 |
 |
 March 21, 2006
"OPEN-ENDED COMMITMENT"....At his press conference today, President Bush suggested that American troops would be in Iraq for years to come:
Harry Reid, who has shown himself to be a pretty astute leader of Senate Dems, had exactly the right response:
The phrase "open-ended commitment" is the right one to use. It's the logical equivalent of refusing to set benchmarks for withdrawal, and it's not something the American public is very comfortable with. An open-ended commitment during the Cold War was one thing, but Iraq is quite another. An open-ended commitment there sounds way too much like Vietnam. One question, though. Has Reid himself proposed a "plan that allows our troops to begin to come home"? This is a genuine question. I don't remember hearing one, but I might have missed it. —Kevin Drum 9:22 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (239)Comments
Harry Reid, who has shown himself to be a pretty astute leader of Senate Dems, had exactly the right response: Gee. I hate to see want a ham-fisted loser looks like if you think Reid's been a "pretty astute leader." Posted by: Jeff II on March 21, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINKI like Jack Murtha's plan, and would love to see Reid endorse it. Withdraw, but remain within striking range. But I'm afraid that the hallmark of the Democratic Party is still timidity. Posted by: Slideguy on March 21, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINKWhen Bush said "premature withdrawl" in regard to keeping the troops in Iraq, I imaging George Carlin checked to see if the royalty check was in the mail. Posted by: David W. on March 21, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINKI think he should also find a way to work in "nation-building" and "entanglement," as in: George Bush has entangled America in an open-ended commitment to nation-building, and has lost sight of the importance of committing our troops to their mission of fighting and winning wars. Posted by: dj moonbat on March 21, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINKPresident Bush must accept that he has to change course, reject the notion of an open-ended commitment in Iraq Yes, President Bush has a open-ended commitment to WIN and ACHIEVE VICTORY in Iraq. Liberals and Democrats don't have a commitment because they want to LOSE in Iraq. And you libs think you can win on that slogan? *Snicker* Posted by: Al on March 21, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINKFYI, here's the actual line from Carlin, with regard to the Vietnam War: “We’re always afraid of pulling out. ‘Pull out? Doesn’t sound manly to me, Bill. Let’s leave it in there, get the job done!’ Because that’s what we’re doing to that country, after all…” Deja vu all over again. Posted by: David W. on March 21, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINKWhen I heard him say that, all I could think was 'Wow - this is why his handlers don't let him out without the crutch of a teleprompter very often.' If he wasn't already finished as a president who can accomplish anything, I think that remark alone would do the trick. Yes, President Bush has a open-ended commitment to WIN and ACHIEVE VICTORY in Iraq. Wow! He want to win AND achieve victory? Heady stuff. Posted by: dj moonbat on March 21, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINKAt his press conference today, President Bush suggested that American troops would be in Iraq for years to come No offense to Kevin, but is anyone really surprised by this? This has been the elephant (OK, an elephant) in the living room since we entered Iraq. If we leave Iraq, it'll dissolve into chaos. Now that we're there, it'd pretty much be a human rights disaster to leave. That doesn't justify our going in there. It's just the bed we've made for ourselves. (I know, I'm being generous when I say "we.") Posted by: Bob on March 21, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINKIt depends on the commitment. The commitment to have a bunch of yanks guard the green zone maybe OK, though it is too expensive for libertarians. Even having U.S. troops there just training and air support might be OK for a while. But, trying to separate factions in a civil war is a no-no. Posted by: Matt on March 21, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINKBob: Nope, I don't think anyone was surprised by this. But it's still news when Bush actually fesses up to it. Posted by: Kevin Drum on March 21, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINKBush lost Iraq. He lost it because he sent 130,000 soldiers to occupy a country of 25 million people. It is preposterous just on the face of it. It matters not what Reid, Murtha or the Dalai Lama proposes for Iraq. Iraq is lost and Bush lost it. Relax, citizens, the President's commitment for an 'open-ended' presence isn't incompatible with previous statements. Of course we're going to be in Iraq for a long time. We'll have some level of troops there training the Iraqis, serving as advisors, etc. It might be 5,000, it might be 20,000. The way operations are going right now, that switch-over from combat to logistics/advice/support may well start in 2006 and be largely complete by 2008. The troops that remain will be more active than troops in Germany, but it won't be the way it is right now. You folks keep seeing Iraq as worse than it is because you want it to be worse, so that you can bring the President down. It's not going to be that way. Posted by: Steve White on March 21, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINKSlideguy writes, I like Jack Murtha's plan, and would love to see Reid endorse it. Withdraw, but remain within striking range. That's a silly plan. Everyone, especially progressive Democrats, understands that the troops within 'striking range' would never be committed to go back in by a Democratic president, because conditions would never be 'right' to do so. They'd sit somewhere between Kuwait and Okinawa and wait, and wait, and wait. 