Five Years After "Mission Accomplished"
Five years ago, President Bush dressed up in a flight suit for a self-congratulatory photo op on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln under a banner that proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". Certainly, the war was not over then and victory was not achieved. The mission has been redefined several times and what the president hopes to accomplish in Iraq is unclear.
Five years after "Mission Accomplished", the costs to human life continue to build. Since then, nearly four thousand brave American servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and over 5 million Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons have been forced from their homes.
Five years after "Mission Accomplished", the strain on our economy is becoming unbearable. Congress has appropriated over $500 billion, and we are spending an average of $245 million a day in Iraq. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate economist, has estimated the total costs to our economy, including caring for our veterans and rebuilding our military, will top $3 trillion dollars. The cost of the Iraq war to the average American family this year will be $16,000.
Five years after "Mission Accomplished", the fact remains that there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq. Instead of working to find political solutions that will calm the warring sects, our continued military presence has further entrenched the divisions on all sides of the conflict and may be creating the conditions for a further discord. In many cities, the president's solution is to literally erect concrete walls between neighboring communities. The administration is now threatening to compound its mistakes throughout the Middle East by employing the same saber-rattling scare tactics against Iran as those that led us into the Iraq war.
Those who oppose President Bush's policies must offer suggestions for a successful path forward, and we believe we can present a better vision for the foreign policy challenges our nation faces. As leaders of the Congressional Out of Iraq Caucus, we have worked hard to educate Members of Congress about the failures and mismanagement of the Iraqi occupation. We have challenged the president on his claim that there is a credible government in Iraq; we have raised questions about the promised Iraqi oil revenue paying for the rebuilding of Iraq; we have called for investigations of contractors who are allegedly ripping off the American taxpayers; and we have crafted legislation to address these problems and more. Most importantly, we have introduced legislation that would require that war funding only be spent to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.
The Out of Iraq Caucus remains committed to ending this unconscionable, misguided, and costly war in Iraq. We will not give up until our troops are safely returned to their children and their families. Five years after "Mission Accomplished", the president is requesting more than $100 billion to continue this war in Iraq through 2008. We call on our colleagues in Congress to resist the president's request. It is time to end the war in Iraq.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's fine the "Out of Iraq" caucus wants to withhold funding, but they know that's not going to happen.
I do have a question about one statement. They write:
"...we have raised questions about the promised Iraqi oil revenue paying for the rebuilding of Iraq.."
WHO promised the Iraq oil revenue for rebuilding Iraq? The citizens of Iraq or Wolfowitz? It is not OUR oil to promise or allocate, and might I add: why, really, should their oil go to pay for the reconstruction of a country that WE bombed to smithereens? That's like China bombing us back to the stone age, and then telling us we have to use our resources to rebuild our country. We made the mistake--no, Congress made the mistake--of voting for this Occupation. We'll have to find a way to pay for damages.
From reading the above comments, I take it you're Clinton supporters. Why? Do you absolutely know she plans to get us out of this mess? All I ever hear her say is: "I'll begin to withdraw troops within sixty days." What does that really mean when you examine it? Will she take out a few troops and then say we have to keep most of them there? What about her Kyl/Lieberman vote? What about her "obliterate Iran" quote? She seems to be quite a War Hawk to me.
I use to think highly of you ladies - not any more. Whatever you have to day now, I will tune out.
I applaud your challenges, and hope you persevere. I can't help but wonder about something though:
By my calculations, the three of you have had voices in DC for a total of 53 years. Now, most honorable ladies, you were there through it all. You share a state and party with Speaker Pelosi. You voice disapproval of the Bush administration and this illegal occupation that is bringing our country down.
Why then did you back down and agree to let this drunken criminal continue to drive the car???
As far as I am concerned, anyone who is backing Hillary Clinton has no right to claim to be a part of the "Progressive Wing" of the Democratic Party. Nor do they have any right to call themselves "Anti-War.
