by Mark Silva
Vice President Dick Cheney, at a press conference in Baghdad today, said: “I come away with a sense that there's been significant progress in the 10 months since I was last here, that we've made progress not only on the security front, but that they've made progress in governing, as well.
Marking the fifth anniversary of the U.S. led invasion, President Bush will deliver a speech Wednesday on “the war on terror’’ at the Pentagon.
This, of course, was one of the targets of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, in a war with terrorism which the Bush administration maintains is playing out in Iraq today – though al Qaeda had no footing in Iraq before the war.
And the vice president dropped in on military and embassy leaders in Baghdad today, where he also met with leaders of the new Iraqi government -- and the traveling press.
“It's clear that there's still a number of major issues that need to be addressed that they are focused on as a government,’’ Cheney said. “You can't help when you come here, after you've been here a few times over the years, and watched these events unfold, and focus on the fact this is the -- this week marks the fifth anniversary since we launched into Iraq in March of '03 – all that has transpired, not only in the last, what, 14 or 15 months since the surge decision by the President and General Petraeus' arrival with his counterinsurgency strategy.
“It's been a remarkable turnaround in the overall security situation and the level of violence, both in terms of military and civilian casualties,’’ he said. “That's been a remarkable success, but there's also a great deal that was accomplished before that, including three national elections, the establishment of a government, a preparation of a constitution, the elimination of people like Saddam Hussein and his sons.’’
With less than a year left in office, does the Bush adminisration have a weaker hand in Baghdad than it did when Cheney last visted in May?
“I don’t feel any loss of influence,’’ Cheney said. “if anything, the successes that we've demonstrated here have given us greater credibility than would have been the case if we hadn't had the surge and the progress of the last 12, 15 months.
Vice President Cheney, above, responds to reporter's questions at press conference in the "Green Zone'' in Baghdad today. Gen. David Petreaus, below, said today of the U.S. troop deployments that "we'd love to draw down farther.'' Photos by Paul J. Richards / AFP/ Getty Images
“I think the fact that the president made the decision that he did a year ago January, when he decided not to reduce force levels in Iraq, but rather to increase them, and add additional five combat brigades, that all of that put to rest any notion that either here inside Iraq or in the region people could, ‘wait us out,’’’ Cheney said. “I think it had a very positive effect not only in terms of what happened on the ground, with respect to the actual security situation, but also what happened in terms of people being convinced that the U.S. was here to stay, that we meant business, that we were going to complete the mission.’’
What is the worst thing that the next president could do in Iraq?
“Fail to recognize the importance of completing the mission; failure to take into account the success that we've achieved, the troops have achieved over the course of the last 15 months,’’ Cheney said. “I think that would be unfortunate if we had an administration that wasn't prepared to recognize that reality on the ground here in Iraq.’’
What was Cheney able to say about further troop withdrawals after July?
“The decision with respect to what troop levels will be going forward, as the president has explained, will be set by him, after he's had the opportunity to hear from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in the next few weeks, but also based upon conditions on the ground in the months ahead,’’ he said. “I think he's made it clear that we want to avoid a situation in which we try now, in the month of March, to specify what troop levels will be in November or December.
“I think that's going to depend on developments. We are awaiting the advice of the professionals who are in charge of the operation, and the President has not yet made those decisions.’’
Gen. David Petraeus, joining Cheney at the press conference, said: “ Well, sir, I think the guidance has been very clear that, first of all, we all recognize the strategic context in which we're operating. We're keenly aware of the strain and the stress that these extended deployments have put on our soldiers and their families. And so we'd love to draw down farther.
“But that is dependent on conditions on the ground, and that is, from the point of view of the commander on the ground, that is the logical way to go,’’ Petraeus said.
“We'll discuss with the chain of command,'' he said. That discussion has already begun. It will proceed further this week, and then with the president subsequently, to discuss what the factors are that enter into that; to discuss the Secretary of Defense's concept of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation and all the rest of that. And of course we'll lay that out for Congress when Ambassador (Ryan) Crocker and I testify in April.’’
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Just another excuse for silva to post unflattering pictures of the vp.
Posted by: Jeff | March 17, 2008 4:58 PM
Yeah, it's not like Darth has ever lied to us or anything before....BwaHAHAHAHAHA!!!
