1. News & Issues
You can opt-out at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy for contact information.

Wide Array of Americans Condemn Iraq War in 2007

Intriguing, Provocative, Furious, Brilliant

By

I'm fascinated by the vast array of intriguing, provocative, furious, brilliant comments on the Iraq War from all corners and political persuasions.

This article samples just a few from Newsweek, Donald Trump, Keith Olbermann, Gen. John P. Abizaid, retired General Wesley Clark, CNN, Rosie O'Donnell, even Mel Gibson, and leading bloggers.

Imagine... American consensus is so united and widespread in early 2007 that a U.S. troop surge in the Iraq War is a spectacularly bad idea that bitterly feuding enemies, Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell, are in agreement!

THE COMMENTS

FROM Faithful Progressive, a Christian blogger, on January 3, 2007:

"The lynching of Saddam has made the situation there very clear. Let's face it, there is no government in Iraq. There is only a very dangerous collection of gangs, death squads and sectarian trouble-makers running rough-shod over the Iraqi people.

Why should American troops die for people who chant the name of Muqtada al-Sadr as they gleefully hang a scoundrel? This is not our fight. Period. Muqtada al-Sadr is not our friend. Period.

The White House, with its fantasy of a huge American escalation to aid and abet these anti-Western thugs, doesn't get this."

FROM Time magazine article "What a Surge Really Means", January 4, 2007:

"Coming from Bush, a man known for bold strokes, the surge is a strange half-measure--too large for the political climate at home, too small to crush the insurgency in Iraq and surely three years too late.

Bush has waved off a bipartisan rescue mission out of pride, stubbornness or ideology, or some combination of the three. Rather than reversing course, as all the wise elders of the Iraq Study Group advised, the Commander in Chief is betting that more troops will lead the way to what one White House official calls 'victory.'

... There is always a chance that a surge might reduce the violence, if only for a while. But given that nothing in Iraq has gone according to plan, it seems more likely that it won't.

That's why many in the military assume privately that a muscular-sounding surge now is chiefly designed to give Bush the political cover to execute a partial withdrawal on his terms later."

FROM Letter from Here blog on December 23, 2006 quoting Donald Trump:

"Noted foreign policy expert looks in his crystal ball: 'When you’re a president who has destroyed the lives of probably a million people, our soldiers and Iraqis who are maimed and killed —- you see children going into school in Baghdad with no arms and legs —-I don’t think Bush’s kids should be having lots of fun in Argentina,' he says...

'No matter how long we stay in Iraq, no matter how many soldiers we send, the day we leave, the meanest, most vicious, most brilliant man in the country, a man who makes Saddam Hussein look like a baby, will take over and spit on the American flag,' he says. 'Bush will go down as the worst and by far the dumbest president in history.' "

FROM the Iraq Study Group Report, in supporting its recommendations #40 to #45:

"While it is clear that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is moderating the violence, there is little evidence that the long-term deployment of U.S. troops by itself has led or will lead to fundamental improvements in the security situation...

Recommendation 40: The U.S. should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq...

Recommendation 42: We should seek to complete the training and equipping mission by the first quarter of 2008, as stated by General Geroge Casey... "

FROM retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander, in an op-ed in The Independent (UK newspaper) on January 7, 2007:

"What the surge would do... is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace...

And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict...

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than 'stay the course more'.

That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran."

(CONTINUED ON PAGE 2)

  1. About.com
  2. News & Issues
  3. Liberal Politics
  4. Activist 101
  5. Iraq War Chatter & Comments in 2007: Intriguing, Brilliant, Provocative, Furious

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.