I know why the Democrats backed down

[dogday]

And you will too if you read the link below... Basically what NPR reports is that Pentagon Studies state we will be in Iraq for the next 2 Decades maintaining troop levels at about 50,000.

Everyone in Washington knows this, Bush, Republikans and also the Democrats... Nobody is going to tell us.. But every citizen should know this....


Read the article below and tell me you now know why the Democrats backed down.....


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10292643

[seemslikeadream]

1. Giant U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad

THE SITE HAS 21 STRUCTURES

U.S. diplomatic employees in Iraq are to move next year to a multimillion-dollar complex that will be among the largest U.S. embassies. The facility is slated for completion June 2007.


New office building: Includes classified activities
New office annex: For public diplomacy staff, consular affairs and the U.S. Agency for International Development
Interim office building: Designed for future use as a school
General services annex: Facilities management, break areas, staff locker rooms
Recreation building: Gym, exercise room, swimming pool, locker rooms, the American Club, commissary, food court, barber and beauty shop
Six staff apartment buildings: Each has one bedroom apartments
Residences for the chief and deputy chief of mission
Marine security guard quarters
Remaining buildings are dedicated to security, vehicle maintenance and facilities management, storage, utilities, and water and wastewater treatment

[dogday]

4. Add 14 Bases or Camps as they call them

Sounds like a long-term commitment to me...

[bdamomma]

6. a very long commitment, unfortunately.

:(

[seemslikeadream]

10. U.S. Embassy in Iraq to Be Biggest Ever

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070519/worlds-largest-embassy


A portion of the new U.S. embassy under construction is seen from across the Tigris river in Baghdad, Saturday, May 19, 2007. The new $592 million embassy occupies a chunk of prime Baghdad real estate two-thirds the size of Washington's National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls. The compound is a symbol both of how much the United States has invested in Iraq and how the circumstances of U.S. involvement are changing. (AP Photo)

WASHINGTON — The new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will be the world's largest and most expensive foreign mission, though it may not be large enough or secure enough to cope with the chaos in Iraq.

The Bush administration designed the 104-acre compound _ set to open in September in what today is a war zone _ to be an ultra-secure enclave. Yet it also hoped that downtown Baghdad would cease being a battleground when diplomats moved in.

Over the long term, depending on which way the seesaw of sectarian division and grinding warfare teeters, the massive city-within-a-city could prove too enormous for the job of managing diminished U.S. interests in Iraq.

The $592 million embassy occupies a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington's National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls. The compound is a symbol both of how much the United States has invested in Iraq and how the circumstances of its involvement are changing.

[EVDebs]

56. The Quakers brought this up and got NSA'ed ; McCain knew in 2004 or before

The Quaker's question and map of the Permanent Bases
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

...while in June 2005 Bush was saying, 'As Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down'. What a liar.

In the meantime if Congress knew this Sen McCain was using it in his statements to CNN , see Bob Herbert's 'Heads In The Sand' column for NYTimes,

"Bob Herbert Op-Ed column says Sen John McCain expects United States military to remain in Iraq for 'probably' 10 or 20 years; says Americans did not expect that when war was sold to them; notes that no speakers at Republican National Conventional were as candid as McCain; says that despite Republicans' macho posturing, wave of terror that has been unleashed on world is only growing and that American-led war in Iraq has caused it to swell rather than ebb; says Americans need serious, honest discussion of where to go from here; worries that nation is following tragic road in Iraq similar to one in Vietnam that tore America apart"

Herbert's NYTimes column appeared as
Heads in the Sand
September 3, 2004, Friday
By BOB HERBERT (NYT); Editorial Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 19, Column 5, 764 words

Yet the ass-hat McCain wants to deepen our committment to Iraq while simutaneously destroying our military, as Murtha and others have pointed out. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Permanent bases and huge embassies and troop committments all are bleeding the US taxpayer dry.

[LeftHander]

11. Five more years and we will see this again at the new embassy...

[seemslikeadream]

16. 5 years?

