From my inbox, another interesting take on the reality in Iraq today.

NB: If you have nothing reasonable to contribute please, just read and move on, no need polluting this thread with personal attacks. Issues please.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Editor's Note:

For those not familiar with Robert Byrd, you are in for a
treat because he has an eloquence unmatched in the Senate.
And when he speaks about the Constitution and Congressional
responsibility, you instantly understand that Congress is
nothing more than a group of glorified waterboys for
interests other than the American People.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Bush's War is Turning Sands of Iraq Blood Red: Robert Bird
[With Introduction by Bob Geiger]

Like many avowed liberals, I have a hard time getting
past the personal history of Senator Robert Byrd of West
Virginia. Byrd spent a lot of his twenties as a member of
the Ku Klux Klan -- something for which he has repeatedly
expressed remorse and shame -- filibustered the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, voted against the nomination of
Thurgood Marshall to the United States Supreme Court
in 1967 and was part of the "Gang of 14" who in 2005
compromised with Republicans on the appointment of right-
wing judges.

But, at age 89, Byrd is the longest-serving Senator in
U.S. history, is widely considered the Senate's foremost
historian and expert in parliamentary matters and, when it
comes to the Iraq war, was wise enough to be against it
from the very beginning.

"Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of
recent months with a heavy, heavy heart," said Byrd in a
Senate-floor speech on March 19, 2003, after George W. Bush
ordered the Iraq invasion. "No more is the image of America
one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of
America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust
us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we
demand obedience or threaten recrimination."

And Byrd was prescient in his objection to the Iraq
invasion, citing what he believed even then to be corrupt
evidence for the war and the fact that Saddam Hussein had
nothing to do with the events of September 11. Here's more
from Senator Byrd on March 19, 2003:

"The case this administration tries to make to justify
its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified
documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince
the world of the necessity of this war for one simple
reason: This is not a war of necessity, but a war of
choice.

"There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein
to 9/11, at least up to this point.

"What is happening to this country--my country, your
country, our country? When did we become a nation which
ignores and berates our friends and calls them irrelevant?
When did we decide to risk undermining international order
by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using
our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic
efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for
diplomacy?"

I'm writing about all of this now because of another
wonderful speech Byrd gave on the Senate floor just last
Thursday in which he eviscerated Bush and his administration
on the fight over the war's continuation. Byrd's opinion is
notable not only because he has the frame of reference of
48 years in the Senate, but also because he is currently
president pro tempore of the Senate and -- no matter how
arcane this may sometimes seem -- this makes him third in
line to the presidency behind Dick Cheney and House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi.

Take a look at what a man with the perspective of a half-
century in the Senate has to say about the worst president
in our country's history. I've included his floor speech of
May 17, 2007 in its entirety below.

* * * * *

Here we are once again -- deja vu -- debating supplemental
funding for the President's disastrous misadventure in
Iraq. Now in its fifth year of occupation, the U.S. death
toll in Iraq is over 3,380. What a shame, shame, shame.
The death toll of innocent Iraqis is largely unknown, but
it probably numbers in the tens of thousands.

The United States of America has spent over $378 billion
in Iraq. Do you know how much a billion dollars is? That
is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. So the
United States has spent over $378 billion in Iraq, and we
are all familiar with the horrendous tales of waste and
abuse by U.S. contractors in Iraq. The taxpayer -- that is
you out there -- has been ravaged by the profiteering in
Iraq. But even worse, despite the billions, our brave
troops have been shortchanged with inadequate equipment to
protect their lives and shoddy medical care, if they make
it back home, to treat wounds of the body and of the mind.

Now the President has threatened to veto the House bill,
which is before the Senate, because it sets a date to
withdraw, provides funding until late July and "could
unreasonably burden the President's exercise of his
constitutional authorities, including his authority as
Commander in Chief."

President Bush has also objected to funding for rebuilding
the Gulf Coast States after Hurricane Katrina, funding to
improve health care for our troops and our veterans,
funding for the shortfall in the State Children's Health
Insurance Program, funding for Low-Income Heating
Assistance Program, and more funding for Homeland Security.

This President -- our President -- has a single-minded
obsession with Iraq, and he appears to see no value in
anything except continuing his chaotic "mission
impossible." While tilting at windmills may have been a
harmless procedure for Don Quixote, Mr. Bush's war is
turning the sands of Iraq blood red.

