John McCain's Op-Ed on Iraq the New York Times Is Afraid to Publish

The New York Times has just refused to publish this op-ed piece by McCain, after having published an op-ed by Barack Obama on Iraq less than a week ago.  Here it is (via Drudge Report and LGF):

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Readers of this website may note similarities between what John McCain says about Iraq policy today and what McCain said in a speech almost exactly one year ago, when America's battle was still very uphill in Iraq.  Below is the full text of what John McCain said a year ago when Democratic Senators held a "sleep-over" to protest the war in Iraq.  Compare and contrast John McCain's consistency of tone and purpose over the course of a year with Barack Obama's quivering-leaf-in-the-wind approach to foreign policy:

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

John McCain is on the right side of history and common sense when it comes to Iraq.  The New York Times is not, and that is why it is trying to sweep McCain's opinion piece under the rug.

Comments

[Fred]

John McCain is on the right side of history and common sense when it comes to Iraq. The New York Times is not, and that is why it is trying to sweep McCain's opinion piece under the rug.

Gina Cobb

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

*takes deeeeeeeeeep breath*

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

You are too much Gina, just too much. Keep up the comedy girl; you ought to be better at it than you are at political issues.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

[gawfer]

OK,
Who slipped Fred the placebo? Don't you know he needs the real thing?

[Mark]

The Times should have published McCain's op-ed, if only because exposing the (reading) public to John McCain's dubious logic and his unoriginal, "stay the course", surge-centric rhetoric would only further their left-wing agenda.

Speaking of the liberal media, how many more hours of air time did Jeremiah Wright's unsavory comments get than those of Phil Graham? And which man was specifically representing the views of a candidate when he made his faux pas?

The only reason McCain has any chance at all in this race is that the media shields him from owning up.

[gawfer]

"...John McCain's dubious logic and his unoriginal, "stay the course", surge-centric rhetoric..."

There are some people who exist in a world of defeat and despise anyone who chooses to be a winner. It boggles the mind that in spite of clear and obvious results, they continue to wallow in their self pity. Hank Reid lives on. Simpleton.

P.S.
The difference between Jeremiah Wright and Phil Graham is while Graham was immediately kicked to the curb; Wright was embraced and referred to as a ‘spiritual mentor’ who told God to damn America; “…not God bless America, no, no. God Damn America!...” That not only offended conservatives, it offended every American with an ounce of patriotism.

[Yes but truthfully]

The United States is directly responsible for over one million Iraqi deaths since the invasion five and half years ago. In a January 2008 report, a British polling group Opinion Research Business (ORB) reports that, “survey work confirms our earlier estimate that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003…. We now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been of the order of 1,033,000. If one takes into account the margin of error associated with survey data of this nature then the estimated range is between 946,000 and 1,120,000”.

The ORB report comes on the heels of two earlier studies conducted by Johns Hopkins University published in the Lancet medical journal that confirmed the continuing numbers of mass deaths in Iraq. A study done by Dr. Les Roberts from January 1, 2002 to March 18 2003 put the civilian deaths at that time at over 100,000. A second study published in the Lancet in October 2006 documented over 650,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the start of the US invasion. The 2006 study confirms that US aerial bombing in civilian neighborhoods caused over a third of these deaths and that over half the deaths are directly attributable to US forces.

The now estimated 1.2 million dead, as of July 2008, includes children, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, cab drivers, clerics, schoolteachers, factory workers, policemen, poets, healthcare workers, day care providers, construction workers, babysitters, musicians, bakers, restaurant workers and many more. All manner of ordinary people in Iraq have died because the United States decided to invade their country. These are deaths in excess of the normal civilian death rate under the prior government.

The magnitude of these deaths is undeniable. The continuing occupation by US forces guarantees a mass death rate in excess of 10,000 people per month with half that number dying at the hands of US forces— a carnage so severe and so concentrated at to equate it with the most heinous mass killings in world history. This act has not gone unnoticed.

Recently, Dennis Kucinich introduced a single impeachment article against George W. Bush for lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq. On July 15 The House forwarded the resolution to the Judiciary Committee with a 238 to 180 vote. That Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s threat to the US is now beyond doubt. Former US federal prosecutor Elizabeth De La Vega documents the lies most thoroughly in her book U.S. Vs Bush, and numerous other researchers have verified Bush’s untrue statements.

The American people are faced with a serious moral dilemma. Murder and war crimes have been conducted in our name. We have allowed the war/occupation to continue in Iraq and offered ourselves little choice within the top two presidential candidates for immediate cessation of the mass killings. McCain would undoubtedly accept the deaths of another million Iraqi civilians in order to save face for America, and Obama’s 18-month timetable for withdrawal would likely result in another 250,000 civilian deaths or more.

We owe our children and ourselves a future without the shame of mass murder on our collective conscience. The only resolution of this dilemma is the immediate withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq and the prosecution and imprisonment of those responsible. Anything less creates a permanent original sin on the soul of the nation for that we will forever suffer.

Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored a media research group. He is the co-editor with Dennnis Loo of the book Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney.

WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA

[gawfer]

Imagine a war that was fought without political correctness in mind. Our military is designed to be fast and incisive; however, because of the liberal left and those afraid of offending other nations, we were too slow; too careful, and the result was certainly amore colateral damage than was desirable. War is hell, and as such the last course of action.

An as a side note, Kucinich's head is so far up his ares, he needs a sheet of plexiglass inserted in his naval region to see out.

Liberalism is the politics of adolescents, and democrats are those who never grew up.

[Yes but truthfully]

Hmm. Not sure and don't care what a democrat or republican stand for.
Incredibly - there are other points of view in this world, and in fact other people and countries that exist outside of the US.

'War is hell, and as such the lat course of action.'...
Iraq sure was. What is as sure a hell - Iraq is a dump full of sand and there is NO WAY that the US would have invaded - if it wasn't for the oil. There is no doubt the WMD story was fabricated.

But you stepped over the most important point. Over 1 million deaths... Over 1 million. I'd love to see what you would write if 1 million americans were killed tomorrow. In my mind, political correctness is that I don't trust the US having nuclear weapons. Why doesn't the US let inspectors in to check what they have?

Here is an example of US 'morality': Janet Jackson shows her boob in concert and the 'Christians' in the US hit the roof. The outcry is massive. 1 million Iraqi deaths and nobody bats an eyelid, quite apart from the fact that the US invaded another country illegally.

[gawfer]

And thanks to the Bush administration, there haven’t been 1 million US deaths as well, but don’t for one second appreciate the relative security you enjoy.

"...There is no doubt the WMD story was fabricated..."

And the 55 metric tons of yellowcake Uranium was for making confections? Is it assumed that Uranium 238 grows on trees??? Please!

And ignore the 12 UN resolutions, continual 'No Fly Zone' Incursions, and attacks on US and coalition forces; Ignore the chemical attacks on the Kurds; Ignore the fact that Saddam Hussein admitted to deceiving even his own people to create an illusion of danger; Ignore the reactors and centrifuges that Israel destroyed; Ignore the fact that when access was requested to a suspected weapons site, the UN inspectors were summarily expelled. Yeah, a million deaths suck for any country, but frankly I am glad that it occurred in a country other than mine.

The politics of grown ups understand that frequently, difficult and devastating decisions have to be made in spite of the way one 'feels'. Thankfully, grown ups are in charge of our country… I’m not so susre about the future.

[Yes but truthfully]

good points. Some of them. However - be carefull about believing all the lies you read.

But how many tones of uranium does the US have? I mean seriously - the US has been involved in far more wars in the world in the 19 century than Iraq ever was. I'm far more nervous of the US. I mean just imagine that new bloke takes over from Bushie - McCain... I heard him described as Bush on steroids. He's almost as dumb and he has a bad temper. Scary.

But hey - as you said - it's ok for you, because you live in the US. Makes me wonder what one earth I even try to write my points down...

I do believe that there could have been other possibilites...

Bush is not a mature grown up. He's a warmonger as is Cheyney. They are pushing this world closer to destruction faster than any other US president/vice president in history.

In fact, you have to wonder how on EARTH the US public voted hom in for a second term. However - when you realise that they DID, you also realise what you are dealing with. It's not just him, it's his henchmen and I guess the , (I have to say it) incredibly dumb public that they coerced...Also - I guess the far right in the US is much bigger than I imagined.

Sometimes - 'feeling' is real important. The US military went through a rebuilding phase after the crazy stupid Vietnam war. It learnt a lot because commander that had been in the field moved up the ranks and knew what war was like.

But hey-ho - now bush, cheyney and others have bumped you lot straight into another vietnam.
Guess what - both Bush and Cheyney are draft dodgers. Interesting.
The US will never win in Iraq - you do know that? Unless of course you nuke the place.

In the mean time you do have a million innocent people estimated dead in Iraq. The country is ruined. Hardly any running water or electricity. Anyway , who cares.

[gawfer]

“…The country is ruined. Hardly any running water or electricity. Anyway , who cares…”

Really?
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/electricity.html
In 2002 Baghdad had access to electricity on a near continuous basis while the rest of Iraq was limited to 3 to 6 hours daily. The U.S. government has made significant progress in improving electricity supply in Iraq and distributing it more equitably throughout the country. USAID recently completed its three-year, $2.3 billion Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Program. Through its overall program, USAID has added 1,292 megawatts of electric generating capacity to Iraq's power grid, serving over 7 million Iraqis.
(SHHH, that’s a Bush fabricated lie)

The water and Sewer and services are greatly improved in Iraq:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46279

U.S. Military Engineers Improve Iraqi Water, Sewer Services
WASHINGTON, June 4, 2007 – U.S. military engineers have completed nearly 300 major water and sewage projects in Baghdad and across Iraq in the past few years, U.S. military officers reported.

