# US Ambassador to Iraq, "We have opened Pandora's Box." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 7, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386 "2006-03-07T15:52:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/21 "2006-03-08T02:10:29Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Wrong. > > I’m not going to bother digging out cites because, I assume, they’ll turn out to “not be what you meant”. However, Schumer has written for a 45-day review and a report to Congress. That would be the D-NY guy. > > Meanwhile, one GOP Congressman has written a bill requiring all vital infrastructure to be owned by USers. > > Doesn’t sound like wanting it “to go away” to me. > > -Joe Wrong, back at ya! 🙂 First, I said “politically”-- ie, from a political standpoint. But even your interprattion is wrong. > [@](#): > > [Lawmaker tries to block ports deal](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060308/ts_nm/security_ports_bill_dc) > > House Republican leaders backed a plan by Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis to push an amendment aimed at stopping the Dubai ports deal the administration had approved, said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker > Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican. > > \ > > House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, another California Republican, also announced he was introducing a bill that similarly would forbid foreign companies from owning, operating or managing the U.S. ports like those involved in the Dubai Ports World deal And that was just what I could pull off the front page of Yahoo News. If you don’t think Republicans in Congress want this to go away, you haven’t been paying attention. For that matter, I’m more inclined to think the Dems are being more honest about their opposition to this. Like I said, they gain politically as long as the deal is still in play, so it would behoove them to keep it alive, if even just on life support. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/22 "2006-03-08T02:51:45Z")
This Sunday, in an interview on a chat show, Schumer said that the 45-day review was required anyway, so it wasn’t actually a concession. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/23 "2006-03-08T03:12:49Z")
The ambassador says that we must stay until the Iraqis get together on a truly national government that doesn’t favor any particular faction. Is such a government possible at all? Just how long should we give them to form such a government? In other words, what should be our determinants as to when our task there is done? I think that we should have started planning for a comehellorhighwater withdrawal a couple of months ago. I wanted to plan for a withdrawal late this year. That might not be possible, or even a good idea, so now what? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/24 "2006-03-08T03:26:51Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > In other words, what should be our determinants as to when our task there is done? 60 days without a bombing? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/25 "2006-03-08T03:28:44Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > The ambassador says that we must stay until the Iraqis get together on a truly national government that doesn’t favor any particular faction. Are you sure? I didn’t read it that way. The operative word I saw was “national unity government” which to me means: _something everyone can live with even if they don’t get everything they want._ Was there some quote you had in mind other than “national unity”? > [@](#): > > Just how long should we give them to form such a government? In other words, what should be our determinants as to when our task there is done? I don’t think Bush is willing to consider the possibility that it won’t happen, so he has a very long time window. From my perspective, I say we give 'em a timeline and then get the hell outta there when the time’s up. > [@](#): > > I think that we should have started planning for a comehellorhighwater withdrawal a couple of months ago. I wanted to plan for a withdrawal late this year. That might not be possible, or even a good idea, so now what? Me, too. What now? I’m willing to give them until the end of the year, but after that we start bringing our guys and gals home. A phased withdrawl that gives them a reasonable amount of time get their shiite together (pardon the pun), but a clear timetable that tells them its up to them. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/26 "2006-03-08T03:39:28Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Are you sure? I didn’t read it that way. The operative word I saw was “national unity government” which to me means: _something everyone can live with even if they don’t get everything they want._ Was there some quote you had in mind other than “national unity”? Your statement of what he said is what I meant. You stated it better. > [@](#): > > I don’t think Bush is willing to consider the possibility that it won’t happen, so he has a very long time window. I can see him now at age 90, toothless and cackling into his oatmeal, “It’s working, it’s working.” ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/27 "2006-03-08T04:10:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 60 days without a bombing? A more realistic goal would be 60 minutes without a bombing. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/28 "2006-03-08T07:08:33Z")
Since things are going so well in Iraq, I’m surprised Bush hasn’t just declared victory and brought the troops home. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other unusually Conservative media sources could cooperate in coverage and a good portion of citizens would never know better. Good strategy for November. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/29 "2006-03-08T07:46:44Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > A more realistic goal would be 60 minutes without a bombing. Why change the time frame when you can simply redefine “bombing?” Hey, it worked for torture. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/30 "2006-03-08T09:41:00Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > Why change the time frame when you can simply redefine “bombing?” Hey, it worked for torture. Absolutely. I don’t see how you can call anything a ‘bombing’ unless a fusion reaction is involved. For ‘car bomb’ read ‘automobile malfunction’ and for ‘suicide bomb’ read ‘personal hygeine issues.’ Mission Accomplished. ---
**Author:** ![Caius\_Preposterus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47c2d/32.png) [@Caius\_Preposterus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caius_Preposterus)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/31 "2006-03-08T10:17:46Z")
> [@Caius Preposterus](#): > > I guess I’m not making myself clear. He threatened a veto of any attempt to kill the deal and then backed away from his veto threat to allow a further review of the deal. That’s the change in position I’m referring to. But other than that, yes, I agree that the consequences are more damaging for an Iraqi pull out. It appears Bush has reiterated his veto threat. I don’t want to hijack this thread any further. I suppose I could list examples of Bush changing his mind about other things, but since I don’t think he’ll change his mind about Iraq, I’ll refrain. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/32 "2006-03-08T13:55:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And that was just what I could pull off the front page of Yahoo News. If you don’t think Republicans in Congress want this to go away, you haven’t been paying attention. …and if you think that introducing bills (it’s not just the R-CA doing so) is a method of demonstrating that you want it to go away, you haven’t been paying attention. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/33 "2006-03-08T14:30:16Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > …and if you think that introducing bills (it’s not just the R-CA doing so) is a method of demonstrating that you want it to go away, you haven’t been paying attention. I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. What Lewis is doing is introducing a rider to a defense authorization bill, thus forcing Bush to kill the DPW deal. Did you bother reading the cite I gave: > [@](#): > > Defying President George W. Bush, Republicans in the House of Representatives on Tuesday moved to block plans by a state-owned Arab company to manage six U.S. ports by attaching an amendment to must-pass spending legislation for the Iraq war and hurricane relief. > > \ > > Spending bills often become targets for unrelated amendments that cut off funds for projects that are undesirable in the eyes of some lawmakers. Note the plural-- Republicans. Note the effect-- the DPW deal “goes away”. Note that at least one other Republican was introducing seperate legislation to kill the deal. You claimed that only one Republican in Congress was working to kill the deal. That claim has been shown to be false. You are wrong. Period. As for Schumer’s 45-day review request, BFD. The administration has already agree to that. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386/34 "2006-03-08T17:06:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You claimed that only one Republican in Congress was working to kill the deal. That claim has been shown to be false. You are wrong. Period. No, John. I gave an example of A (single, unitary, one) Republican who was opposed. Who was working to oppose. The fact that I gave an example of A (single, unitary, one) Republican, after saying that there are dozens, does not in fact mean that I don’t know the difference between “dozens” and “one”. I was giving an example of a specific one in response to your ‘Republicans (as a group) want this to go away’. Of course, it could all be a misunderstanding. When you said Republicans wanted it to go away, I took it to mean “Republicans want those evil Democrats to stop making a stink about the DPW deal”. However, it appears that you may have meant “Republicans want tho whole damned DPW deal to go away because it’s demonstrating what a bunch of hypocrites they are\*”. -Joe \*Or “Republicans want the whole damned DPW deal to go away because it’s so potentially politically damaging” if you prefer [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-ambassador-to-iraq-we-have-opened-pandoras-box/347386.md?page=1)