More bad news from the East. The "Green Zone", the US stronghold is under increasing attack. They are firing mortars with great accuracy from heavily populated civilian areas to prevent retaliation. It's no wonder they can be so accurate these days without even using a laser range finder. Just use the web, enter the GPS coordinates of the source and target and walla....you've got your range to target! I know we need to safeguard US interests but there are two sides to those interests. One is oil and the other is American lives. To me it is a no-brainer.....I choose for our son's and daughter's safety. Create a fortified US only position over there like we have in Cuba and establish a dead zone around it. You in the dead zone you be dead. Have a large enough force based there in case they need to stave off an invasion with carrier support out in the gulf to back them up. Leave the day to day BS to their own means. Things would probably simmer down on there own. IMHO and for what my two cent's are worth!
Right now our presence there is like a kid poking a stick in an anthill. The more you poke it the more pissed off ants pour out of it, all loking for a fight! Quit poking the anthill!

But Dick Cheney just said it was "Game Time." Doesn't that mean that we're finally going to try to succeed over there? Maybe we need to give it 2 or 3 or 10 more years with the current stategy...

OK. We really can't afford to let Iraq become another failed state. It would be a disaster and perhaps a great threat to American security. Iraq is not an impossible problem although it is extremely difficult. But the curren Bush government is not willing to budge from its failed "US Only" strategy where the US gets all the benefits in Iraq for the investments in blood and money. We get the huge military bases and rebuilding contracts. We are the primary overseer of the Iraqi government. We get to keep an eye on the Iraqi oil...

Other nations could be brought in, starting with Iran and Syria, the neighbors. Give those countries a reason to get involved and help us, not oppose us and support the insurgents on either side. The US has a history of working with formerly hostile governments - USSR during World War II - to achieve some broader goal. A peaceful, stable Iraq is good for the world, not just for the US so our troops can start coming home. Let's make it in other countries' best interests to help us make Iraq stable, not make it in their best interests to oppose us.

Andrew

And they have locked down blogging, Iraq government will sharply restrict the data it releases, our press will not be encouraged to look so deeply, etc...

The perception of it all going better will be easier to craft going forward.

Andrew...I would be in favor of that. I just don't like the US standing alone in this issue that should be under the control of the United Nations. Let the UN mandate how to move forward and have it be the multi-national campaign it should be but I strongly believe that we cannot win this one on our own! The kid and the anthill....

Well, yeah, I agree, the US should not be standing alone, but that's Bush's policy. Unfortunately, there is little real debate about it in America. Either you support Bush's Iraq policy, or you support withdrawal. There are so many more choices than that.

Andrew

Lives over oil? Ok I see your jumping on the bandwagon to lower all speed limits to 35 MPH, that would save thousands of lives, and cut our oil consumption, also limit all cars to 2 fillups per month. No one can turn their thermastat under 78 in the summer or over 72 in the winter,

Well with this black and white approach Bush is proceding with I would unfortuneately have to side on the withdrawl. The way we are moving on this one is way to similiar to Vietnam. I shudder to think about what we are gonna do if the North Korea nuclear issue boils over. We gonna attack them on our own as well?
This policy of "Lone Ranger" warfare in this day and age is not good for our country. Even Britain is "Back Pedaling" now about this whole mess.
The next time we need the Brit's assistance they may be just likely to sit it out.

Nwokie writes:
Lives over oil? Ok I see your jumping on the bandwagon to lower all speed limits to 35 MPH, that would save thousands of lives, and cut our oil consumption, also limit all cars to 2 fillups per month. No one can turn their thermastat under 78 in the summer or over 72 in the winter,

35MPH wouldn't save much in oil consumption; overdrive transmissions mean cars are actually more efficient at higher speeds on the highways. And most accidents occur at intersections, not out on the interstates.

But I'd love to see an upsurge in funding for real mass transit systems (well beyond Portland's MAX) in cities that make taking the trains much more practical than driving. And I'd love to see Amtrak really funded, not bled dry as the government is doing today. Taking a train from LA to NYC no longer makes sense, but from Seattle to Portland makes a huge amount of sense. Today that service is slow and unreliable and not frequent enough. Good, reliable, more frequent train service in that cooridor would take a lot of cars off the road.