“We’re proud that we’re continuing to reach our target of providing over 1 million cubic meters of potable water per day,” said Air Force Col. Lonny Baker, water sector director for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Gulf Region Division in Iraq. Baker is nearing the end of a six-month tour in Iraq and spoke to the media during a Baghdad news conference June 2.

(SHHH, another Bush Fabricated Lie)

“…The US military went through a rebuilding phase after the crazy stupid Vietnam war…”

I could greatly expound on Vietnam, but will save that for another time. I will say however, that the US Military didn’t loose the Vietnam War; the United States lost it with political correctness:

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1965.html
February 2, 1968 - President Johnson labels the Tet Offensive "a complete failure."
For the North Vietnamese, the Tet Offensive is both a military and political failure in Vietnam. The "general uprising" they had hoped to ignite among South Vietnamese peasants against the Saigon government never materialized. Viet Cong had also come out of hiding to do most of the actual fighting, suffered devastating losses, and never regained their former strength. As a result, most of the fighting will be taken over by North Vietnamese regulars fighting a conventional war. Tet's only success, and an unexpected one, was in eroding grassroots support among Americans and in Congress for continuing the war indefinitely…”

Further, if you had a clue, you would know that a President very similar to Candidate Obama decimated the military after Vietnam. I served in the USN post Vietnam during the Carter Administration and the Reagan administration, and when Carter left office, our military was at its all time weakest state. It wasn’t until President Reagan, whose philosophies were similar to Bush, restored the military to a combat ready force.

Finally, based on your vocabulary and lack of understanding of US History, I’m guessing that you aren’t even an American, so I’ll stop defending my country against an outsider whose opinion really doesn’t matter to me. Go back to sleep, and let the US bail your ass out of trouble when YOUR country is attacked.

[Yes but truthfully]

Ok - I read what you wrote and will answer ok?

We're closer than you think you know! I also served in the military. I also had to fight in a war.

'Further, if you had any clue'. I do know your presidents far better than you know mine. You see - we have been bombarded with US news all our lives in the rest of the world. Don't forget that - we probably know a heck of a lot more than most Americans about the US foreign policies and their affects.

Remember that having a huge military and huge support for the military in goverment (with former generals, etc, occupying high positions in military companies) can also become dangerous. It becomes a bit like a one sided argument. It's very important to maintain balance and good reason in all things. For instance - just eating McDonalds aint very good for you. You know, in order for the military companies to be successfull there needs to be wars and as a result requirements for new weapons and technology. The one feeds off the other. If there were no wars these companies would be in lean times. Currently, at least one of the bigger us military companies own a news corporation. To me that is definately a conflict of interest. Surely the news corporation might be influenzed in it's reporting to help the owner company?

It's scary that what you said The US population really is so insulated from the rest of the world and also does not really care either. The better ones education and experience, the more likely you are to make good decisions. Insular thinking never achieves much.

We've all seen the Vietnam war movies - although I am sure that you would distance yourself from them. Basically the US went to war there to free south vietnam from communism. At least that was what was stated. The US went home and communist north vietnam took over the south.
Everyone has seen the films and pictires of the last US helicopters taking off from the roof of the US embassy just before the north rolled. I won't hit out at your knowledge of history as you did mine - but prehaps the US should have taken note of the british and French attemps at 'taiming' vietnam before even entering the war.

And just on a personal note - I would love it if for once Hollywood made a Vietnam move with a north vietnamese hero. As far as I know millions died. To me they were the good guys fighting a foreign invading force. I'd also like to see a Hollywood movie where another country saves the world - instead of always the USA! Guess we'll have to wait for Bollywood to bring one out!

Without doubt, Iraq will be the same, unless you have successions of bush type presidents for the next 50 or so years. Bush was warned repeatedly by powell and others. They knew or feared that what has now infolded, would happen. Again - unless you nuke Iraq or stay forever, you will never force the people there into submission. They don't think the same as you guys - and why should they - surely they have that right?

Um - do you really think bush is ok? You don't think he sometimes lies through his teeth? There is so much proof in recorded video - surely you have seen them? There is just no way I could stand up for a guy like that. In my younger days the US always held the high ground morally. I was a US supporter. Since Bush the US's moral standing in the world is in tatters. I am just stating what I know - I am not having a go at you.

Well - I hope things work out for the Iraqi's but unfortunately I don't have much hope. The us will eventually leave and then there will be horrible civil wars. They will also have to cope, as they already are, with the massive increases in disease that has been caused by the two wars (91) and the hospitals just don't have the means to cope. The increase in cancer amoungst new borns has ballooned due to the radiation caused by the massive amount of uranium shells expended by the us. And they will probably have to pay for all this trouble by practically giving their oil to the US.

I also hope things work out for the US and that this neocon movement that is strangling the very constitution and freedom of the US is defeated by truth and morality and wisdom. The world needs it.