Mr. Bush raises constitutional concerns in his latest veto
threat. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. I don't
no whether to laugh or to cry. I suppose one could be
encouraged that "constitutional concerns" exist in the Bush
kingdom. After setting aside the Constitution whenever
convenient to justify preemptive attacks, illegal searches,
secret wiretapping, clandestine military tribunals, treaty
violations, kidnapping, torture, and a rejection of habeas
corpus, one has to wonder about the nature of these
purported "constitutional concerns."

If the Constitution is finally to be read, let us read it
in its entirety, including the articles which give the
people's representatives -- that is us -- the power over
the purse -- yes, the power over the purse; don't ever
forget it. That is the real power. It gives the people's
representatives the power over the purse and the power to
declare war.

In its statement of administrative policy, the
administration claims that the House bill before us
", is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq. , " Mr.
President, what do we have now if not chaos in Iraq?
Securing Iraq has unaccountably morphed into securing
Baghdad, and even that goal eludes us. I doubt if building
a wall around the green zone is going to be of much
consequence in securing Baghdad, not to mention the very
strange message such a wall conveys concerning our
purported liberation of Iraq.

The President -- our President -- continues to miss the
point. Iraq is at war with itself. America cannot create a
stable democracy in Iraq at the point of a gun. While our
troops succeeded in toppling Saddam Hussein, it is the
President's profound misunderstanding of the dynamics in
Iraq that have led to the failure of his Iraq policies.
Why in the world should we now believe the claims that he
makes in his veto threat?

There must be an end to this occupation of Iraq. Yes, I say
occupation for it is no longer a war in which U.S. troops
should be involved. Our troops won the war they were sent
to fight, and they should not now be asked to serve as
targets in a religious conflict between Sunni and Shiites
that has raged for thousands of years. It is reported that
even a majority in the Iraqi Parliament now supports
legislation which demands a scheduled withdrawal and an
immediate freeze on the number of foreign soldiers in Iraq.

In April, Congress set a new course for the war in Iraq.
Sadly, the President -- our stubborn, uncompromising
President -- chose to veto that bill. As we prepare to go
to conference again, the President continues to close his
eyes and cover his ears to the reality in Iraq, and the
urgent need for a new direction. Whatever decision is made
in conference will not be the last chapter in this sad
story. God willing, this Senator will not close his eyes,
nor will he cover his ears, nor will I stand by in silence.

Hear me.

We need to conclude this terrible, awful mistake that we
have made in Iraq. I said in the beginning that we ought
not go into Iraq. But we are there. Anti-Americanism is
more robust now than in any period in our history because
of Iraq. Do you hear that? The international community is
skeptical -- why should they not be? They are skeptical
of U.S. intentions because of Iraq. Our Constitution has
been trampled -- hear that. Our Constitution has been
trampled because of Iraq. Thousands of U.S. troops and
Iraqi citizens have lost their lives because of Iraq.
Thousands more are maimed physically or mentally because
of Iraq. Billions of U.S. dollars have been wasted because
of Iraq.

President Bush has lost all credibility. President Bush,
our President, has lost all -- all -- credibility because
of Iraq.

Terrorism is on the rise worldwide because of Iraq. May
God grant this Congress -- that is, us -- may God grant
this Congress the courage to come together and answer the
cries of a majority of the people who sent us here. Find
a way to end this horrible catastrophe, this unspeakable
-- unspeakable -- ongoing calamity called Iraq. May God
help us in the United States.

Afam:

NB: If you have nothing reasonable to contribute please, just read and move on, no need polluting this thread with personal attacks. Issues please.

Afam:

NB: If you have nothing reasonable to contribute please, just read and move on, no need polluting this thread with personal attacks. Issues please.

This is what Saddam will call the "Mother Of All Ironies"

are u sure this I-Man is not Bush himself?

I don't think he has a mind of his own. He hardly posts anything unless he is making a comment to support Davidylan, maybe he has found a lifetime mentor in the young man, who knows?

Didn't you know I-man, is one of the most condescending individual at Nairaland. Am so sick of his childish verbiage, the man has no views of his own.

I particularly like this statement

"No more is the image of America
one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of
America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust
us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we
demand obedience or threaten recrimination."

Reminds one of the poignant statement made by the then French foreign minister at the UN just before the invasion.

Ironies of life.
See the men above who claimed to be interested in issues and not personal attacks. Such a shame you cant debate your own issue without mentioning names. Grow up!

Yes, going to war was total rubbish, but america cant just leave now, they must finish and cleanup the havoc they have created.

sartorius:

Yes, going to war was total rubbish, but america can't just leave now, they must finish and cleanup the havoc they have created.

How?

No one has a clue how to deal with the problem. Bush's Army surge is already failing. Staying any further in the hope to clean up the mess is simply postponing dommsday. America should simply announce a pullout timetable and withdraw their troops.