I hope will not be that long, if Cheney gets his way, there will be no helicopters coming for the dead

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. This is going to get ugly very fast.

You know the only way they can stay there for 20 years is by force. You know there will be resistance, you know there will be a draft.

And as long as there are oil companies that are privatized, and we're losing our children and paying $3.00 - $4.00 a gallon in gas, you KNOW that things are going to get ugly.

[seemslikeadream]

45. seemslikeadream, I know

it only seemslikeadream




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE4HGlmtOcg&eurl=

I cant help about the shape Im in
I cant sing, I aint pretty and my legs are thin
But dont ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to

Oh well

Now, when I talked to God I knew hed understand
He said, stick by my side and Ill be your guiding hand
But dont ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to

Oh well

[EVDebs]

59. Final scenes of Three Days Of The Condor

dialogue of Redford and Robertson...

"Turner eventually discovers that Joubert was hired by the secret cabal to eliminate all the people in the New York office because Turner's report indicated they had stumbled onto one of their contingency plans to invade the Middle East if there was an oil crisis. He tracks down the mastermind to his home and takes him captive. However, Joubert arrives soon afterwards. Surprisingly, he kills his former employer, because the contract has changed; he now works for the CIA. He befriends Turner, to the extent this is possible, and tries to convince Turner to become like him: a man who works for whomever pays him. Turner declines, saying he likes living in the United States too much. Before they part, Joubert warns him that he is still a target and tells him how he will likely be set up.

Turner goes back to New York and encounters Higgins on a busy street. When Higgins offers him a ride, Turner recognizes Joubert's scenario and turns him down. Higgins tells Turner that eventually they will catch up to him. Turner says he has told the press "a story" (they are standing outside the New York Times office), but Higgins says, "How do you know they'll print it?" Turner answers, "They'll print it," and starts to walk away into the crowd. "You can take a walk, but how far if they don't print it?" Higgins says. Turner pauses and glances back."

http://www.answers.com/topic/three-days-of-the-condor

In Jan. 2004, British intelligence released a report showing Nixon planned to seize Saudi oil fields in '73...

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. That movie was prescient.

I thought of it immediately when I noticed that our press stopped acting like an American press.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

47. bwah-ha-ha! my thought exactly....

great photo....

[boobooday]

55. One of the most disturbing images I remember from childhood

How many people said 'never again?'

[Carolina]

43. and how would we react if

some other nation did that to us, on our soil? Would we not plot and plan for their destruction.

All empires fall; and what the US has done in Iraq is going to yield blowback for sure.

And while our gov't is building away over in Iraq, what is happening stateside?? People here are angry, and people over there are angry. Something will give ... I repeat, ALL EMPIRES FALL!

[rasputin1952]

54. Does anyone else besides me see this a nothing more than an

immense target?

There is NO WAY that those who thatwe are fighting now, nor their recruits down the line, will see this as anything other than an Imperial Roost.

Building for Death and Destruction...:(

[formercia]

57. Crusader Castle Syndrome

Works until the seige guns roll up.

[rasputin1952]

68. I wonder if the nickname for this site will be "The Alamo?" n/t

[formercia]

69. or Bagdhadograd. n/t

[dogday]

58. Might as well paint a big red X on the roof

I see exactly what you are saying....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I've known this for years

I've been against it for years. Will it take rebuilding the Democratic Party with people who truly represent us and not corporations before we can change things?

[Buzz Clik]

15. Exactly. This quote from the OP: "Nobody is going to tell us" is simply not true.

We have been told and told and told.

-- Permanents bases constructed in Iraq
-- The uber-Embassy
-- Bush's own comments.

We've simply been working under the false pretense that this is a typical war: we have achievable objectives that, once attained, we leave.

[dogday]

20. You are right, Bush did say this would be a long term

commitment.... Nobody has been as specific as this report.... You are also right about working under false pretense... They don't want us to know the entire truth... They spit it out in bits and pieces....

