Posted on 12/06/2006 2:06:31 PM PST by Sabramerican
Can't you just go play elsewhere, like DU where you'll be revered instead of reviled.
governance. The Iraqi government is not effectively providing
its people with basic services: electricity, drinking water,
sewage, health care, and education. In many sectors, production
is below or hovers around prewar levels. In Baghdad and
other unstable areas, the situation is much worse. There are
five major reasons for this problem.
First, the government sometimes provides services on a
sectarian basis. For example, in one Sunni neighborhood of
Shia-governed Baghdad, there is less than two hours of electricity
each day and trash piles are waist-high. One American
official told us that Baghdad is run like a “Shia dictatorship” because
Sunnis boycotted provincial elections in 2005, and therefore
are not represented in local government.
20
Second, security is lacking. Insurgents target key infrastructure.
For instance, electricity transmission towers are
downed by explosives, and then sniper attacks prevent repairs
from being made.
Third, corruption is rampant. One senior Iraqi official estimated
that official corruption costs Iraq $5–7 billion per year.
Notable steps have been taken: Iraq has a functioning audit
board and inspectors general in the ministries, and senior leaders
including the Prime Minister have identified rooting out
corruption as a national priority. But too many political leaders
still pursue their personal, sectarian, or party interests. There
are still no examples of senior officials who have been brought
before a court of law and convicted on corruption charges.
Fourth, capacity is inadequate. Most of Iraq’s technocratic
class was pushed out of the government as part of de-Baathification.
Other skilled Iraqis have fled the country as violence has
risen. Too often, Iraq’s elected representatives treat the ministries
as political spoils. Many ministries can do little more than pay
salaries, spending as little as 10–15 percent of their capital
budget. They lack technical expertise and suffer from corruption,
inefficiency, a banking system that does not permit the transfer of
moneys, extensive red tape put in place in part to deter corruption,
and a Ministry of Finance reluctant to disburse funds.
Fifth, the judiciary is weak. Much has been done to establish
an Iraqi judiciary, including a supreme court, and Iraq has
some dedicated judges. But criminal investigations are conducted
by magistrates, and they are too few and inadequately
trained to perform this function. Intimidation of the Iraqi judiciary
has been ruthless. As one senior U.S. official said to us,
“We can protect judges, but not their families, their extended
families, their friends.” Many Iraqis feel that crime not only is
unpunished, it is rewarded.
Lots of people criticize the President for Iraq but there aren't any realistic alternatives out there that have attracted wide support.
Funny how yesterday this report was supposedly so great and this morning Baker had to issue a lame defense of it.
How's the DSL?
The NY Post called Germany and France the "Axis of Weasel" for wimping out on Iraq.
Now the Half Baked Ham Committee has decided to become weasels also.
Apparently James Baker has forgotten the Gulf War. He now says that the Iraq issues are linked to Israel-Palestine. Congratulations, Jimbo, you just fulfilled Saddam Hussein's mission of 1991 to involve Israel. Saddam, you'll recall, launched scuds at Israel in an attempt to bring them in. Now Jimbo Half-Baked thinks Saddam was right all along.
I don't see how making Syria and Iran more influential advances our goals.
My co-pilot can't believe how fast it is! When I told BNjr I hadn't gone any further because of you know who, he just said ai yai yai yai...
Who was the World Series MVP?
I think it was Michael Medved--maybe Dennis Prager-- who said check out pages 57-59 of this report which is all about Israel giving up everything! That Gaza withdrawal turned out to be a winner, didn't it?
Gives me goosebumps!!He is a good and decent man, which is why he makes all the Dimwits so crazy!
BTW, what's wrong with Alito and Roberts? These two appointments are among the few good things (I can count them on my fingers) Bush has done.
Just so you know I'm not a nutty leftist, the other things Bush did that I consider positive were his capital gains and dividend tax cuts, the partial birth abortion ban, the patriot act, and the war in Afghanistan, though I'm not wholly satisfied with that.
I did. Had some issues with it but not as much as I have with Alito and Roberts. I thought that choice was better than some he could have made. I do not want judges that assume all issues fall under the review of the federal judiciary, even if it is strictly a state issue. Alito and Roberts have both shown their propensity to do just that.
the partial birth abortion ban
None of his business, state issue that should be resolved within the respective legislatures
the patriot act
protection of the country aside the patriot act gives to much unnecessary power to the federal government and assumes (yet again) issues at the federal level which are basically state issues. I see the definite concern of that power falling into less unscrupulous hands.
and the war in Afghanistan, though I'm not wholly satisfied with that.
