regarding the British withdrawal of troops as being "a sign of Britain feeling a sense of success in Iraq" rather baffeling when his own administration is insisting that the only chance for success is increasing our troops by 20,000?
I know this is a rather dated question but I'm curious as to what other peoples take on this is.
Thanx in advance for your answers.
2007-03-01 12:01:11 · 15 answers · asked by pollywog 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There has never been a failure in Iraq. The coalition is winning and holding together. Things are better in Iraq than they were before we invaded.
The British are our allies. Their mission was successful. The insurgents are in their last throes. We're just turning a corner. Our casualties are remarkably low.
Notice a pattern yet?
Bush and Cheney can do no wrong. They will never admit a mistake, and will say anything to spin failure into success. They are both living in massive denial of reality.
The reality of the British "success" is that they were responsible for an oil-rich Shiite area supported by the U.S.-installed Shiite-led government. That's why it was a cakewalk - the Shiites are happy and the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army could crush any token resistance in southern Iraq. Shiites weren't in power before - now they are. Now the U.S. is responsible for the Sunni areas, and the Sunnis are pissed off - since they used to be in power (Saddam was Sunni). Ironically this is the very mechanism by which Shiite Iran has increased in influence. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is supporting and financing Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda, but you'll never hear Bush or Cheney talk about who's backing the Sunni insurgents, only who's backing the Shiite militias (Iran) - which ironically primarily fight against the very Sunni insurgents which are trying to kill Americans. The reality in Iraq is way too disturbing to make public.
2007-03-01 12:15:33 · answer #1 · answered by Mark P 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Politicians- both the 1% that I identify with and support and the other 99% who generally strike me as being full of fecal matter, are experts at the art of spin. This is no exception. You're right to point out that there's an obvious contradiction between requesting more troops and claiming that Britain's gradual withdrawal is a sign that things are going well. The problem is, the people who actually call a spade a spade are few and far between. The sad fact of the matter is there are legions of people in the US who care far more about extramarital fellatio in the White House than they do about fabricated rationales for going to war.
2007-03-01 12:20:16 · answer #2 · answered by David 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tony Blair is dying a slow death and he has an important election coming up for his party. This is strictly politics and of course this administration is going to paint a rosy picture for Blair's support in the fight for Iraq's freedom. Only V.P. Cheney's arrogance allows him to spit venom on everyone who disagrees with the Iraq plan. As he said, he's not running for office what does he care what anyone else thinks.
2007-03-01 13:05:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Britain has far less troops in Iraq than the USA, and most of the US troops are in Bagdhad, where the violence is. Regions mainly patrolled by Britain are stable, and so their smaller delegation can afford to leave.
2007-03-01 12:09:56 · answer #4 · answered by bigsey93bruschi54 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, he isn't going to come out and say he was wrong, is he? Of course he is going to try and put a positive spin on anything directly related to Iraq.
I think it is funny that we need more troops there, but yet other countries feel the need to leave. I guess if the US wants to be there, then they can get their soldiers killed.
Cheney should be tried as a war criminal. He is nothing but miles of crooked road.
2007-03-01 12:06:46 · answer #5 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Dick Cheney is "our" Baghdad Bob. Remember him, The Minister of Misinformation?
2007-03-01 12:36:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cheney's comments reflect a total separation from reality.
2007-03-01 12:31:57 · answer #7 · answered by Honest Opinion 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The British sector has stood up while the areas around Bagdad haven't yet.
2007-03-01 12:11:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think the real reason the 20,000 troop increase is in preparation for invading iran
2007-03-01 12:10:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Cheney is saying it, Bush is almost in 100% agreement too. Keep that in mind when you try to figure this out. Sounds like politics to me. Bush and he did a good job of covering that one I have to admit.
2007-03-01 12:11:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