Why not a National Referendum on Iraq, in Iraq?

Why not? Because that would be democracy, and contrary to all its talk, the last thing this administration wants is democracy. It wants a govenment in Iraq that's friendly to the U.S., and that hold elections guaranteed to elect pro-U.S. leaders. In other words, the appearance of democracy based on fraudulent elections.

Colin Powell said it best:In an interview carried on the radio, he said: "The U.S. will remain in Iraq until Iraq has a democratically-elected government friendly to the U.S." I'm sure there were some in the administration who were not happy with him for being so honest about their intentions.

 

just curious, when and what program was that radio interview with Powell

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Feb 1 2007, 02:01 AM) [snapback]383718[/snapback]</div>

I would agree with that. Did that not happen when they voted for their government. The minute the Iraqi govt wants us out we have to leave.

BTW - I am fairly sure the Saudi's, the Egyptians, the Jordians, the Turks and some others do not want us to pick up our toys and leave Iraq right now. The only people who want us out of there for sure are al-Qaeda, Obama bin Laden, and the Democrats - interesting ain't it? Does it ever make you pause to think that if al-Qaeda could vote in US elections they would vote for the Democrats hands down?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Feb 1 2007, 06:00 AM) [snapback]383826[/snapback]</div>

It was actually a press conference of some sort, not an interview, and I heard it on NPR. Probably All Things Considered, but possibly one of their morning or daytime news shows. But it was Powell speaking. It was not a second-hand report of something he had allegedly said. And it was said almost in the tone of a throw-away remark, as if he wanted to get it out but not draw attention to it.

I don't remember exactly when, but it obviously would have been spoken after the defeat of the Iraqi army and the capture of Hussein, probably long enough after that people were beginning to ask, "If we won the war, when are the troops coming home?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 1 2007, 11:27 AM) [snapback]383904[/snapback]</div>

ASAP - I am sure - with a "small" contigent left there for emergencies. Would love to see that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 1 2007, 10:12 AM) [snapback]383830[/snapback]</div>

Did they support our invasion in the first place? You're addressing effect and not cause.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Feb 1 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]383915[/snapback]</div>

Understand your point on cause and effect.

I am sure you understand my point too.

Did they support our invasion? I think so - even understanding the shia/sunni argument. saddam was himself a great threat to regional countries - obvious statement. whether or not he had wmds (even if they are located in the Bekka Valley or were wisked away by Spetznats Units prior to our invasio) the threat was real and his associations and actions spoke volumes to those who lived within shouting distance. i believe locals there postulated that with saddam gone they were better off - the only exception to that "think tanking" would be if iran moved into to assume control (that was the only down side scenario). That is why imho we will not be leaving iraq until iran is "fixed".

In fact - again imho - "fix" iran and the entire middle east falls into place. Hezbollah dies on the vine. Iraq insurgancy looses SIGNIFICANT steam. Syria is left ALL alone and ISOLATED (with assad being forced to wage peace with Israel in order to save his minority rule - also benefits Lebanon which he will no longer be able to influence) ----