they say that they have brought Democracy to Iraq.


Do you even know the meaning of vibrant? With so much death in Iraq before we even invaded it was hardly a vibrant country. This is the ignorance that took the respect I had for you from me. The stupidity to say that Iraq was once a great country before we invaded is ludicrous and you should be ashamed of believing that the people in Iraq had it good with Saddam.

You know what, you're not worth any more words from me. Even Col doesn't stoop this low.

Col.

Keep up the good work making a complete fool of yourself arguing about things that no one else is arguing about. Only you would stick to past stories that can not be proven. But then that's how you work, if it ain't broke don't fix it right? Your system works fine for you and it hurts no one but you. Your hard work only makes everyone else smarting with out even trying.
on May 23, 2006
ID, I have to commend you for keeping a slight cool when presenting you replies to the one-way brain of Col. Sometimes I say it's pointless to continue to argue with people like him, but now I realize that it's worth it. Every time you put one of his responses down, he tries to fight back but ends up short on ammo and every time he gets worse. I think we can use Col as a meter to measure what's going on in Iraq. The more ground he loses, the more ground the terrorist are losing in Iraq.


I really just enjoy proving liberals wrong on pretty much everything.
on May 23, 2006
Even if Saddam had WMD, which we know he did not, he had no way to use it against the United States. In addition, NO dictator would attack the world’s most powerful country because of the consequences of such action.


Col, the U.N. still has unaccounted for WMD's in Iraq. We know he had WMD's, we just don't know what he did with them. A dictator would certainly attack the U.S. All this is your speculation. I notice you still ignore the posts that dispute everything you have said.

Political hack for the democratic party. That's all you are.


ID have you noticed that when you actually nail his butt down like I did in reply #51 and #43, that he pretty much just ignores you after that? Just add another tic to his very own proven wrong again list.
on May 23, 2006
There has NEVER been an example where a Dictator of a rogue country like Iraq has attacked a major power because to do so would be the end of their reign as Dictator.

In addition, Saddam did not have the means to strike the US and even though we have not been able to account for the WMD we believed Saddam had in the early 1990's, it has not been found in over three years. In addition there was NEVER any claim that Saddam had nuclear weapons like Bush and Cheney said when they tried to scare the American People with the mushroom clouds over our cities Bull Shit! To have attacked a country that NO MEANS of attacking us is unjustified. Saddam could not even operate in the northern and southern sections of Iraq in March 2003. YOU ALL IGNORE THIS FACT. He had no means to attack the United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on May 23, 2006
YOU ALL IGNORE THIS FACT. He had no means to attack the United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just like "YOU" keep ignoring this!

VIENNA – The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure location outside Iraq, Western diplomats close to the agency say.



However, the International Atomic Energy Agency has taken the position that the uranium is Iraqi property and the agency "cannot give them permission to remove it," a diplomat said.


It's called 500 tons of yellowcake.
on May 23, 2006
drmiler There is NO evidence that ANY yellow cake was in Iraq. Even if Saddam had yellow cake, the difference of having Yellow Cake and having a nuclear weapon is like being on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon. My point remains, Saddam in March 2003, when Bush invaded Iraq, was not in ANY position to be a threat to the United States. He had no prospect of having nuclear weapons and had NO means of attacking the United States. Thus Saddam was NO THREAT. WHY DID BUSH INVADE IRAQ?
on May 23, 2006
drmiler There is NO evidence that ANY yellow cake was in Iraq.


You are a complete idiot!
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6