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Bush is gone in at least two years.

As long as this war escalates, and as long as people are losing their children to this war, do you really think he's going to stick around here? Where will he go where he'll have friends?

[ellenfl]

48. paraguay? eom

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. Bully for Paraguay.

Now, wouldn't that be funny if years from now, we get a Congress who votes to declare Bush a persona non grata, and he gets put on the no-fly list?

Hahahahahaha!

[dogday]

52. The Palm Islands in Dubai

You know Halliburton is moving their office there... I always wondered why they were building so many resort island getaways there... I think I know now....


http://www.palmsales.ca/

[elehhhhna]

3. Yeah? Us and what army?

[TwilightGardener]

5. It's going to be another strategic military foothold, just like Korea.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. We have to safeguard the oil. And more than that,

we have to control the center of the chessboard--for exactly the same reason that Bobby Fisher & Boris Spassky fought for the center.

[Deep13]

8. Guess I need someone to point it out.

Does not seem obvious from the article.

[dogday]

14. This is the part

A series of military installations could be maintained around Iraq, with a total of total of 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops, for a long period of time — maybe a few decades. There are currently about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

The bases would be located in various strategic locations, ones that served by air landing strips, for instance. The bases would be sealed and U.S. forces wouldn't be on patrols as they are now.

But maintaining a troop presence in Iraq would allow the U.S. military to continue training Iraqi forces. It would also help discourage other countries, like Iran and Turkey, from entering Iraq.

[patrice]

9. So the Military IS defining U.S. Policy. nm

[Double T]

30. Always have and now more than ever...............

the military industrial complex and the pentagon are nobody's friend.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Yep, there are some so naive that they believe we get out by funding the occupation.

No matter how patently ridiculous to the reality based community this proposition is, they still cling to the hope that there is some "method to the madness."

[Individualist]

25. Respectfully disagree. It's all about supporting the military industrial complex,

not naivete or hope.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. I'm not writing about the elites, i'm writing about the posters on this board

who believe the elites best interests lay with anything other than the military industrial complex.

[ShortnFiery]

13. $50,000 won't cut it. We will LEAVE within 5 years ... after we are kicked out.

I'm waiting for the Chinook photo shots of emergency extractions.

These Armchair Warriors never learn: You can kill millions of those little brown people and they will still keep coming at you. Why? It's THEIR native land.

Dumb-a** warmongers have to, once again, learn the hard way.

Let's hope that we don't have to sacrifice 58,000 + DEAD troops before the people once again revolt and our war-mongering "political elites" extract our troops from another quagmire. :shrug:

[Stephanie]

17. Somebody Ask Hillary Clinton What She Plans to Do About the World's Largest Embassy

We are OCCUPYING IRAQ for the foreseeable future. You're right, everybody knows this

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/howl

howl | posted June 20, 2006 (web only)
Bush's Baghdad Palace
Nicholas von Hoffman

What About the World's Largest Embassy?

Among the many secrets the American government cannot keep, one of its biggest (104 acres) and most expensive ($592 million) is the American Embassy being built in Baghdad. Surrounded by fifteen-foot-thick walls, almost as large as the Vatican on a scale comparable to the Mall of America, to which it seems to have a certain spiritual affinity, this is no simple object to hide.

So you think the Bush Administration is planning on leaving Iraq? Read on.

The Chicago Tribune reports, "Trucks shuttle building materials to and fro. Cranes, at least a dozen of them, punch toward the sky. Concrete structures are beginning to take form. At a time when most Iraqis are enduring blackouts of up to 22 hours a day, the site is floodlighted by night so work can continue around the clock."

****

On the other hand, the latest is that the facilities for the 8,000 people scheduled to work in the vice-regal compound will be completed on time next year. Doubtless the cooks, janitors and serving staff attending to the Americans' needs and comforts in this establishment, which is said to exceed in luxury and appointments anything Saddam Hussein built for himself, will not be Iraqis either.

