http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/24/morning-bell-obamas-iraq-failure/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

To hear Barry describe the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, you’d think it was a long-anticipated political victory, the fruition of a promise he made when campaigning for the White House. But his announcement last week that American troops in Iraq will return by the end of the year is a result of a serious Obama Administration failure that will undermine U.S. security interests in the Middle East.

Speaking on Friday from the West Wing, President Obama wasted no time in reminding the American people that, “As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” and that as commander in chief, he was making good on that promise in time for the holidays. What the President didn’t mention, though, was the story behind the headline–that the Administration tried and failed to negotiate with the Iraqi government to extend the U.S. troop presence there in order to ensure the country’s security and stability. The sticking point for the negotiations was immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq. Heritage’s James Phillips explains:


"Up until Friday, the Obama Administration had insisted that negotiations were on track for extending the presence(AND YOU LIBS THOUGHT WE MISSED THAT) of a small residual force that U.S. and Iraqi military leaders agreed were necessary to support Iraqi operations in key areas such as counterterrorism, air support, intelligence gathering, logistics, and training. But Friday, in a hard-hitting article posted on The Cable blog, Josh Rogin reported that the Administration had bungled the negotiations."

Those negotiations stalled, Phillips writes, because Iraqi political leaders didn’t want to risk the political consequences of extending immunity for U.S. troops. And given the Obama Administration’s eagerness to withdraw from Iraq and unwillingness to confront Iran they didn’t want to put their political necks on the line.

Now, as a result, U.S. security interests will suffer–bilateral U.S.–Iraqi cooperation in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and radical pro-Iranian Shia militias will be limited, and the ability to contain Iran will be weakened.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) criticized the Administration on Sunday, calling the withdrawal decisions “a serious mistake,” and faulted the White House for its failure to negotiate with the Iraqi government: (GEE, WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL OF THAT MAGIC DIPLOMACY BARACK WAS GOING TO WIELD???)

"There was never really serious negotiations between the administration and the Iraqis. I believe we could have negotiated an agreement. And I’m very, very concerned about increased Iranian influence in Iraq."

In the wake of its decision, the Obama Administration is already anticipating the consequences of the power vacuum it has created. In a series of interviews on Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Iran that even though troops will be withdrawn, the U.S. will still maintain a presence in the region. “Iran would be badly miscalculating if they did not look at the entire region and all of our presence in many countries in the region, both in bases, in training, with NATO allies, like Turkey.”

The reality, though, is that the United States has weakened its presence at a time when the region can least afford it. And withdrawing U.S. troops is a stronger statement than any words that can be broadcast on Sunday morning talk shows. Heritage’s James Carafano explains that the White House’s decision is the mark of an Administration in retreat–and why this retreat is incredibly dangerous:

(RETREAT??? YOU MEAN, Barry RAN AWAY??? AND YOU LIBS CALL THIS A "VICTORY"???)


"With Syria in turmoil, Iran on the march, a more isolated Israel, and Turkey’s ever-more ambivalent policies, now is the worst time to see a diminished U.S. influence in ensuring continued progress in Iraq. A total troop pullout will leave Iraqi security forces much more vulnerable to terrorism, sectarian conflict, and Iranian meddling, and it will leave them much less capable of battling al-Qaeda in Iraq and pro-Iranian Shia militias."


No American wants to see U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East and placed in harm’s way longer than they have to be. But unfortunately, their premature withdrawal from Iraq could jeopardize the progress that so many American men and women fought and died for. While the President now has a new talking point for the campaign trail, it comes at the expense of national security interests. And it is the Obama Administration’s policies and bungled negotiations that are to blame.

Funny what liberals will call a victory. This President, for all his rhetoric about diplomacy, has failed at it here and abroad.

troops prepare to leave the country by the end of theyear, there has been a surge in deadly car and truck bombings attacks and assassinations, particularly in the capital Baghdad. But who is to blame for the return of violence to the country ina scale not know in the past few years? Security conditions have not seen a semblance quiet and stability in the years sincethe 2003-U.S. invasion. But why? I do not think we should pose the question to the Iraqi government or any of its organs. The Iraqi government is not only weak but impotent. Iraqi politicians and those holding the reins of power are immersed in games on how to increase their share of the “blood-stained Iraqi pie,” and have very little to do with their claims of working for the country’sindependence and national interests. The security card in Iraq is not something which the ineffective and impotent Iraqi government could handle. Security-related issues are not solely an Iraqi matter but are connected to regional power struggle. Conditions in Iraq mirror the conflicts pitting the region’s countries with the outside world, especially the United States. The geographical region where Iraq is located is itself in turmoiland in the midst of far-reaching transformations. As a result, we expect Iraq to witness further rounds ofbloody violence that will certainly take the shape of assassinations and bombings or operations meant to fuel sectarian strife once again. Iraq sitson shaky ground when it comes to security. The conditions are worrisome. The ruling factions are divided to the extent that they cannot agree on who is to head the ministries most essential to the country’s security. It is nowonder that the government has yet to agree on who is to lead the ministries of defenseand interior. Both posts remain vacant.