'Withdraw but remain with striking range' is another way of saying, 'we quit'. If that's what you mean, just say so. Posted by: Steve White on March 21, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINKOne question, though. Has Reid himself proposed a "plan that allows our troops to begin to come home"? This is a genuine question. I don't remember hearing one, but I might have missed it.Genuine question? Surely you are joking! Reid is in the party that is completely out of government. He is in no position to formulate such a plan. He has no access whatsoever to any planning mechanisms of the Executive, the only available source of any serious national planning ability whatsoever. All Reid can do is state the disquiet the majority of Americans feel about what is going on (or not going on) in Iraq. Posted by: Dave Alway on March 21, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINKWhy does Reid need to have a plan? Bush's GOP controls the entire government. Anything Reid or any Democrat says is ignored and is little more than noise in the wind. That being said, Murtha has indicated how we should leave Iraq. If I'm not mistaken, Kerry has also voiced some basic plan for withdrawal. The whole concept of "redeployment" (withdrawal) has come from Democrats. Democrats have made repeated attempts to get Rumsfeld out of the Bush government, since it's Rumsfeld who holds the first line of responsibility for everything going wrong. When the incident in Somalia happened the GOP called for Les Aspin's head and Clinton obliged. Iraq is much, much worse but Bush, in his stubbornness, will not listen to anyone including members of his own party, who are now calling for changes. So really, why should Reid or any Democrat issue any plan for getting out of Iraq? Until Bush is gone nothing will change. You folks keep seeing Iraq as worse than it is because you want it to be worse, so that you can bring the President down. It's not going to be that way. Steve W., it's more like you keep seeing Iraq as being better than it is so that you can maintain President Bush hasn't let us all down. The promised "cakewalk" had turned into a quagmire, and wishing it were otherwise does no one any good. Posted by: David W. on March 21, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINKYes, it occured to me the other day that Iraq will still be simmering after Bush is off looking at land for libraries. There is gonna be a new prez and new advisors to deal with that quagmire. Just like Kennedy to Johnson. Lets hope we need a third president to get that mission accomplished. Posted by: The Fake fake Al on March 21, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINKAh, 'quagmire', the catch-all word. Iraq has a constitution, an elected government, and a number of provinces that are no more wracked with violence than Baltimore or Detroit. It has serious problems that remain, and it may not escape some measure of civil war/disturbance. It also has a large, large number of people who apparently want their country to work. I'm betting that they win in the end. You apparently feel otherwise, Dave. 'Quagmire' has become a word that one uses instead of thinking. Iraq may be many things right now, and one of those, for certain, is that it's far better off now that Saddam is in jug. And so are we. Posted by: Steve White on March 21, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINKI think the plan is to have U.S. troops at four or five superbases whose main purpose will be to serve as forward bases against Iranian or Iranian/Chinese takeover of Iraq's oil fields, and to guard Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's flank. Regardless of what other reasons have been given about why we invaded Iraq, it has always been first and foremost about oil. Who will have control over the greatest remaining reserves in the world? The U.S., Iran, and/or China? The Chinese are facing a growing problem of rising expectations at home, and if they can't get the oil they need to help their economy to continue to grow, the political establishment will be at risk. They will fight for what they need. That is why they are heavily involved in Africa, and are working to get more access to oil from Central Asia and Iran. There will soon be a day though, when that is not enough. Oil from the Persian Gulf will then be the prize. The U.S. strategy is to take control now so as to have leverage over China over the next decade as this all plays out. If we leave Iraq, even if we withdraw to Kuwait, the strategy becomes much weaker at best. That is why the Bush administration will not leave Iraq. Posted by: opihi on March 21, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINKOpen ended... as in, "no, we have no plan or any kind of idea when or how we will ever be able to leave". Bottom line; GeeDubya and the old boys will never admit they screwed it up, so they will never walk away from it because that would be admitting we made a mistake. Posted by: NormalNot on March 21, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINKSteve White wrote: "Relax, citizens, the President's commitment for an 'open-ended' presence isn't incompatible with previous statements." Well, Steve, that's mostly because the Bush administration has been remarkably coy, not to mention ambiguous and contradictory, in those previous statements. That is not something to brag about, though. "Of course we're going to be in Iraq for a long time." Really? Then why have various members of the Bush administration implied or stated otherwise at various times? "We'll have some level of troops there training the Iraqis, serving as advisors, etc. It might be 5,000, it might be 20,000." It might also be a dozen permanent bases with 50,000 troops. Or it might be a single soldier with a water pistol. Sorry, Steve, but this is just asinine. Since you don't know, and the administration