Trust me if they do this Iraqis will sort themselves out, maybe theymay not start enjoying democracy immediately butthey will surely find peace.

As long as America keeps on wasting its time, the chess game they are playing with Iran and Syria with people's lives in Iraq will continue.

a pull out will lead to a civil war and thats what iran wants, remember the last words of saddam before he was hanged, the iraqis cant sort themselves not in the nearest 20 years.the sunnis and shittes arecready for war, al sadr is their promoter, i pity america

Well if what is going on in Iraq is not equivalent to a civil war then God knows what it is??

its not yet a civil war, ied goes off in places like market mosques even in the prescence of the marines, so u can imagine how the security state will be, plus remember the iraqi police is being trained for the future. i dont support the war but i believe it would be a disservice to the people of the world to abadon the iraqis to terrorist, freedom fighters and the rest

See how definition of success by the so called world's greatest leader has evolved over the years and you will know how hopeless this war is.

Definition of success in Iraq an evolving theme
Current measure of victory hardly resembles standard of 4 years ago
By Eric Rosenberg
Hearst Newspapers
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 05.20.2007

advertisementWASHINGTON — The Bush administration's definition of success in Iraq has changed drastically since the March 2003 invasion, and the current measure of victory hardly resembles the standard promulgated four years ago.
Back then, the U.S. defined success as finding and destroying Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, installing a democratic, pro-U.S. government to serve as a model for despotic Arab states and rooting out any terrorists who may have found safe haven there under Saddam's rule.
Starting with the embarrassing discovery that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi realities have forced the Bush administration to redefine its standards of success.
The U.S.-led invasion has also triggered a tenacious insurgency that is attracting Islamic militants from around the world. And the administration is desperately trying to bolster the U.S.-backed Baghdad government to become more effective in fighting insurgents and to take steps to reconcile competing ethnic factions.
Against this background, Bush administration officials now define success in far more diminished terms.
The following is an outline of the administration's evolving definition of success:
March 2003: Two days after the U.S-led invasion, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld laid out success in the following terms.
● Ending Hussein's regime.
● Locating and eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
● Capturing and driving out terrorists located in Iraq and gathering intelligence on links between terrorist networks in Iraq and elsewhere.
● Securing Iraq's oil fields and using them to resuscitate Iraq's foundering economy.
● Creating the conditions "for a rapid transition to a representative self-government."
June 2003: Three months after the invasion, as the U.S. and British forces encountered constant insurgent attacks, the administration began to measure success in terms of training Iraqis to defend against insurgents and to assume governance duties then conducted by the U.S. through the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Rumsfeld asserted that no amount of American might would defeat the enemy. "The problem's going to be dealt with over time as the Iraqis assume more and more responsibility for their own country," he said on June 30.
November 2003: Eight months after the invasion, the insurgency had taken root and flourished. November was a particularly bad month for American forces, with the highest monthly death toll (82 killed) since the war's onset.
Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defined success in terms of narrow tactical-level achievements, such as the number of civilian facilities opened up by coalition forces, the number of Iraqi troops that American troops had trained and the number of enemy weapons captured.
"There have been truly impressive accomplishments," Rumsfeld said on Sept. 15.
"Some 600 individual reconstruction processes have been completed. All the schools, hospitals, and universities are open. We've gone from zero Iraqis providing for their own security up to 56,000 Iraqis, police, army, border guards, site protection, civilian defense."
April 2004: The U.S had to shelve the counting of Iraqi forces as a yardstick of success because of their dismal performance. Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division, said that about 10 percent of Iraqi security forces "actually worked against" U.S. troops during recent violence, while another 40 percent deserted.
Rumsfeld called in then-Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, to start retraining the Iraqi military.
In the 14-month American occupation of Iraq thus far, this was the second-worst month for American forces, with 135 service members killed.
May 2004: President Bush told an Arab newspaper that "the definition of 'success' (in Iraq) is a society which is peaceful and free, that governs itself, a society in which children can go to school and which the health care is good and which the infrastructure is strong, and in which the businesses flourish."
June 2005: Rumsfeld made it clear that President Bush's definition of success as a "peaceful" Iraq was no longer valid.
"Success for the coalition should not be defined as domestic tranquility in Iraq," Rumsfeld said June 27. "Other democracies have had to contend with terrorism and insurgencies for a number of years, but they have been able to function and eventually succeed."
June 2005: The next day, June 28, President Bush reverted to a prior definition of success: The number of Iraqi units capable of fighting militias, foreign fighters and Baathist remnants so that Americans can leave.
"Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," Bush said.
The U.S. employed a four-tier grading system — levels 1 through level 4 — to measure Iraqi forces, with level 1 at the peak of readiness for taking on the enemy. The idea was to have as many Iraqi units as possible in the level 1 category so that American forces can depart.
September 2005: U.S. military officials are forced to rethink the use of the battalion grading system as a standard of success after revealing that the number of level 1 battalions had actually declined from three battalions to one. By February 2006, not a single Iraqi battalion was at level 1 capability.
Rumsfeld grappled for a new definition, declaring that it did not matter how many units were at level 1. Regarding the decline in readiness of Iraqi units, Rumsfeld said on Sept. 30: "Its relevance is minimal." Later, Rumsfeld and military officials would only discuss a larger grouping that combined Iraqi units at level 1 and level 2.
January 2007: President Bush announced on Jan 10 an escalation of American forces into Baghdad. He defined success as American and Iraqis forces "reducing the violence in Baghdad."
"If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," Bush said.
April 2007: President Bush drops his goal of a "peaceful" Iraq as a measure of success. "If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide bombers, we'll never be successful," he said on April 19.
May 2007: With the U.S. occupation in its fifth year and violence surging despite the influx of additional American troops, U.S. officials lower the bar again.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said May 7 that for the U.S. troop escalation to be judged a success, American forces need not bring stability to Baghdad.
"The goal in September is not whether the violence has been significantly reduced, or stability has been brought … but rather whether it has been reduced to a level that the political reconciliation process is moving forward in some meaningful way," Gates said.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/02/bush-success-comfortable/