According to Knight Ridder, "US officials here greet questions about the site with a curtness that borders on hostility. Reporters are referred to the State Department in Washington, which declined to answer questions for security reasons." Photographers attempting to get pictures of what the locals call "George W's Palace" are confined to using telephoto lenses on this, the largest construction project undertaken by Iraq's American visitors.

Nonetheless, we know much of what is going on in the place, where there will soon be twenty-one buildings, 619 apartments with very fancy digs for the big shots, restaurants, shops, gym facilities, a swimming pool, a food court, a beauty salon, a movie theater (we can't say if it's a multiplex) and, as the Times of London reports, "a swish club for evening functions." This should be ideal for announcing the various new milestones marking the trudge of the Iraqi people toward democracy and freedom.

USA Today has learned that the "massive new embassy, being built on the banks of the Tigris River, is designed to be entirely self-sufficient and won't be dependent on Iraq's unreliable public utilities." Thus, there will be no reason or excuse for any of the thousands of Americans working in this space, which is about the size of eighty football fields, to share the daily life experience of an Iraqi or even come in accidental contact with one.

[dogday]

44. She probably already has her own room picked out nt

[EVDebs]

60. Not to mention the 14 permanent bases...are they still being funded ? nt

[BootinUp]

18. Even if your supporting theory is right

I can't see how that has any fucking thing to do with the recent vote.

[Stephanie]

22. Because the notion of withdrawing the troops is another BIG LIE

The Democrats in Congress are tacitly complicit with the idea of a long-term occupation. The talk of getting out of Iraq is just rhetoric. We're not leaving and they all know it.

[BootinUp]

23. Don't buy it for a minute.

sorry.

[Stephanie]

27. Call your Senator's office and ask them about the embassy

Ask them about the Enduring Bases. See if you get a straight answer.

[BootinUp]

31. Imagine they say something damning (in your view)

like yeah we probably will have some presence there not sure what it will look like. How does that say anything about the recent vote which was a vote of political necessity nothing more. Everyone but crazy bloggers know the Dems wanted to stop Bush but didn't have the votes to do it without taking a hit because the bill wouldn't pass the Senate.

[John Q. Citizen]

40. Good luck with your illusions. When you wake up, i hope the reality of the situation

doesn't turn you completely apathetic.

[BootinUp]

42. Its politics

nothing more, I think you are the one who is having a harder time dealing with its ups and downs though.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. It's just politics except for those dying daily. The Dems and the Repos

voted so they could improve their electorial chances.

The mangled bodies aren't just politics, though.

[BootinUp]

66. Clue

Looking at yes no votes on bills does not always tell the story, as you should well know. And as I have said in other replies, the pressure that is being applied is meeting with success, there are clear signs the strategy, and the military mission will be changed or a bi-partisan voting block will force it this year.

So using a vote for making an argument about who supports or doesn't support a war or is responsible for mangled bodies, but ignoring the behind the scenes struggle, is intellectual dishonesty.

*edit: wow I should slow down when I want to make sense and not gibberish, hope you read it after this edit.

[dogday]

24. That is why the Democrats ending up

with no time-lines, no benchmarks, no anything... They know the term of this committment....

[BootinUp]

26. Have you read any of the statements

from any Democrats that voted yes? Do you need help understanding any of them?

[dogday]

28. I am not talking about those that voted NO

They still know what is happening and want to change things... It is those who voted YES....

I don't need help understanding anything actually, but I appreciate your kind offer....


It can be changed if enough people get on board with it... I hope that one day we shall see this as I can't stand it when my Son is over there.....

[BootinUp]

36. Your personal stake in this is clearly

much higher than mine. Apologies if I seemed brusk.

[dogday]

39. The war makes all of us very angry

What it is doing to the families here, the destruction of families in Iraq... The only people getting anything out of this is the contractors... The rest of us are just losers in their way....

Sad state of affairs....