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c306/JackieChiles/mccain_hugs_bush.jpg
Here's Buckshot Darth Cheney convincing (lying to) US citizens that their soldiers will be greeted in Iraq as liberators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS4Ex4kRT5g
I'm still waiting for John W McBush to explain how he's going to pay for his upcoming 100 years of war on Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0PysDhbvwA
Posted by: John Hussein E | March 17, 2008 5:02 PM
(1) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.
(2) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.
(3) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
(4) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
(5) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
(6) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.
(7) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq.
(8) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.
(9) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
Tell me these benchmarks have been met. The government is corrupt and we're stuck backing a loser.
Posted by: bill "Huessein" r. | March 17, 2008 5:05 PM
Even more discouraging Bill, the one piece of legislation that they claim to have met, the de-baathification law, actually does exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to do.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/14/africa/baghdad.php
"But past that, the legislation it is at once confusing and controversial, a document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in - particularly in the crucial security ministries that U.S. officials have called the key to their plans for eventual withdrawal from Iraq.
Under that interpretation, the law would be directly at odds with the American campaign to draft Sunni Arabs into Awakening Council militias with the aim of integrating them into the police and military forces. That plan has been praised as being mainly responsible for the sharp drop in violence over the past year and as being the most effective weapon against jihadi insurgents like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0222/p07s02-wome.html
Posted by: Luke | March 17, 2008 5:37 PM
It doesn't bother Jeffie in the least that Darth has lied us into a disastrous war, that he's enriched himself at the country's expense. He's more concerned that Dick's picture isn't flattering. You only get two faces from Cheney, Yoder... the lying, smirking one and the lying, snarling one, both of them contemptuous of anyone who dares question his "prince of darkness".
Hey, look. Johnny Delusional is also concerned about "unflattering" pictures of Cheney:
I "love" how Mark chooses an unflattering picture of Dick Cheney while he chooses a smiling picture of the Queen B. But then Mark is in the "soup" for the DNC and has his pay supplemented by them.
Posted by: John D | March 17, 2008 12:06 PM
My god, isn't that something. Cheney engineers the biggest foreign policy disaster in our lifetime, and The Swamps' biggest Bush apologists are concerned that Darth always looks like he wants to eat small children.
Posted by: d Hussein t | March 17, 2008 6:04 PM
ALTERNATE PHOTO CAPTION:
Head for the Batcave, Robin. The Penguin is causing chaos in Gotham City again!
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | March 17, 2008 6:10 PM
Of course Petraeus will tell Bush what he wants to hear otherwise he knows he will be canned just like everyone else who spoke the truth. Cheney on the other hand is truly a piece of work. Just last week Petraeus stated that the Iraqi government have not taken advantage of the lull in violence and have not made sufficient progress. Cheney of course thinks that there is remarkable progress. Do these sociopaths actually believe their own BS and do they actually think that people do too? I know there are still retards out there that are incredibly gullible and stupid that believe them but that is because they are too stupid to look for the truth. Too much Faux News Channel.
Posted by: fubar | March 17, 2008 6:13 PM
fubar,
Based on the past two months, I don't know that we can even say there's a "lull in violence" anymore. Bombings are up, U.S. troop deaths are up, political progress non-existent. Have we forgotten Cheney's "last throes" declaration? This man would lie to his own maker.
Posted by: d Hussein t | March 17, 2008 6:35 PM
Were was he hiding when he said that???
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | March 17, 2008 6:43 PM
And Cheney doesn't feel any responsibility for causing the whole mess in the first place.
At least a real man would.
Posted by: BC | March 17, 2008 6:53 PM
[quote]
Hey, look. Johnny Delusional is also concerned about "unflattering" pictures of Cheney:
I "love" how Mark chooses an unflattering picture of Dick Cheney while he chooses a smiling picture of the Queen B. But then Mark is in the "soup" for the DNC and has his pay supplemented by them.
Posted by: John D | March 17, 2008 12:06 PM
My god, isn't that something. Cheney engineers the biggest foreign policy disaster in our lifetime, and The Swamps' biggest Bush apologists are concerned that Darth always looks like he wants to eat small children.
Posted by: d Hussein t | March 17, 2008 6:04 PM
[/quote]
Ask Geographicaly Ignorant Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie Dyslin, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", if he has ANY PROOF that Mark gets payments from the DNC. Of course, he'll waffle, obfuscate and otherwise avoid backing his word up WITH FACTS, but anyone who has been reading the Swamp for the past several years already knows that.