But if you really think Iraq has nothing to do with Oil, you are hopelessly naive, Nwokie.

Andrew

But it would save lives, as most modern cars are built to withstand an accident at that speed,

Iraq is about trade lanes, just as Jefferson fought the barbery pirates over the same issue.

The US and the world needs open trade in the area. If that area was cut off from America, you would see a whole lot more deaths here.

It's about oil first.

Fine. It's in more countries best interest than just ours to keep these lanes open. Why should the US go it alone. If we pull out then you will see those who desperately need these lanes open cry foul. It's time for the US to team up with other nations and go at it together or get the hell out!

I personally think the US should add a $5 to $10 per barrel charge to all oil leaving the gulf regin to defray US expenses, and we should charge all foreign airlines, ships and commercial users of GPS.

All I am saying is there is no way possible to win this one on our own. Unless we change our ways and unify with other nations in this effort I favor leaving.

And what have we done with homeland security....not as much as needed...that's for sure! You can still stroll across the border from Canada and Mexico relatively easy and unchecked!

And what about this statement....is there any truth in this?

"For the past 50 years, NORAD has had the duty of protecting US airspace from attack, and has always been under the direct command of select … all » US Military Generals. Three months before the attack of 9-11, Dick Cheney usurped control of NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else, had the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on 9-11. He did not exercise that power, and consequently, the Pentagon, WTC2 and WTC7 were left unprotected, and then destroyed, resulting in the death of thousands of innocents. Three months after 9-11, he relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to military operation."

A first clue Darktemper, might be that the Vice President doesn't have the authority to usurp anything.

Prior to Jimmy Carter eliminating it, Air Defense Command was responsible for guarding against an air attack. After it was eliminated, Air defense was handled by a few air guard units along the coasts.

Even if a fighter had been launched , and had been able to find the hijacked jets, there is nothing they could have done. Prior to 911, the policy was to do nothing , until the plane was on the ground. If they had shot down a hijacked jet, it could have done more harm than what happened.

Darktemper, there is still a great deal of doubt about the testimony of the Pentagon in the 9/11 Commission Report. No one connected with the commission seems to have much trust in their version of the facts. Here are a few points of view on the official version of NORAD response:

"We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300. html

"Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott told Mr Kean's panel that NORAD started tracking United 93 at 9.16am. In fact, the plane was not hijacked until 12 minutes after that and, as the tapes grimly illustrate, it was 10.15 before technical specialist Sergeant Shelley Watson, a Norad employee, first heard the news from civilian air traffic control in Washington.

"He's down," an air traffic controller tells her on the tape, though she at first misunderstands. "When did he land? Because we have confirmation ..."

"He did ... he did ... he did not land," the controller replies.

"Oh, he's down down?" Sgt Watson replies, as the truth dawns.

The tapes seriously damage the credibility of the claim, made repeatedly by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, that the White House had weighed the question of giving authorisation for flight 93 to be shot down if necessary. In fact, the vice-president knew of the hijack barely a minute before the plane crashed. The authority to give the order was provided by the president at 10.18 - after the attack had ended."
1835906%2C00.html,http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,,1835906,00.html

"A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general.

The panel even considered taking the matter to the Justice Department for a possible criminal probe, commission member Tim Roemer said.

"We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html

"HANNITY: You have no direct evidence that anybody purposely lied?

BRONNER: That's what the Department of Transportation and the Department of Defense inspector generals are looking into.

HANNITY: But there is no evidence or proof?

BRONNER: There is clear evidence that the timeline that the military presented at the first hearing is wrong.

HANNITY: That doesn't mean...

BRONNER: No. That's why the investigations...

HANNITY: All right. Appreciate it. Thanks for being with us.

BRONNER: You bet."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207062,00.html

I will always maintain that is was either a catastrophic failure of our system, which would mean that we had elected an incompetent administration. Or, it was a carefully orchestrated power grab designed to do exactly what it has done. Either way, the leadership should be held responsible for failing the American people, and be stripped of power.

