Democrats to Iraq: U.S. support has limits

[DoYouEverWonder]

11/25/2006

WASHINGTON (AP) — American support for the fledgling Iraqi government is not unconditional, and Iraq should expect changes in the U.S. role, incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Saturday.

"In the days ahead, the Iraqis must make the tough decisions and accept responsibility for their future," Hoyer, D-Md., said during the weekly Democratic radio address. "And the Iraqis must know: Our commitment, while great, is not unending."

Hoyer's comments were taped Wednesday, before an escalation in sectarian violence in Iraq. At least 215 Shiites were killed in bomb and mortar attacks Thursday in Sadr City. Shiites retaliated Friday by burning six Sunni Arabs alive and killing 19 others in attacks on Sunni mosques.

Once in power, Hoyer said, the Democrats hope to work with Republicans and the Bush administration to change direction in Iraq war plans, "because, clearly, the current strategy is not working."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-25-democrats-address_x.htm

[acmejack]

1. Hoyer is a superb speaker.

I always like to hear him take the floor during debates in the House. It is worth signing up to his daily news letter, I guess it will actually be the new whip's now, the ever popular Daily Whip get it at democraticwhip.house.gov & get the low down on the days activities, too. It will tell what votes are scheduled, provides a brief synopsis and advises which way the Leadership wants the members to vote.

[pinto]

2. Thanks for the link. ("Daily Whip")

:thumbsup:

[acmejack]

4. My pleasure!

I always found it worthwhile. It is really useful for missing those sleep inducing post office namings & catching the special order five minutes.

[stillcool]

3. It sounds to me

like a threat to the Iraqi government....maybe about the oil contracts due to be signed in December. I don't suppose there is any government official willing to contemplate any solution that does not include the control of the oil. Its too bad, at this late date, no one is willing to talk about the elephant in the room.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. I hate this way of putting it

"We've done so much for you, and now you have to take some responsibility."

It seems to be the standard way of wording it in Washington. How about: "We committed a heinous crime when we invaded you and destroyed your stability, your infrastructure, and, well, your lives. Sorry. Now we're going to discuss stopping the ongoing destruction and leaving. Good luck."

That's a bitter admission, but we really need leaders who will make it.

Promising to give billions of dollars to the UN for rebuilding would help, too, but I don't expect to see anyone talking about that anytime soon.

[yurbud]

8. It would be better to pinpoint the blame: the Bush administration has killed your people and our

troops. We want to stop the war and leave. Let us know what we could do to make that happen with the LEAST harm on the way out.

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Just let the Iraqis have their oil back

they won't need billions from the UN or anyone else.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Sure, we INVADED and bombed the fuck out of your country for

nothing but a total pack of lies, when you hadn't been doing a damn thing against us or anyone else. But now you Iraqis need to take responsibility for the worse-than Saddam mess bush's America dumped on you!

(And ya wonder why the world loathes us?)

[Solly Mack]

7. All that support must be in those good news stories

Bush claims never make the news.

We invade a country for lies and trumped up evidence. We arrest and detain their people for no reason. We torture them. We occupy their country and bring chaos to them.

With support like that...