So you can save you breath(s) on any of these issues from now on.
The only thing you should be doing now is trying to get Hillary to leave the primary race before all the young, new and enthusiastic Obama supporters abandon politics in disgust and before our loyal African-American Democrats stay home in droves next November -- and perhaps for decades to come if Hillary's dirty tricks and hardball tactics against Obama gain her the nomination.
You have work to do, ladies. Go do it. Then blog about the war Hillary voted for.
According to US Intelligence Estimates the PEAK number of Al Qaeda in Iraq was about 10,000 and as of March 15th, 2008 there were about 6000.
Petraeus reported in April 2008 that there are 540,000 Iraq Security Forces,
the US has 140,000 Troops, Allies have 10,000. That is 690,000 and I think you have to add the Awakening Force (Sons of Iraq) which was reported to be 80,000 at $16 Million/Month which would bring the total to 770,000 Good Guys vs. 6000 Bad Guys. We have have lost over 4063, they have lost about 4000, we have had 30,000 wounded, Al Qaeda have had ??? wounded. Allies have lost 310, Allies have over 1000 wounded, Iraqi Security Forces killed ????? (top secret), over 100,000 Iraqi Security Forces Wounded, over 100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died due to War related incidents, 300,000 - 500,000 Iraq Civilians have been wounded, over 4 Million Iraqi's have been displaced from homes in the FIRST FIVE YEARS.
If we continue this TERRIFIC PROGRESS it will take at least another 7 years to kill or capture the remaining 6000 Al Qaeda. ALL the other metrics will most likely follow i.e. another 4000 Dead GI's.
OOOPS I forgot, we have to continue fighting the CIVIL WAR until there is only ONE PARTY remaining. Then we will have come FULL CIRCLE.
Of course as a result of this great track record General Petraeus will be promoted to Head of CENT COM and awarded the 5th Star by June 2008
Oh god, I almost pissed myself from laughing so hard.
Why don't you three spend the same amount of time you spent penning this article to do what had to be done five years ago. Stop the war.
Hypocrites.
What dirt does the Clintonistas have on them that they are afraid to support the REAL ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE?
At least Cynthia McKinney had guts to speak up! It may as well cost her rep, but Kudos to her gravitas.
We have to acknowledge that the Dems are sliding to the right (with the help of Billary) and that the basic principles of this party are being eroded to nonexistance.
Can we CHANGE that?
YES WE CAN!
Talk is cheap..Imp
Talk is cheap.Impe
There is something that someone in congress could do if they were willing to put their political career at risk. Speak the truth and start a national dialogue. The truth is the soldiers are not protecting America, in fact they are making us less safe by occupying and damaging a country that was not a threat to us and serving to recruit more to hate us. They are really working for the benefit of those owners of corporations that profit from the war, or might profit if they are given control over the oil fields. The soldiers are only following orders, but they are not doing us (Americans) any good.
Nobody seeking election would raise this issue because the voices of patriotism would crucify them, but it is what the nation needs to hear. If someone who could command an audience would say these things to the nation, they could lose the world and gain their soul.
I think the mission has been accomplished. Of course my take on this will elicit vitriolic rants hoping to drive me back to my trailer park---which is where I really live---but such is the freedom of speech I have being a liberal. The mission is accomplished: that mission is establishing a formidable presence in the middle east to deter, from now on, the inevitable attack on Israel by the world. "For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken...Th
Israel stands alone, but for the United States, against world-wide hatred and the fervid desire to eliminate "my chosen people" from the face of the earth. But the real mission has been accomplished, by a man willing to be ushered to the ash-heap of history in order to do what the God of Israel determined to be done eons ago. Did President Bush know this was his calling---hardly. Most of those whose life is used for eternal purposes are ignorant of reasons, but rather just act. We are there, in the vicinity of the Valley of Meggido, guarding the real target, (the Jews) until God's plan is completed.