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. A possible fly in this ointment would be how the Iraqis feel.

It is after all their country a fact that this plans appears to be ignoring.

[dogday]

21. Do we really care?

It does not seem like we care about what they want... But yes, that could be the fly in the ointment...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. The people implementing policy don't care

The people living in Iraq, well, I'd say they care a great deal. Choosing to continue to ignore how the Iraqis feel creates an entire country full of people willing to follow anyone who pretends to listen. And there's no shortage of people willing to exploit this fact.

A very dangerous thing to overlook in my humble opinion.

[dogday]

35. You are right, it is dangerous

and it may be the deciding factor... I do care about the Iraqi people and I feel very deeply for them, and what we have done to their country, to their people, their children is just a damn shame....

[Lone_Star_Dem]

61. Militarily speaking

This should have been addressed. It's not something that a seasoned strategist would have ignored, it's just not. What their plans were/are in regards to this is what remains a mystery to me, but I find it hard to believe that they simply overlooked this inevitability. Then there are other times I think they were actually arrogant and small minded enough to think they could bully an entire nation of people into submission. However, that's not what's taken place.

I know someplace, still today, there's a warmonger working overtime in an attempt to come up with a workable plan to occupy Iraq and control the oil flow without Americans at home noticing what's taking place. I just can't help but feel like whatever chance they had to do that expired right around the time all those republicans were sporting their purple finger dye. What scares me is the strong possibility that they are willing to continue to ignore the deaths and destruction in their quest for the ME prize.

I feel such sorrow for the lives that have been destroyed, the face the US has shown to the rest of the world and hatred that's been sown by these foolish acts, but what rips my heart out the most is I don't see an end to this insanity in the near future.

[dogday]

63. Your answer is the reason for my post

It is time everyone realize what they plan on doing, and why they ignore our cries to end this war...

Not only a great resource for oil, but the location is fabulous :sarcasm:

That is another selling feature to them as well... A good central location from which to branch out...

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

38. K&R nt

[acmavm]

41. I think someone needs to tell al Sadr that we're gonna be there

forever because he thinks he's gonna drive us out.

You can't have a successful occupation if the people are against it.

[kenny blankenship]

46. I'm afraid that's going to be correct--but that is why we must be adamant and not yield an inch

the whole MIC is reconfiguring itself to a new shape in which Iraq is a permanent petrocolony of the United States. It doesn't matter to them what form of government the Iraqi state morphs into as long as it is compliant, or even whether the Iraqis kill each other off to the last man (indeed that would be convenient for their purposes). The financial movers of Wall St., the Pentagon (as the world's biggest oil consumer) and the corporate masters of the GOP, meeting in a convergence of interests and long range planning, have decided to invade Iraq and to suck that oil out until it is all gone. The first phase went off without a hitch--they told their lies, dropped few bombs and installed themselves in the Oil Ministry. The second phase, consolidation, is proving to be more difficult. Not only are the Iraqis causing friction inside the captive victim-state, but voters back home are dismayed and alienated from the overall plan. It's disconcerting to them that we seem to be creating a kind of Poland-Under-The-Nazis Hell on Earth in Iraq instead of helping them get rid of a dictator and then quickly going back to minding our own business, which --poor bastards-- is what they think the U.S. does when it's not responding to an unprovoked attack. The little people actually have had the nerve to say they think Iraq is "not worth it", (no wonder there since they are only involved in the costs end, not the profits end of the enterprise) and that we should get out of Iraq, and they voted out the Republican majority in Congress in order to change the direction or goal of US Iraq policy.