As with the action in Iraq, I believe Bush is doing what he can. I don't agree with the action in Iraq, but Afghanistan should have been leveled. That nation attacked us and therefore fit the definition of just war more closely than other actions.
"As with the action in Iraq, I believe Bush is doing what he can. I don't agree with the action in Iraq, but Afghanistan should have been leveled. That nation attacked us and therefore fit the definition of just war more closely than other actions." Here is a snippet from the report that is being called Cut N Run-
"Afghanistan
At the same time, we must not lose sight of the importance of
the situation inside Afghanistan and the renewed threat posed
by the Taliban. Afghanistan’s borders are porous. If the Taliban
were to control more of Afghanistan, it could provide al Qaeda
the political space to conduct terrorist operations. This development
would destabilize the region and have national security
implications for the United States and other countries around
the world. Also, the significant increase in poppy production in
Afghanistan fuels the illegal drug trade and narco-terrorism.
The huge focus of U.S. political, military, and economic
support on Iraq has necessarily diverted attention from Afghanistan.
As the United States develops its approach toward Iraq
and the Middle East, it must also give priority to the situation
in Afghanistan. Doing so may require increased political, security,
and military measures.
RECOMMENDATION 18: It is critical for the United States
to provide additional political, economic, and military support
for Afghanistan, including resources that might become
available as combat forces are moved from Iraq." Page 58
Yeah, right. But that crap on your tombstone.
That's got to be the most stupid attempt at logic I've ever read.
He was asked to leave. Period. Get over it.
Come on down off the cross, we need to use the wood.
Really? When?
None of his business, state issue that should be resolved within the respective legislatures
The 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to intervene when states are failing to protect the rights of life, liberty or property. States cannot legalize murder.
protection of the country aside the patriot act gives to much unnecessary power to the federal government and assumes (yet again) issues at the federal level which are basically state issues
What aspects of the patriot act do this? I am unaware of any. Please enlighten me.
I don't agree with the action in Iraq, but Afghanistan should have been leveled. That nation attacked us and therefore fit the definition of just war more closely than other actions.
Oh, I agree 100%. My only criticism with Bush in this area is that he didn't prosectue the war in Afghanistan with sufficient vigor. He let the Taliban get away, and now they're regrouping. Use of proxy armies to take back the cities was find, but the US amry needed to be allowed to finish the job in the South. I suspect we're going to pay dearly for that mistake soon.
I love your post about the disgraceful surrender group, Roses of Sharon! I am distraught at the self-congratulation, the pride that the bi-par committee had a nice playdate and suicidal thoughts of "discussing" things with Iran and Syria - I've observed it locally in recent years (and got ousted for speaking up and documenting the truth, 'nother story). Unfortunately the velvet coup theory does not sound like a conspiracy theory at all.
wt-,-President George W. Bush pardoned 16 criminals including five drug dealers at Christmastime, but so far has refused to pardon the two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend Americans against drug smugglers. It makes us wonder which side the self-proclaimed "compassionate" president is on.
Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso, Texas, on Feb. 17, 2005, when they intercepted a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. For what happened next, they were convicted and sentenced under a statute that was designed to impose heavy punishment on criminal drug smugglers caught in the commission of a crime.
A U.S. Border Patrol agent patrols along the fence line of the U.S.-Mexico border in Nogales, Ariz., on Thursday, April 6, 2006. Lawmakers in Washington are debating immigration reform measures. Arrests of illegal migrants along the U.S.-Mexican border have dropped by more than a third since U.S. National Guard troops started helping with border security, suggesting that fewer people may be trying to cross. "The presence of the National Guard has had a big impact on migrants," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday Dec. 26, 2006. (AP Photo/Khampha Bouaphanh) The two agents are scheduled to start 11-year and 12-year prison terms, respectively, on Jan. 17, for the crime of putting one bullet in the buttocks of the admitted drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and failing to report the discharge of their firearms. The nonfatal bullet didn't stop the smuggler from running to escape in a van waiting for him on the Mexican side of the border.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., called the two agents heroes. "Because of their actions, more than a million dollars in illegal drugs were stopped from being sold to our children. Bringing felony charges against them is a travesty of justice beyond description."