Posted by: BC | March 17, 2008 6:56 PM
The way the FBI followed the Elliot Spitzer money trail, they can follow the Cheney money trail since the Iraq War. No doubt he and his fellow Halliburton colleagues made a bundle on "their war". Then, Cheney should be indicted as a war criminal if it is found that he profited from this war at the cost of the death of 4000 of our best young men and women and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. if the FBI wants to find out dirt, they can. However, it's always the big ones that somehow get away, and the only dirt that the FBI seems to be interested in is related to sexual improprieties. They need to go after the "big fish" - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and the other neo-cons. They're sure to find traitors and charlatans among the bunch. By the way, *Elliot Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state who was a major player in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. He was convicted of several felony offenses including lying to Congress but was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush."*
That photograph that Mark displayed only reflects the disdain Cheney has for others.
*http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100102_bush_advisors.html
Posted by: the truth | March 17, 2008 7:15 PM
As a matter of fact, president shotgun, and his clique, couldn't even walk through the same market mcshrub walked through a year ago to prove how well things were going. heir handlers told them it was too dangerous now that it was controlled by Sadr. So how IS that surge working out for ya, earboy?
Posted by: rncbs | March 17, 2008 7:17 PM
BC,
Yeah, an even more laughable claim now that Zell writes the paychecks. That's all that the Swamp Droogs have left, though. Everything that thinking people have been saying about the war (that it was based on lies and is unwinnable) and the economy (that it was a house of cards primed for collapse) has come true. Now they want us to swill down the latest iteration of "Peace with Honor" so the dumb-ass neocons can save some of their lying face over the Iraq fiasco.
Posted by: d Hussein t | March 17, 2008 7:27 PM
Maybe now we will be finally be greeted as liberators.
Posted by: G Hussein K | March 17, 2008 7:35 PM
"Just another excuse for silva to post unflattering pictures of the vp.
Posted by: Jeff | March 17, 2008 4:58 PM"
Jeff,
But, doesn't TeamBush relay on appearances?
Don't they in gaze into the eyes of 'folks' like Vlad and thus determine their righteousness? Why not Janey got a gun?
Say what you will Jeff, you know and I know America is first and foremost about appearances.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 17, 2008 7:41 PM
BC, aren't you about the last "man" to question anyone's manliness, especially that of the vice president. Everyone knows you have all the qualities of a man about as much as Phyllis Diller.
Anyway, BC, when will you acknowledge the post after post I have been with links upon links showing that Cuba does indeed border the Gulf of Mexico? Or aren't you man enough to admit how blatantly and ridiculously stupid and embarrassing you really are?
Posted by: John D | March 17, 2008 8:12 PM
The REAL reason Cheney went to Iraq was to see how much more time there is for Halliburton and its subsidiaries to continue financially raping this country and its armed forces. The latest scandal: the purified water that Halliburton was selling to the troops for an eggregious amount per gallon - turns out that it is TWICE as polluted as the water taken straight from the Euphrates which the locals use as an open sewer. NICE!
Posted by: Augie | March 17, 2008 8:30 PM
I meant 'rely' not 'relay', obviously.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 17, 2008 8:45 PM
No one should be surprised at the financial and military mess our country has become in the last 7 1/2 years, afterall, look at the clowns who have been running things and look at the clown (McCain) who want's to continue doing those very same things all over again.
Here's what Republican Prez Chimpy McFlightsuit was doing during Vietnam:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushcheerleader.htm
Did Cheney Dodge
The Draft Five Times?
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried:
This quote comes from a Saturday NYTimes article --
It is apparent from the piece that Richard Cheney did everything humanly possible -- short of fleeing to Canada -- to avoid military conscription: He applied for and recieved 5 student deferments, a number described as "incredible" by professor David Curry of the University of Missouri in St. Louis. Curry has written extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book, "Sunshine Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender." The Times quotes Mr. Curry as observing: "That's a lot of times for the draft board to say O.K."
full story:
http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm
John McCain: Unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief:
"The spoiled son of military privilege got a free ride throughout his military career despite repeated instances of scandals and screw-ups"
McCain Lost Five Military Aircraft
McCain, the "below par" pilot, eventually lost 5 military aircraft, the first during a training flight in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while trying to land. The Navy ignored the crash and graduated McCain in 1960.
While deployed in the Mediterranean, the hard partying McCain lost a second aircraft. Timberg described the crash: "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."
Unscathed, McCain returned to Pensacola Station where he was promoted to flight instructor for Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi. The airfield at Meridian, McCain Field, was named in honor of McCain's grandfather.
In 1964 McCain became involved with Carol Shepp, a model from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he had met at Annapolis. They were married in Philadelphia on July 3, 1965.
