Tag: war in Iraq

Al Qaeda Claims Responsibility for Iraq Anniversary Bombings

It's been ten years since we invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda is marking the anniversary with bombings. At least 60 people have been killed.

Der Speigel has "10 Lessons From America's 'Dumb War.'

The Atlantic looks back at the cost, in lives and dollars. The BBC has the Iraq War in Numbers.

(106 comments) Permalink :: Comments

U.S. Soldiers Have Left Iraq

The last soldiers left Iraq last night. The price tag of the nine year war in human terms: 4,500 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis.

At the height of the war, more than 170,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq at more than 500 bases. By Saturday, there were fewer than 3,000 troops, and one base.

The death toll:

Since the US invasion in March 2003, at least 126,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the war, according to Boston University professor Neta Crawford. In addition, another 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and police were killed, along with more than 19,000 insurgents. British group IraqBodyCount.org puts the number of documented Iraqi civilian deaths from violence at 104,035 to 113,680.

The financial cost to the U.S. for operations from 2003 until now: $670 Billion to $1 Trillion.

Was it worth it?

(103 comments) Permalink :: Comments

Obama Announces End of Iraq War

President Barack Obama today said the Iraq War is over and American troops will be leaving.

"After nearly 9 years, America's war in Iraq will be over," said Mr. Obama, who said the last American troops will depart the country "with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the american people stand united in our support for our troops" by January 1st. ..."Our troops are finally coming home,"

Iraq, he said, will now be our equal.

"it will be a normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect."

(196 comments) Permalink :: Comments

Ending The Iraq Debacle Represents The Will of The American People

Harry Reid is speaking for the American People:

See also C&L.

The evidence:

Q: If George W. Bush vetoes the legislation, do you think Congress should pass another version of the bill that provides funding for the war without any conditions for troop withdrawal, or should Congress refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal?
Fund the war without conditions: 43%
Withhold funding until Bush signs: 45%
Don't know: 12%

I am more moderate than the American People - I support the Reid-Feingold bill, which calls for funding to a date certain, March 31, 2008.

(17 comments) Permalink :: Comments

The Candidates On Iraq and Ending The Debacle

Move On had its virtual town hall meeting last night. John Edwards won the Big Tent Dem sweepstakes, with the caveat that he still has not endorsed Reid-Feingold. How did the others do? Let's take a look. Here's my description of part of Hillary's answer:

There are two ways of thinking about this, what to do when Bush is President and what to do when a new President is in office. For the present, Hillary discusses her own bill, a bill that places conditions and benchmarks on funding, among other things. As for what is going on now, Hillary said this Congress was elected to end the war and bring the troops home. However, to do this Republican support is necessary. . . .

I stop here because this is the wrong answer. Democrats can end the war without Republican support. What is required is the courage to announce a date certain when DEMOCRATS will no longer fund the Iraq Debacle. Hillary is not for ending the war because she has placed an impossible condition on ending the war, garnering sufficient Republican support. That will not happen. There is one way to end the war while Bush is President -- do NOT fund it after a date certain. The Reid-Feingold bill need not pass in order to end the war. Democrats need only abide by its provisions.

(46 comments, 712 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments

How To Talk About Iraq

John Edwards tonight at the Move On event:

. . . President Bush has promised to veto that funding, calculating that he can use the bully pulpit to intimidate Congress and get them to back down.

But this is not the time for political calculation, this is the time for political courage. This is not a game of chicken. This is not about making friends or keeping Joe Lieberman happy. This is about life and death—this about war. We are done letting George Bush manipulate the rhetoric of patriotism, only to use our troops as political pawns. If Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he's the only one standing in the way of the resources they need. Nobody else.

Congress must stand firm. They must not write George Bush another blank check without a timeline for withdrawal—period. If Bush vetoes the funding bill, Congress should send another funding bill to him with a binding plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should do it again.

The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of ending this war. If our side stands firm, if we show courage now, we can finally bring our troops back home and bring this war to an end.

(18 comments) Permalink :: Comments