But here's the rub: you CANNOT "compromise" the Military-Industrial-Complex off of this goal of permanently subjugating Iraq and helping ourselves to the oil. You can't do it because it's central to their plans for the next generation! It's just not up for negotiation as far as they are concerned. Owning Iraq is how they planned to tyrannize the world while global oil runs out. It's not like a whim, or a short term scam, or a little sidebusiness. It's Whole Enchilada of US Imperialism (although technically it's not even US imperialism anymore, it's Global Capitalist Imperialism: they just use the United States military as their hitman). You WILL NOT SUCCEED in incrementally, legislatively discouraging them from it. It's delusional to think you can nudge them bit by bit out of Iraq. You can defeat them by rejecting and reversing the policy outright, or you can be a collaborator. Or you can be a witless stooge for them by "opposing" their policy and then giving in as soon as you encounter resistance.

If you reject the criminal nature of what has been done in the name of the United States--the conspiracy to destroy a nation and steal its wealth, the premeditated mass slaughter for profit-- you have NO CHOICE. You can only revolt and force a complete abandonment of the invasion policy. Half measures on our part mean that the Fascists will win--they have had control of the state for a long time and all the institutional momentum of the state, the media and the military has been diverted into the direction of Iraq and Empire. And that will just be the beginning not the end of their new Reich.

[Junkdrawer]

49. We say: "They're dying for oil"...They say: "You don't understand, it's OIL"...

All of our energy and economic eggs are in the Oil basket. It need not be so, but it is. So while we turn our noses up to an Oil War, the Senate will go along with any scheme that has Big Oil getting the oil.

[ellenfl]

50. nice big target we're building. eom

[Bluerthanblue]

53. * said this in '*speak' yesterday-

go back and read his answers closely-

hidden with-in his smart-alec remarks, under the tired old phrases, his plan is being planted.

from *'s rose garden talk yeaterday:

Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. Al Qaeda will be emboldened. They will say, yes, once again, we've driven the great soft America out of a part of the region. It will cause them to be able to recruit more. It will give them safe haven. They are a direct threat to the United States.

And I'm going to keep talking about it. That's my job as the President, is to tell people the threats we face and what we're doing about it. And what we've done about it is we've strengthened our homeland defenses, we've got new techniques that we use that enable us to better determine their motives and their plans and plots. We're working with nations around the world to deal with these radicals and extremists. But they're dangerous, and I can't put it any more plainly they're dangerous. And I can't put it any more plainly to the American people and to them, we will stay on the offense.

It's better to fight them there than here. And this concept about, well, maybe let's just kind of just leave them alone and maybe they'll be all right is naive. These people attacked us before we were in Iraq. They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq, and they've been attacking ever since. They are a threat to your children, David, and whoever is in that Oval Office better understand it and take measures necessary to protect the American people.

I would like to see us in a different configuration at some point in time in Iraq. However, it's going to require taking control of the capital. And the best way to do that was to follow the recommendations of General Petraeus. As I have constantly made clear, the recommendations of Baker-Hamilton appeal to me, and that is to be embedded and to train and to guard the territorial integrity of the country, and to have Special Forces to chase down al Qaeda. But I didn't think we could get there unless we increased the troop levels to secure the capital. I was fearful that violence would spiral out of control in Iraq, and that this experience of trying to help this democracy would -- couldn't succeed.

And so, therefore, the decisions I made are all aimed at getting us to a different position, and the timing of which will be decided by the commanders on the ground, not politicians here in Washington.


Martha.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

Q -- catastrophic, as you've said over and over again?

THE PRESIDENT: I would hope that they would recognize that the results would be catastrophic. This is a sovereign nation, Martha. We are there at their request. And hopefully the Iraqi government would be wise enough to recognize that without coalition troops, the U.S. troops, that they would endanger their very existence. And it's why we work very closely with them, to make sure that the realities are such that they wouldn't make that request -- but if they were to make the request, we wouldn't be there.

he is laying out is plans- people just tune him out-


:shrug:

:nuke:

[jillan]

64. It seems to me that this should be the number one question that is asked of all candidates

Dems, Repukes, Ind - all.

And put them on record. And whomever gets elected, hold their feet to the fire (Assuming it's a dem elected)

[DaveJ]

67. Then why is it an Emergency Supplemental

And not in the actual budget? (rhetorical question of course)