If you adjust for time zones, all of the time match.

Andrew2 said: "But I'd love to see an upsurge in funding for real mass transit systems (well beyond Portland's MAX) in cities that make taking the trains much more practical than driving. And I'd love to see Amtrak really funded, not bled dry as the government is doing today. Taking a train from LA to NYC no longer makes sense, but from Seattle to Portland makes a huge amount of sense. Today that service is slow and unreliable and not frequent enough. Good, reliable, more frequent train service in that cooridor would take a lot of cars off the road."

As long as the funding comes from private business and the people who ride it. Not from the general tax base.

Why should I have to subsidize someone else's ride to work?

The fare to ride MAX, C-Tran etc, should be the actual cost to haul a person from point A to point B. Include in the cost basis construction of the system, fuel, salaries, maintenance etc.

Run it like a business. If it costs $10.00 to haul someone from Gresham to Downtown, then that's what the fare should be.

Get the muncipalities out of it, turn it over to private business and let them run it. If they make a profit, cool. If not, bad on them.

Well, funding for TriMet (not sure about C-Tran) already comes from private business and the people who ride it. Metro businesses (including me - I'm self-employed) pay a TriMet tax. The cost to build it? Sure, largely comes from the Feds and bonds. Since the cost to build, say, a new MAX line is just a tiny fraction of what is being squandered every year on boondogles like Iraq, I honestly don't lose a lot of sleep over the funding issues. People who complain about taxpayer cost of public transit should be far more upset about the billions (soon trillions) wasted in Iraq, but for some reason, they aren't quite so vocal about that...

Even if you don't ride the transit system, you as a driver and a patron of business benefit from it. Why? For one, those people who have cars would be driving them in traffic if there was no bus or train. While only a small percentage of Portland commuters use public transit today, that small percent is HUGELY important when the road capacity is near its limit. It's not a linear relationship, where 2% more cars added when the freeway is 95% full is the same as 2% added when it's 15% full. Just look at what happens in cities where the transit employees go on strike: gridlock on the roads due to the (relatively small) added cars on the road.

The other way public transit benefits you is when you patronize a business that utilizes workers who don't own cars and rely on the bus. If there was no bus, how would they get to work? Without a bus system, employers would have to pay a much higher wage to attract employees who can afford cars. And those businesses will be passing on the extra cost to you, not making less profit.

Andrew

Why should people using mass transit help pay for car riders to get to work? Roads and streets are paid out of taxes too .

See above.

I'm not in the military and I don't want America in Iraq under the current policy. Why do I have to pay taxes for it? Not only do I not benefit from it, I believe we're hindered by what my own tax money is spent for over there.

Andrew

You benefit a lot from the soldiers in Iraq, the price of energy is stable.

There havent been any major terrorist attacks in the US.

Nwokie writes:
You benefit a lot from the soldiers in Iraq, the price of energy is stable.

Stable energy prices??? LOL!!! Look at a graph of energy prices between March, 2003 and today and tell me that again with a straight face as gasoline prices approach $4/gallon.

There havent been any major terrorist attacks in the US.

And you think that this is due to the Iraq war?

Bill Clinton did an outstanding job on terrorism after the first WTC attack in 1993, because after that attack, there wasn't a single international terrorist attack on US soil through January 20, 2001. Wouldn't you agree?

The same could be said about George W. Bush's record on terrorism between Janaury 20, 2001 and September 10, 2001: not a single terrorist attack on US soil. That proves that on September 10, he was doing a fantastic job fighting terrorism in that period.

Andrew

Andrew is correct. Seems that most of the right didn't bother to read the 9/11 Commission Report. Perhaps Okie -- and Rudy -- will find the time someday.

As far as public transit goes, I am all for it. It certainly costs less than having to build and rebuild roads for the gypsy caravan that continues to pour into our suburbs. Especially when most of them live miles and miles from where they work. It is stupid, but I still pay taxes for folks with no concept of community.

We need to leave Iraq. This is obvious now and beyond debate. How we do it is a whole other matter. One change we could make is shifting the power bases from Saddam's old palaces. That was a very stupid idea from our earliest days of occupation. Those palaces should all have been demolished to further scrub him from the map. Instead, they now simply represent the latest oppressor to most Iraqis.