The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice are stonewalling requests for a presidential pardon from 55 members of Congress and U.S. citizens who have sent at least 160,000 petitions and 15,000 faxes. When the Bush administration deigns to respond at all, the official line is that the Border Patrol agents got a fair trial.
But that's not true; they didn't get a fair trial. They were convicted because the Justice Department sent investigators into Mexico, tracked down the drug smuggler, and gave him immunity from all prosecution for his drug smuggling crimes if he would please come back and testify against Ramos and Compean.
It was massively unfair to give immunity to an illegal alien narcotics trafficker while destroying the lives and families of two Border Patrol agents who risked their lives to stop him. Ramos and Compean were convicted mainly on the testimony of the immunity-sheltered drug smuggler, whose integrity should have been called into question, but Ramos and Compean were forbidden to do that during the trial.
The prosecutor even tried to get Ramos and Compean convicted of attempted murder! The jury acquitted them of that outlandish charge, but the government still asked for a sentence of 20 years for the other counts on which they were convicted.
How did the prosecution go from an administrative violation for failing to report a firearm discharge, with the penalty of perhaps a five-day suspension, to prosecution for intent to commit murder?
After the trial, two jurors gave sworn statements that they had been pressured to render a guilty verdict and did not understand that a hung jury was possible. A major argument used by the prosecution during the trial was that our government has a policy forbidding agents from chasing suspected drug smugglers without first getting permission from supervisors. That sounds like a no-arrest policy. By the time an agent gets permission, a smuggler can be out of sight and safely back over the border.
wt-,-President George W. Bush pardoned 16 criminals including five drug dealers at Christmastime, but so far has refused to pardon the two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend Americans against drug smugglers. It makes us wonder which side the self-proclaimed "compassionate" president is on.
Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso, Texas, on Feb. 17, 2005, when they intercepted a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. For what happened next, they were convicted and sentenced under a statute that was designed to impose heavy punishment on criminal drug smugglers caught in the commission of a crime.
A U.S. Border Patrol agent patrols along the fence line of the U.S.-Mexico border in Nogales, Ariz., on Thursday, April 6, 2006. Lawmakers in Washington are debating immigration reform measures. Arrests of illegal migrants along the U.S.-Mexican border have dropped by more than a third since U.S. National Guard troops started helping with border security, suggesting that fewer people may be trying to cross. "The presence of the National Guard has had a big impact on migrants," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday Dec. 26, 2006. (AP Photo/Khampha Bouaphanh) The two agents are scheduled to start 11-year and 12-year prison terms, respectively, on Jan. 17, for the crime of putting one bullet in the buttocks of the admitted drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and failing to report the discharge of their firearms. The nonfatal bullet didn't stop the smuggler from running to escape in a van waiting for him on the Mexican side of the border.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., called the two agents heroes. "Because of their actions, more than a million dollars in illegal drugs were stopped from being sold to our children. Bringing felony charges against them is a travesty of justice beyond description."
The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice are stonewalling requests for a presidential pardon from 55 members of Congress and U.S. citizens who have sent at least 160,000 petitions and 15,000 faxes. When the Bush administration deigns to respond at all, the official line is that the Border Patrol agents got a fair trial.
But that's not true; they didn't get a fair trial. They were convicted because the Justice Department sent investigators into Mexico, tracked down the drug smuggler, and gave him immunity from all prosecution for his drug smuggling crimes if he would please come back and testify against Ramos and Compean.
It was massively unfair to give immunity to an illegal alien narcotics trafficker while destroying the lives and families of two Border Patrol agents who risked their lives to stop him. Ramos and Compean were convicted mainly on the testimony of the immunity-sheltered drug smuggler, whose integrity should have been called into question, but Ramos and Compean were forbidden to do that during the trial.
The prosecutor even tried to get Ramos and Compean convicted of attempted murder! The jury acquitted them of that outlandish charge, but the government still asked for a sentence of 20 years for the other counts on which they were convicted.
How did the prosecution go from an administrative violation for failing to report a firearm discharge, with the penalty of perhaps a five-day suspension, to prosecution for intent to commit murder?
After the trial, two jurors gave sworn statements that they had been pressured to render a guilty verdict and did not understand that a hung jury was possible. A major argument used by the prosecution during the trial was that our government has a policy forbidding agents from chasing suspected drug smugglers without first getting permission from supervisors. That sounds like a no-arrest policy. By the time an agent gets permission, a smuggler can be out of sight and safely back over the border.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.