very true.whats ur take on the democrats latest move passing the war bill

So much intrigues, that is the thing about US foreign policy always the same whether democrats or republicans, maybe different approach
It is possible the senators were coarsed into passing that biil, they claimed intelligence reports show that attack in US is imminent. So the only way to stop the imminent attack is re-invoke Donald Rumsfeld gospel of pre-emptive strike. Attack them before they attack.

Trust secret service they may be the ones behind that game.

McKren:

So much intrigues, that is the thing about US foreign policy always the same whether democrats or republicans, maybe different approach
It is possible the senators were coarsed into passing that biil, they claimed intelligence reports show that attack in US is imminent. So the only way to stop the imminent attack is re-invoke Donald Rumsfeld gospel of pre-emptive strike. Attack them before they attack.
Trust secret service they may be the ones behind that game.

The Democrats knew from the start that there was no chance of their bill becoming law.In some respects,that is why some of them voted for it.They wanted to show the Democratic base that they are trying their best to end US involvement in the war

@topic,

While trying to disguise their true intentions about this thread with the introductory statement: "If you have nothing reasonable to contribute please, just read and move on, no need polluting this thread with personal attacks. Issues please.", the coalition of left-wing smear campaigners could not even go beyond the 4th and 5th posts to show their true colours with the statements: "I don't think he has a mind of his own". and Didn't you know I-man,  is one of the most condescending  individual  at Nairaland.

If this is how you guys discuss issues, then it explains how no one sees any points in all your posts. This is how you kill otherwise interesting threads and turn around accusing others of personal attacks.

@TayoD
I said I-man was condescending and its true.
Didn't you read where he accused mrmayor of grammatical error and in another thread boasting (it was not tongue-in-cheek) he did his NYSC in London?
We can't have an intelligent discourse if one of the participant is constantly deriding others. How come I didn't accuse davidylan of being condescending?

Tayod,
nothing is interesting about these people and their posts.
they have decided and concluded on the thread.
if we must mention people without minds of their own on this forum, the man afam sould top the list.
to back this up, he has never posted a topic of his own. like this particular topic, he just copied verbatum an opinion of an oposition in the house.
Afam,
be matured and remember that clinton who till date is choosen as the best american president still had oposition whose duty in the house is to find loopholes and hold tight on that to discredit the government in power.
they are called oplitical oponents and they act as watch dogs on the government in power. in political science, it is believed that they are legally recognised in the western world.
they try to find fault in everything the government in power does and be informed that the level of political growth america has achieved, they are bent on changes and be informed that the working together of these oposition parties and their challangies to each other contributes to the greatness of america.
unfortunately, you have not seen anything good in bush and obj is the only angel you know while the iran president is the best president in the world.
from where do u get all thses topics that you "copy and paste"? are there not positive things they write in those places that you can equally copy and paste.
you only copy and paste bbut can never convience anyone on any of your copied topics.
you lack all the necessary information and i still doubt your person because i have never seen you argue with points.
what and how have you related all these stories with the horrible things that were happening in afghanistan and the situation there today?
who have you blamed for the 9 : 11 attack?
i can't stop thinking about your copy and paste abilities as indicated in such your topics as, war is not a solution to terrorism-(you will add author), isreal does not want peace- (you will add the author), Bush's War Is Turning Sands Of Iraq Blood Red: Robert Bird-author.