Flight instructor McCain lost a third aircraft while flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. Timberg wrote that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain parachuted onto a beach moments before his plane slammed into a clump of trees.
The Navy dismissed the crash as "unavoidable" and assigned McCain to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal in December 1966, which was patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. In Spring 1967, the Forrestal was assigned to join the Operation Rolling Thunder bombing campaign against North Vietnam.
McCain lost his fourth plane on board the Forrestal on July 29, 1967 when a rocket inadvertently slammed into his bomb laden jet. McCain escaped, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors. McCain was transferred from the badly damaged Forrestal to the USS Oriskany. Shortly afterwards, on Oct. 26, 1967, he was shot down and captured by the Vietnamese.
full story:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm
Posted by: John Hussein E | March 17, 2008 9:36 PM
JohnD.
Silva picked out that picture of V.P Cheney to rally the troops.
The loons are in shock, now that they realize Obama is un-electable.
Infact, if McCain was 90 years old, Obama still loses.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | March 17, 2008 10:20 PM
Paulo...I thought he was 90.
Wonder why all the attention on Iraq? No it's not the anniversary, it's the only thing they have to even try spinning. The economy? Proofs in the pudding Bush. McBush? He says he doesn't know anything when it comes to that. So that leaves Iraq. It's a mad rush to pull the wool over the American peoples' eyes. The surge is working!!!! Without a political solution...ya got nothing. The Iraqi government is corrupt and couldn't give a damn about unity. We will have to back that government with blood and treasure forever if the republicans are in charge. Talk about blind? Akmed Dinnerjacket comes to visit and he can walk anywhere....we sneak in and out at night. Tell me who they'll side with after we go bankrupt?
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | March 17, 2008 11:05 PM
There are ways other than military brute force to gain victory. Study Sun Tzu's dictums. Consider this,1939-Poland, 1949-Tibet, 1950-Korea, 1956-Hungary, and so it goes..Poland (again) Lec Wylenska, etc,2002-Iraq (again) 2008-Tibet (again), Korea-next??
Economic Power = Political/Military Power. Boycott Chinese goods to reduce economic/political/military power. Only individuals can do this by avoidance of "Made in China" stuff. Don't buy it. No government in the world, certainly not the USA, is strong enough morally,economically, politically, or militarily to take the fire away from the Chinese Dragon. It's up to us, you and me and 5 billion others to give the Chinese economy a hit they'll feel for years. In the process China may unshackle Tibet.
Posted by: tucanofulano | March 17, 2008 11:23 PM
Cheney doesn't feel much of anything.
Psychopaths are built that way.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | March 18, 2008 9:44 AM
together in iraq-could ch. become v.p. twice???
Posted by: k.little | March 18, 2008 11:11 AM
To label what we've been doing in Iraq as a "success" is a vile insult to the many Iraqis and Americans who have paid with their lives and their physical and psychological well-being to enrich Halliburton and other corporate bloodsuckers. But I have to wonder why this article doesn't even mention the most pernicious aspect of this trip to Iraq, namely, the arm-twisting that Cheney is engaging in to convince the Iraqis to sign over future oil development to Chevron, Shell, et al; and to make agreements that will tie the hands of any future presidents who might have notions of getting us out of Iraq any time in the near future.
Posted by: DH | March 18, 2008 1:48 PM
[quote]
Anyway, BC, when will you acknowledge the post after post I have been with links upon links showing that Cuba does indeed border the Gulf of Mexico?
Posted by: John D | March 17, 2008 8:12 PM
[/quote]
Geographically Ignorant Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie Dyslin, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", you continue to prove what a wimp you are by denying reality. From the very beginning, your allegation was that the WHOLE ISLAND OF CUBA IS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO! Which has not, is not, and never will be true! Yet just above, you post an attempt to deny your own words and, in a roundabout way, PROVE YOURSELF WRONG! Cuba has ALWAYS been in THE CARIBBEAN SEA, so if it, as you say above, "borders the Gulf", then it IS NOT IN THE GULF, it's in the Caribbean Sea, just like I HAVE ALWAYS SAID IT IS! Thanks for proving me RIGHT, Little Johnnie.
I can't wait until you post something that "proves" that John Edwards pays just as much for his suits as Dubya does. You know, something that includes actual prices in it. Go ahead, we'll wait, "Mr. Journalist". Do some research for a change.
Posted by: BC | March 18, 2008 11:06 PM