No, embasays are US soil.

Littlesongs writes:
We need to leave Iraq. This is obvious now and beyond debate.

I disagree, because there has been almost no serious debate about the right approach for Iraq. The media has helped perpetuate the misguided idea that there are only two possible approaches to Iraq: President Bush's inflexible "military victory over terror" approach (because we're the good guys and anyone opposing us is a terrorist) or getting out of Iraq and let the chips fall. There certainly are many other alternatives to making Iraq peaceful and stable, even if they aren't ideal approaches (like partition).

What is beyond debate is that after four long years, Bush and Cheney's policies in Iraq are a complete failure, a catastrophe. If our only choice now is sticking with the Bush policies or getting out, then we should get out, but that would mean a disaster in Iraq. It's a huge shame that there is no third way even being talked about between the two extremes of "Bush failure" or "get out now."

Andrew

Why would it be disaster. That region has had so much turmoil in the past century's. Whose to say after we leave and this fragile government we instilled gets toppled that the new regeim will stabilize the region and be open to trade agreement's with the US. I think our presence there.....the US on it's own and not a UN force.....just antagonizes the people over there and incites them into violent act's. Letting the chip's fall and letting them be responssible for their own direction has to be the better approach. We barracade ourselves in over there and that gives them targets to shoot at.....remove the targets!

The United States and most of the world largely abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out - and as a result, after a bitter civil war, the Taliban took over what had become a "failed state." And look what happened: a safe haven for terrorists. This is more what I'm worried about, although of course I worry about the humanitarian cost of a violent, full civil war in Iraq if we were simply to pull out.

Iraq could largely come under the influence of Iran given the Shiia majority in Iraq. That country already has huge oil resources. Giving them control of even more truly gives them a huge influence over the world economy, which will increase as demand for oil increases exponentially. They wouldn't need nuclear weapons to terrorize the world, to be quite honest.

I am not saying I think that the US must control the Iraqi oil supply or that the Iranians would get control over it if we pulled out - only that we really don't know what could happen if we simply pulled out. I'm telling you that there could be some terrible consequences, even if they don't happen overnight. As with Afghanistan in the 1990s, the world's attention could quickly leave Iraq and let some real problems fester which we wouldn't notice until it's too late. Failed states are very dangerous in general.

Andrew

Now is the time for an all out hydrogen fuel cell powered car program to go into full swing. No more need to purchase their product, Oil!

Put that in your Hooka's and toke on that you Opec bastard's!

My temper flared their just a bit.....shot of tequila might help.....ill give it a shot and get back to ya!

I respectfully disagree, and stand by my original statement: Staying in Iraq indefinitely is not an option. I think that the Iraqis have demonstrated that they cannot go it alone this very moment. However, I think that they would like to cooperate with us to get the lights on and the toilets flushing outside of the Green Zone. This is a much easier goal if we quickly move to get other nations involved in rebuilding, and slowly transfer security to an international coalition. A worldwide effort could be made on behalf of the Iraqi people, and result in far less carnage.

No disagreement here - we need international help in Iraq. But we can't just pull out immediately either without a plan for a peaceful/stable Iraq. Obviously the Bush administration has no plan to do this beyond more of the same.

Andrew

Damn bus riders and light rail users need to get off their fat behinds and get backin their SUVs and clog the freeways further so people like skybill can save a few bucks.

I'm in the flip-flop camp...

The case for both pull-out and stay is decent.

Andrew's failed state point is a very good one. Could be far more ugly than what we are experiencing now. There is also the oil... This annoys me to no end because our current policy directions more or less prevented us from making any progress on the energy dependance issue.

This could be solved in 10 years or so, if we work at it.

Since we haven't, we need the oil control, particularl;y since the petrodollar is now at risk, given trades happening in euros now.

All comes back to Bush being the problem.

Some acceptance of our failure would go a long way toward getting international help. Given that, we've got options, containment, more aggression, diplomacy, sanctions, etc... Lots on the table, if we do the work to get those options up and running for us.

