NOT A HAPPY FIFTH ANNIVERSARY FOR BUSH'S DISASTROUS WAR IN IRAQ

As you surely know, today is the fifth anniversary of Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq. We let him get away with it and we are saddled with a three trillion dollar debt and incalculable heartache for our national complacency and willingness to accept the rule of a tyrant over us. Today he was dissembling on TV about what great victories his strategy has achieved. Yesterday he sent his three stooges out to talk about the greatness of his policies-- although the chief stooge managed to botch it up and remind us he still doesn't even know who we're fighting or why.

In contrast to Bush's series of embarrassing lies and distortions about Iraq, and in contrast to John McCain's "me too"/stay the course mindless bellicosity, Barack Obama spoke with sincerity and candor to the American people about where to go from here. Obama's full plan is on his website. His speech though, is less dry and wonkish and far more understandable to regular Americans.

Just before America's entry into World War I, President Woodrow Wilson addressed Congress: "It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war," he said. "...But the right is more precious than peace." Wilson's words captured two awesome responsibilities that test any Commander-in-Chief – to never hesitate to defend America, but to never go to war unless you must. War is sometimes necessary, but it has grave consequences, and the judgment to go to war can never be undone.

Five years ago today, President George W. Bush addressed the nation. Bombs had started to rain down on Baghdad. War was necessary, the President said, because the United States could not, "live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." Recalling the pain of 9/11, he said the price of inaction in Iraq was to meet the threat with "armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."

At the time the President uttered those words, there was no hard evidence that Iraq had those stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. There was not any evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11, or that Iraq had operational ties to the al Qaeda terrorists who carried them out. By launching a war based on faulty premises and bad intelligence, President Bush failed Wilson's test. So did Congress when it voted to give him the authority to wage war.

Five years have gone by since that fateful decision. This war has now lasted longer than World War I, World War II, or the Civil War. Nearly four thousand Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded. Even under the best case scenarios, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars. And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq.

...In the year since President Bush announced the surge-- the bloodiest year of the war for America-- the level of violence in Iraq has been reduced. Our troops-- including so many from Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base-- have done a brilliant job under difficult circumstances. Yet while we have a General who has used improved tactics to reduce violence, we still have the wrong strategy. As General Petraeus has himself acknowledged, the Iraqis are not achieving the political progress needed to end their civil war. Beyond Iraq, our military is badly overstretched, and we have neither the strategy nor resources to deal with nearly every other national security challenge we face.

This is why the judgment that matters most on Iraq-- and on any decision to deploy military force-- is the judgment made first. If you believe we are fighting the right war, then the problems we face are purely tactical in nature. That is what Senator McCain wants to discuss-- tactics. What he and the Administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future. That's why this Administration cannot answer the simple question posed by Senator John Warner in hearings last year: Are we safer because of this war? And that is why Senator McCain can argue-- as he did last year-- that we couldn't leave Iraq because violence was up, and then argue this year that we can't leave Iraq because violence is down.

When you have no overarching strategy, there is no clear definition of success. Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely. Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden– as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.

In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not-- and never has been-- a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.

My plan to end this war will finally put pressure on Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future. Because we've learned that when we tell Iraq's leaders that we'll stay as long as it takes, they take as long as they want. We need to send a different message. We will help Iraq reach a meaningful accord on national reconciliation. We will engage with every country in the region-- and the UN-- to support the stability and territorial integrity of Iraq. And we will launch a major humanitarian initiative to support Iraq's refugees and people. But Iraqis must take responsibility for their country. It is precisely this kind of approach-- an approach that puts the onus on the Iraqis, and that relies on more than just military power-- that is needed to stabilize Iraq.

Let me be clear: ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure.

...The war in Iraq has emboldened Iran, which poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel. Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, Hamas runs Gaza, Hizbollah flags fly from the rooftops in Sadr City, and Iran is handing out money left and right in southern Lebanon.

The war in Iraq has emboldened North Korea, which built new nuclear weapons and even tested one before the Administration finally went against its own rhetoric, and pursued diplomacy.

The war in Iraq has emboldened the Taliban, which has rebuilt its strength since we took our eye off of Afghanistan.

Above all, the war in Iraq has emboldened al Qaeda, whose recruitment has jumped and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan-- a thousand miles from Iraq.

The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is the area where the 9/11 attacks were planned. This is where Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants still hide. This is where extremism poses its greatest threat. Yet in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have pursued flawed strategies that are too distant from the needs of the people, and too timid in pursuit of our common enemies.

Nor was Barack Obama the only Democrat speaking out about the war today. More and more Democratic challengers have adopted the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq that Darcy Burner and several other progressives put together with military and national security experts (people who understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni and between Iran and al-Qaeda). Today the progressive Democrat running against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, Greg Fischer, endorsed the Plan. Chuck Schumer is trying to shove a reactionary Democrat, the much-hated Bruce Lunsford, down Kentucky's throat, someone who has supported Republicans and their policies for years and can be counted on to continue doing just that if he ever got into office. “George Bush and Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell have cost us our global position of moral authority. I want America to be respected in the world again,” said Fischer. “Traditional military might is important, but we need to lead the world with our diplomacy.”

So while Cheney and McCain wander around the heavily fortified Green Zone spouting nonsense about how successful the war in Iraq is, and dismissing the growing anger most Americans feel about the Bush Regime policies and failures, opponents to those policies have been speaking out. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, also emphasized how damaging the war and Bush's posture have been towards our national security.

As the war in Iraq enters its sixth year, official US casualty figures approach 4,000 dead and nearly 30,000 wounded. These figures exclude the many who have less visible but no less damaging injuries to mental health; those whose injuries resulted from accidents while they served in a war zone; and the scores of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqi civilians who have died and been wounded since this misguided war was launched. These are the most meaningful-- and the saddest-- costs of this war.

We know, however, that these statistics, along with the hundreds of billions of dollars already spent to date, do not fully measure the costs of this war. There are other serious casualties - ones that have potentially severe consequences to our national security and our personal safety but are difficult to quantify. The most concerning of these is the damage the war has caused to our international standing and the partnerships that are vital to address the very real continuing risks to our safety posed by al Qaeda. By invading Iraq, we have, in effect "cried wolf" - we've used up our international chits and credibility attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and had virtually no connection to al Qaeda.

Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME) has also opposed the Iraq War from Day One. Right now he's running against rubber stamp Republican Susan Collins, who has consistently voted for the war and completely supports Bush, Cheney, McCain and Lieberman and their mindless and irresponsible Stay the Course approach. This was Congressman Allen's statement today: "We are not only marking the 5th anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, we are marking all that is wrong with it. Almost 4,000 American service members, including 30 from Maine, have died. Tens of thousands of American soldiers have been wounded. And we have spent half a trillion dollars, including more than $1.35 billion from Maine.
 
“If we continue in this direction we will spend at least another half a trillion dollars. Some experts think we will spend $2 trillion. But these monetary costs do not take into account the brave men and women who will lose life or limb in the coming years if we don’t bring them home. 
 
“I opposed this ill-conceived war from the beginning and have been working to bring our troops home ever since. It is time to end this war-- now. The only way to change direction in Iraq is for Congress to set a safe, responsible deadline to start bring our troops home."

Tom Allen, Greg Fischer, Russ Warner, Darcy Burner, Barack Obama offer a clear alternative to the Bush-Cheney failed policies-- and monstrous agenda-- in Iraq. McCain, on the other hand, embodies those policies and that agenda. The choice couldn't be clearer.