I'll return now to my trailer park and pray for this lost world and hope the truth will set them free.
I am a Christian and would more likely quote the New Testament; but either way, I'm not sure that Israel is more secure as a result of this war.
In fact, I know most analysts and Israelis don't think so.
The Israelis knew, like George Bush's dad back in 1991, that the removal of Saddam would create a vacuum and benefit the Iranians. The Israelis also always had the Ayatollah's Iran ahead of Saddam's Iraq in their hierarchy of threats. So I really don't agree with your analysis; and moreover, I don't believe most Israelis would either.
Rather I suspect the consensus is that Israel is far more vulnerable in a more unstable environment.
In addition to a lot of other inconsistencies with your biblical analogies, I shudder to wonder what roles you project a DEM President would play if he or she ended that war and re-assigned the troops to the Afghan-Pakistan border?
So I guess you don't have a child in Iraq, huh? Idiot!
Did Saddam threaten Isreal? Did he attack them?
Your sentiments are fine. We need to see some action.
A lot of us oppose everything BushCo stands for, but only Congress has the Constitutionally defined means to actually put a stop to their criminal behavior. The rest of us are left to wail and gnash our teeth as Congress chatters on and BushCo sets up for the next attack and invasion.
Do something substantial first, then come back and tell us about it. We will all cheer and send you flowers!
CAN HILLARY’S SUPERDELEGATES ADMIT A MISTAKE?
WE SURE HOPE SO!!!
Given the new information since two of these California Ladies endorsed Senator Clinton back in 2007 without giving themselves a chance to see any of the campaign results and/or behavior, let’s hope they will follow the lead of Joseph Andrew and re-visit that decision.
With so much of daily American life being so negatively impacted by the Iraq War, it’s puzzling to read this from DEMS who continue to support a candidate that not only voted for this war; but also refuses to acknowledge the error, while continuing to amplify her security credentials with the REP nominee, John McCain.
Moreover, given HRC's stonewalling and misdirection on the issue, most of us still don't truly know Hillary's heart on the issue:
“Was she just making a politically expedient vote for political cover or is she truly this type of defense "hawk"?...
If you’re not sure, then switch to Obama.
Was Hillary outmaneuvered by George Bush?
Nobody twisted her arm.
You didn’t vote that way.
So why should we ALL suffer by allowing the entire conversation this season to not be dominated by this war.
Even if you don't see any inconsistency or believe the Iraq War isn't a big-enough single-issue, then switch for the sake of your Party and your constituents (like me), who believe that continued support of HRC dilutes the best issue DEMS have because it can resonate in every Congressional district in America.
CAN HILLARY’S SUPERDELEGATES ADMIT A MISTAKE?
PART TWO
There’s no more deserving litmus test than the Iraq War since WWII or the Depression; especially since it may cause another of each.
If this War was “The BIG Lie”; then why is Sen. Clinton still trying to get elected without telling us the truth about her vote?
And why are you enabling that?
So please appreciate how insulting it is to read your post knowing that two of you are still providing cover for these parallel train wrecks that HRC helped create: the Iraq War and the current DEM infighting
You’re political pros; so you know The Clintons decided in IOWA they needed to raise Obama's negatives to win.
Though, Obama still resists calls to respond in-kind; we know that ROVE, Rush and The REPS they're encouraging to vote for HRC in Indiana next week (like they did in OHIO & TEXAS) will show no such restraint in reminding us all that we knew HRC had near 50% negatives last year when you endorsed her.
Why not start by re-reading the Andrews post; then consider the principled others like John Lewis, who have re-declared their intentions. It is not only okay, but also very much expected that you would make a new decision based upon new information; and in this case it would be unfortunate, largely inconsistent, and borderline irresponsible if you don't.
Ditto, hopeless277, and wipe the stupid grins, huh?
Madam Representatives, do your jobs. If you had been for the last five years, we would not be where we are today. You are little more than Bush enablers to me!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