so afam, tell us here how u have buttress ur points on all these issues and relate it to your ability to use mind of urs.

copy and paste for ur information is the first thing everyone learns in computer and as such everyone can copy and paste.

be a critical thinker and come up with a topic that you can digest even while you are asleep. trace any topic that i have posted here and ask me to defend my point at anytime and i will do that without stress but in ur cases u will resort to insults.

i wish i have other means of communicating with you. i would have made out time to make you to start behaving like an independent man

@chidichris
You have neither read nor commented on the article. Afam implied you should read and comment on the issues raised but neither you nor TayoD commented on the article.
Pasting the article here stops us from visiting the said site. If you come across an interesting article, by all means start a new topic, am sure many people would be willing to discuss the issues.

@Tornadoz,

Why should we comment when it is obvious that this is just another disguise for character assasination and undue smear campaign on others with contrary point of view?!

How come no one seems to have explanation for the many definition of "success" in Iraq

please behave yourselves lads,nothing wrong if a topic starter says no bitching around on his topic,seun could equally do the same on his forum.there are plenty topics and forums for all that.this topic is probably for intellectuals so those not interested[or qualified] can check into the '20 ways to perfect your banditry' topic in the 'hoodlums' section

well the main fear now for bush is the entry of iran and israel into the iraq conflict.this scenario is possible given the israeli/arab war,iran's ongoing involvement in iraq/afghanistan and its nuclear ambition.an appropriate escalation of hostilities is all that is needed to explode the region.with america badly tied down,china may think it's time for the world chinese era,thereby kickstarting the third world war.our african leaders,please maintain your siddon look strategy abeg

doncartel:

          please behave yourselves lads,nothing wrong if a topic starter says no bitching around on his topic

Not if the "topic starter" is of ill repute.He suing for peace would be like Bin Laden asking for religious tolerance

Tornadoz:

@chidichris
You have neither read nor commented on the article. Afam implied you should read and comment on the issues raised but neither you nor TayoD commented on the article.
Pasting the article here stops us from visiting the said site. If you come across an interesting article, by all means start a new topic, am sure many people would be willing to discuss the issues.

there is no point commenting, the author is well known to be adept at insulting those who do not subscribe to his myopic and ill-informed view of world politics.

Comments from Afam on another thread.This is not an exception but it happens to be the most recent I have come across:

I wish we were discussing opening (face to face) and only God knows if you will live to see the next day because animals like you do not deserve to live a second longer.

In the meantime tell your mother that it is not other people's fault that she has not been able to show you who may have fathered a pig like you. As someone would say "you are just a waste of orgasm", a "mistake" and a coward that belongs to the graveyard.

It is the 6th post in the following link-https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-56197.0.html#bot

@Tornadoz
How do you see the above comment by your fellow leftist?

yo i-man rastafarymes jah selassie bless bladclat roodbwai fi zion,me know say d ganja crack ar blok ur eye nd brain dem best reduce d whiskey b4 ya choke fi dead.why u nah see inna d thread u post d roodbwai ar kal afam a bastard?d cocaine nuh let u see say u african man?go outside kal man bastard in nigeria im ar smash out ya head n cutlass ya black ass b4 anytin else.even inna d law court me ar claim provocation fi d murder as mi defence

doncartel:

        yo i-man rastafarymes jah selassie bless bladclat roodbwai fi zion,me know say d ganja crack ar blok your eye nd brain them best reduce d whiskey before ya choke fi dead.why u nah see inna d thread u post d roodbwai ar kal afam a bastard?d cocaine nuh let u see say u african man?go outside kal man bastard in nigeria im ar smash out ya head n cutlass ya black ass before anytin else.even inna d law court me ar claim provocation fi d murder as mi defence
    

Very eloquently put . Supporters of Afam,birds of the same feather

@doncartel
Whaa gwaan bretherin? mi ear yuh propa
mi no know wattagwan wid nigerians
Anyway thanks fe di comments.

@McKren
Thanks for that article, if only some people (no names please) will read it.

@davidylan

there is no point commenting, the author is well known to be adept at insulting those who do not subscribe to his myopic and ill-informed view of world politics.

Am still waiting for you to say whats wrong in the article. (Take your time, we will wait)
Are we expecting you to say it made an uncomfortable reading? Nah