What a bunch of HOGWASH!

The American people are tired of this war....time to bring the troops home.

CNN Poll : 78% of Americans favor this troop withdrawal.

Even Ron Paul said he would withdraw all troops from the wars immediately if elected.

Senior Iraqi Shiite cleric to change tactics in aftermath of U.S. troop withdrawal By Saadoun al-Jaberi Azzaman, October 22, 2011 Moqtada al-Sadr has drawn up a new plan for his group’s military and political activities once U.S. occupation troops leave. The U.S. is finally leaving Iraq by withdrawing its remaining troops after nearly nine years of occupation in which more than 4500 of its soldiers were killed. Washington tried hard toextend the stay of its troops beyond the end ofthe year when they are required to leave. But Sadr and his group vowed not to let them stay a single extra day despite pressure from other political factions who wanted to see a new agreement regulating the presence of the troops after the deadline. Sadr’s military wing, known locally as Madhi Army, even mounted deadly attacks on U.S. troops when U.S. negotiations with the government hinted at an agreement. Sadr is a pivotal part of the coalition government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Last week he said he would withdraw his support and let the government fall if Maliki agreed to extend U.S. troops presence in Iraq. No details about Sadr’s new plans and tactics have been revealed but asource said they will include measures on howto preserve the group’s military wing and other establishments in the absence of U.S. troops. Sadr is reported to be personally supervising and leading his group from his residence in Baghdad. He returned to Iraq last week. He spends most of his time in Qom, a holy Muslim Shiite city in Iran where Shiite theologians receive their education.

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news/2011-10-22/kurd.htm

Just put all Washington electorates from the last dozen years on a plane, with their cabinet members, to Iraq to work things out!

After all, they said their meddling was needed.....so let them GO meddle!

Heck, Hilaries face alone would keep the trouble makers indoors..... no more problem! (If her job wasn't as serious as it is, watching her would be like watching reruns of the Three Stooges.... except in a "dark side" sort of way.....SCARRY!!)

Agreed

Why we Invaded Iraq?

Cut Aid to the poor and needy in America,, Absolutely

cut military personnel from other countries,,, no way!!...

strange,,,

obama is weird like that...

Not Obama,, Citizens are weird and HYPOCRITICAL like that

smaller government intervention , EXCEPT IN OTHER PEOPLES COUNTRIES

Bush (and his cronies) and Obummer, escalated the war machine! Bro Barry even tried to give the bankers more power to screw the people (just look at his staff....ALL bankers, Wall Streeters and people who caused this mess!) like he was servin up tea and crumpets!

Wall Street, and the polIticians they BUY, don't want an end to war....IT'S TOO PROFITABLE!

O, and the controlled media, can sell MOST people anything! 3,4,5 TV's in every home! Corporate commercials take more space than the actual "edited to allow time' show they wish to watch!

It's OUT OF CONTROL! EVERYONE I know ******* about it, but sitting on the couch, or voting for "more of the same", doesn't do anything to fix it!

Obummer, like Shrub and his cronies, has sold out America to corporate interest, and all but Ron Paul, is just more of the same! That's why the MSM is so against his message! They don't want people to grow a brain and start thinking for themselves!

FREE THINKING AND FREEDOM IS NOT ALLOWED! You can't give the people control or they might use it!

the democratic way....

Perhaps....but the founding fathers gave us a REPUBLIC, NOT a democracy!

Can I get an AMEN?!

"....and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands....."

AMEN and power to the people!

lol.. i ment democrats, not democratic... the libs have always wanted to control everyone's thoughts and actions, they have always had the "i know best" attitude...

BUT CAN I GET AN AMEN FOR OUR REPUBLIC?

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

It's ONLY a Republic if we can keep it, and that's what "more of the same" is trying to prevent!

RON PAUL 2012!!!!

amen, brother...