Since that's just not gonna happen, unless we impeach, or something? Staying has it's merits, given we can count on electing somebody who can deal in this area.

I don't think we should blank check it though. If we are gonna have to stay, then accountability for that must be paramount. Releasing the dollars a small amount at a time, forcing the issue front and center througout the entire time will apply the most serious pressure we can apply for change.

We should at least do that, if nothing else.

Did I say this guy sucks?

Lets go back 7 years, Saddam was putting all sorts of roadblocks up against WMD inspectors, there was an embargo on Iraq, which was slowly draining Iraq, although fraud in the oil for food program was allowing Saddam to keep his and his sons lifestyle. and to prop up the republican guard.

Saddam had two sons that would have made ciligula proud, and they were in charge of the various security forces.

Also there were begining to emerge terrorist training camps, in areas Saddam didnt control.

There were several possible outcomes, none of the good for the US. Saddam could have made one big gamble, and ordered the Republican Guard to take Kuwait and Saudia Arabia, using the oil fields as hostage, to prevent retaliation. Saddam could have been overthrown by one or both of his sons, or his entire govt could have crumbled allowing the terrorists to take over as in Afghanistan.

Whatever happened, the area was in for a long destablizing period, by the US acting on the very real threat to the region, we have given ourselves a chance to control the future of the area.

That isn't what the president told us when he wanted to go to iraq. Instead, he just lied. because of that, he deserved every bit of sh#t that is dumped on him. ps: bush sucks.

Nmae one President in history, when preparing for war, didnt sensationalize things?

The one area everyone keeps carping about is WMD, well, 7 years ago, Saddam was blocking weapons inspectores, and his own people were claiming they had them. If a criminal claims to hae a weapon in his pocket, you have to take him at his word, and blow him away!

Nwokie writes:
There were several possible outcomes, none of the good for the US. Saddam could have made one big gamble, and ordered the Republican Guard to take Kuwait and Saudia Arabia, using the oil fields as hostage, to prevent retaliation.

The Republican Guard in 2003 wasn't what it was in 1991. With US forces stationed in Saudi Arabia and carriers stationed in the Gulf, I'd say Saddam's chances of having pulled off something so desperate were about nil.

Saddam could have been overthrown by one or both of his sons, or his entire govt could have crumbled allowing the terrorists to take over as in Afghanistan.

But Iraq wasn't the failed state in 2003 that it has become. It was struggling due to the sactions, but had Saddam been overthrown (which seems fairly likely to me, given that he almost lost control in 1998 after Desert Fox), a more likely scenario is another Baathist regime. And al Qaeda had no real presence in Iraq (other than those few token camps) and wouldn't have been welcomed by the Baathists the way they were after the US invaded. I'd say it is much less likely Iraq would have been taken over by terrorists than simply having another strong regime. But, neither one of us can say for absolute sure what would have happened.

Andrew

The US had less than 1 brigade in Saudia Arabia, Saddam had 3 corps. A carrier carries about 20 attack aircraft.
A corps consists of 2 or more divisions, each of which has 3 brigades.
Sadams biggest mistake in the Kuwait invasion, was stopping at the border, it is only another days drive to get to the Saudi fields, then he would have had the world by the balls.

"Nmae one President in history, when preparing for war, didnt sensationalize things?"

Clinton. He really really didn't want to go to kosovo and put american lives at risk. tony blair had to twist his arm. Milosevic was mass murderer. no claims of wmds. no threats to invade the US. we went in, freed kosovo from milosevic, period. No lies, no president boasting "mission accomplished".

"If a criminal claims to hae a weapon in his pocket, you have to take him at his word, and blow him away!"

No sh#t, so where is bin Laden?

Nwokie writes:
A corps consists of 2 or more divisions, each of which has 3 brigades.

Of course, it matters how well equipped and trained the brigades were. Indications seem to be that Saddam's armies were in bad shape by that time. Obviously, US advanced weaponry in the hands of well-trained soldiers is more than a match for a poorly-equipped army that remembered what happened to thousands of Iraqi soldiers the last time they took on the United States.

Andrew