won't be forthcoming, why speculate? "The way operations are going right now, that switch-over from combat to logistics/advice/support may well start in 2006 and be largely complete by 2008." Of course it will begin in 2006, if only because they have to begin the process before the midterm elections. Again, you have no way of knowing anything else about this, so your timeline is wholly fictional. "The troops that remain will be more active than troops in Germany, but it won't be the way it is right now." Since you have no way of knowing this, I'm afraid that your reassurances are nothing but partisan bullshit. "You folks keep seeing Iraq as worse than it is because you want it to be worse, so that you can bring the President down." No, Steve. We see Iraq as it really is, and how it's shaping up to be. I'll place my record on Iraq against yours anyday. "It's not going to be that way." Since you have no way of knowing this, I'm afraid that this reassurance, like the rest of your post, is nothing but partisan bullshit and wishful thinking. This was just dumb, Steve. Care to engage your brain and try again? Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINKSteve White wrote: "That's a silly plan." Is it? Why so, Steve? Forgive us if we don't take your unsupported word for this. "Everyone, especially progressive Democrats, understands that the troops within 'striking range' would never be committed to go back in by a Democratic president," No Steve, "everyone" doesn't understand this, mostly because it's partisan bullshit, wholly disconnected from reality. Care to try again, this time with something substantial? Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINKSteve White wrote: "Ah, 'quagmire', the catch-all word." Ah, the non-response of a mindless partisan who has turned off his brain. "Iraq has a constitution, an elected government," And this is relevant ... how, exactly? "and a number of provinces that are no more wracked with violence than Baltimore or Detroit." And a number of cities that are far more wracked with violence than any U.S. city, as you well know. You really did turn off your brain, didn't you? "It has serious problems that remain, and it may not escape some measure of civil war/disturbance." No shit, Sherlock. "'Quagmire' has become a word that one uses instead of thinking." An ironic statement, coming from you, given that you have presented not one verifiable fact, and supported not one of your assertions. Care to try again? "And so are we." And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly? Sheesh.... Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINKWelcome to the Forever War. No doubt DARPA has a plan to replace American soldiers with robots. Perhaps one limb at a time (sorry if this is disrespectful, I'm outraged). Posted by: sara on March 21, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINKWhat does winning in Iraq entail? Winning the booby prize. Posted by: Myron on March 21, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINKThere was a Bush news conference today? Surveying left blogistan this morning you wouldn't have thought so. No one live-blogged it. Josh Micah Marshall was the first on my list to post on the press conference. But... Josh doesn't have comments on his main page. And... even then his post (on Helen Thomas) was woefully slow (he didn't get it up until 1:39 pm). Crooks and Liars had a few comments that seemed to be in real time. But they were ancillary comments confined to a deeply buried thread. Kevin Drum was the nil set on this subject until late this evening. Even Firedoglake was sleeping at their excessively verbal wheel. The Carpetbagger was soliciting votes for a web Emmy. What am I getting at here? We all like to punch the Democratic Party for being wimps and laggards and extol Left Blogistan for being hip and timely. Forget that shit. Left Blogistan is as tardy and inchorent and threadbare... as the DNC. Here is what is seriously needed: A sharp cental host on the web who will live blog these sorts of things and provide a thread for humorous and cutting comments. Until then... Left blogistan is just a herd of sick cats with their tails up in the air. In other words-- assholes pointing every which. You folks won't amount to anything until you learn to shit in the same direction. Good luck on that... Posted by: koreyel on March 21, 2006 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINKHey Steve W., I just call 'em as I see 'em. Even President Bush today said that the troops are going to be there, well, until sometime when they aren't. What is the exit strategy? Evidently there isn't any. As for the current violence in Iraq being remotely comparable to crime in Baltimore or Detroit, I can't say when the last jail in the U.S. was knocked over by guerillas to free their recently captured comrades, leaving 20 policemen dead. I think it might have been Harper's Ferry, if my memory serves me here. Iraq has people who say they want Iraq to work, but it is also filled with sectarian militias - the Kurds won't even let any Iraqi Army forces into Kurdistan, which would certainly put a crimp in the Pesh Merga's style, and the Mahdi Army of Sadr, SCIRI's Badr Corps, and of course the Sunni insurgents themselves are more interested in their own group's political agenda than anyone else's at the moment, hence the steady stream of dead Iraqis showing up at the morgue every day now. How I feel about this reality is not the issue here. I really don't see why simply containing Saddam's rule (as had been done for over a decade), while working within an international framework to resolve the future of Iraq after Saddam, wasn't an option that would have served us better in the long run, and saved much bloodshed and treasure in the process. Posted by: David W. on March 21, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINKkoreyel wrote: "What am I getting at here?" I dunno ... probably that you failed to visit the largest progressive blog on the net. Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINKI think the question, Steve White, is not whether Iraq is better off three years later, but whether the U.S. is better off. Let's be honest here, we didn't go into Iraq, spend trillions of dollars, lose more than 2200 soldiers, waste thousands of lives, wreck our worldwide reputation, put our foreign policy into shambles, create chaos in a trouubled region, etc, etc. just to make the Iraqi people happy. What's in it for us? Our soldiers weren't, as it turns out, defending America/protecting our freedom. We didn't get any oil. We've got Hamas in Palestine, Osama bin Laden still holed up in Pakistan somwhere, the Iranians are fast infiltrating the new Iraqi government, and the country is in a freaking civil war, low grade or otherwise. Even if tomorrow, by some miracle, all the Iraqis decide to play nice with each other--what is in it for us? The good feeling one gets from doing the "right thing?" Creating a pro-Iranian, anti-American, oil-rich, fundamentalist muslim state? Yeah, that will really work to our benefit. You must be very happy that so many splendid young men and women had to die for that. Posted by: LAS on March 21, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINKKevin,Why in hell should Harry Reid come up with any thing! We have NO way to promote anything, so why spend time exposing ourselves to the inevetable shit storm from a crew that doesn't allow any input that varies one whit from their agenda! Kick 'em in the gonads first, then we can talk plans and processes.
LAS wrote: "I think the question, Steve White, is not whether Iraq is better off three years later, but whether the U.S. is better off." Not to mention a frank discussion of costs, risks and benefits, a discussion that has been notably absent from the Bush administration and from our public discourse. In any case, yours really isn't the primary question on this thread, much though Steve would like it to be. The primary questions are when are we going to leave Iraq? What is our commitment there, in manpower and in time? What is our exit strategy? Are we intending to leave permanent bases there? If so, how active will our soldiers be in internal Iraqi matters? In fighting the insurgency? In protecting Iraq? The Bush administration has been remarkably coy on these issues, which is why today's press conference was notable for getting Bush to finally admit that the commitment was going to be greater than people in his administration had previously stated or implied. But of course, we're talking to Steve White, a guy who actually had the chutzpah to claim that a wish list was a plan, so I don't expect him to do any better with these questions than he has with anything else he posted on this thread. Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINKGeorge Bush. Harry Reid. State of the Union, 2006: Contest of liars and dolts, with one of them holding all of the cards and the other afraid to take him on. Posted by: Nixon Did It on March 21, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK"they'd sit in Kuwait or Okinawa and wait and wait and wait" And live and live and live. Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 21, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINKStebe White: did you anticipate any measureable, undisputable outcome of our adventure in Iraq? Did you expect guerrilla resistance? Did you expect that we would find no nuclear program at all? Did you expect that Iraqi oil exports would go down - a lot - instead of up? Did you expect that we'd end up alienating the majority of the population of every traditional ally of the US? I did. I really doubt if you did. And if your predictions are all wrong, why should anyone pay any attention to what you say? Hell, why should _you_ take yourself seriously? Reid and all the rest of the pussies are too afraid of history to grab their balls...duh. Posted by: elmo on March 21, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINKHe was so proud, he wanted to be a war president, he could not get his war fast enough and he was sure it would be a cake walk. Now he is like any spoiled brat, he leaves the whole mess to be cleaned up by someone else, just like all the other times before. They will be in Iraq for a long time, after all they are building permanent bases. Until after the elections at least they will keep the troups out of harms way, can't have too many casualties. Posted by: Renate on March 21, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINKkoreyel, HuffPo has two separate threads on the news conference. One, regarding the future Presidents and the other the Helen Thomas exchange. Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 21, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINKOn the same tack, why should anyone listen to _anyone_ who's that kind of tested fool? Why should we put any weight on the statement of 90% of Congress, 95% of pundits? The phrase isn't "open ended commitment". It's "Blank Check for War Profiteers". Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on March 21, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINKWhen Bush comes up with a plan for Iraq, Reid should then offer one from the Democratic party. The pressure should be on Bush to either come up with a plan or admit he has none. Right now he's got nothing and Reid is correct to make that point, over and over. "Gee. I hate to see want a ham-fisted loser looks like if you think Reid's been a "pretty astute leader."" I think that would be Al Gore. A spineless, gutless loser if there ever was one. Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 21, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK"Welcome to the Forever War. No doubt DARPA has a plan to replace American soldiers with robots. Perhaps one limb at a time (sorry if this is disrespectful, I'm outraged)." That's quite all right, your sentiments are right in line with your fellow liberals who have openly expressed desire for America to lose. Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 21, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINKSteve has got everybody dancing so I might as well join in. "That's a silly plan. Everyone, especially progressive Democrats, understands that the troops within 'striking range' would never be committed to go back in by a Democratic president, because conditions would never be 'right' to do so. They'd sit somewhere between Kuwait and Okinawa and wait, and wait, and wait" Fine with me. We've completely blown it. It was a bad idea to begin with, each successive reason given by the administration has proved false, and every prediction they've made about the outcome has not only been wrong, but predicted by his critics beforehand. I have friends over there, including military intelligence officers, and they say that Murtha is correct. Your president is lying to you. We can't fix it and we need to get out now. The only reason I can see to keep troops within striking range is to keep Syria, Iran, and our own ally, Turkey, from moving into the Kurdish north to keep it from becoming what it inevitably will. Kurdistan. "'Withdraw but remain with striking range' is another way of saying, 'we quit'. If that's what you mean, just say so." Because the chickenhawk in the Whitehouse, who so easily spends the lives of others, needs an exit plan that will let him save face. He's screwed up every job he's ever had, with the exception of getting the taxpayers of Arlington to subsidize his baseball business. But this one takes the cake. He's broken the finest military in the world on a useless adventure in someone else's desert, and wasted thousands of far better lives than his. But go ahead. Have some more Kool-Aid. Posted by: Slideguy on March 21, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINKOne question, though. Has Reid himself proposed a "plan that allows our troops to begin to come home"? This is a genuine question. I don't remember hearing one, but I might have missed it. Nothing like a moderate left doing the work of Jonah Goldberg et al. Posted by: lib on March 21, 2006 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINKMaybe Al Gore has a secret plan for ending the war in Iraq. Hey, it worked for Nixon in 1968... :-p Posted by: David W. on March 21, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINKAlright, so Murtha's plan is looking better and better-I'm taking Steve White's dismissal of it as an endorsement. and, freedom fighter just reminded me of how much I like Al Gore. and these guys are called trolls! Posted by: URK on March 21, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINKlib: Nothing like a moderate left doing the work of Jonah Goldberg et al. I know. It's like Drum Tourette Syndrome these days; he's continually blurting out RNC talking points and he can't stop himself. Posted by: shortstop on March 21, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINKSteve isn't exactly a troll; he's just mostly turned his brain off. When he actually stops to think before he posts, he has occasionally been known to write posts worth reading. Freedom Fighter, on the other hand, is a classic troll, deliberately saying stupid shit just to get a rise out of people. There really isn't anything you can or should say to someone like that. Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINKI'm with Paul. Steve's too-hearty bluster and attempted condescension simply mask a fundamental fear of change and of having to reexamine his shallow but dearly held notions. (Plus, I think he's been writing himself scrips. I'm just sayin'.) Posted by: shortstop on March 21, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINKshortstop wrote: "It's like Drum Tourette Syndrome these days; he's continually blurting out RNC talking points and he can't stop himself." I dunno. While it's true that Reid doesn't need an Iraq strategy now, and certainly doesn't need one to point out the problems with Bush's strategy (or lack thereof), I think you could make a legitimate argument that the Democratic Party will need at the very least some unified talking points about Iraq as we get closer to the midterm elections. Posted by: PaulB on March 21, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINKI think that would be Al Gore. A spineless, gutless loser if there ever was one. May be so, but even then he looks infinitely better than your man, the mendacious GWB. Posted by: lib on March 21, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINKshortstop, it's a fair question to ask what ideas the Democrats may have about resolving the war in Iraq. As the lack of any sort of successful Iraq strategy on the part of Bush sinks in ever more deeply in the public mind, Republicans won't get any traction out of them if they're floated with the public, and there's no better time for that to happen than the upcoming elections this fall. That is how a democracy is supposed to work, after all. Posted by: David W. on March 21, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINKIs that why the headlione I saw today said Gore isn't running in '08? Can't stand to lose again? Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 21, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINKPaul, David, I know, you're right. Of course we need a clear-cut strategy. I'm just tired in general, and weary in particular of Kevin's tendency of late to write posts in the approved "he said, she said" style. Reid doesn't need a 20-point plan sitting in his hand at the moment he critiques Bush's monstrosity of a press conference. That's really all I meant. Need to get some sleep now--night, y'all. Posted by: shortstop on March 21, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINKshortstop: I agree with PaulB and David W. on this. While it might have been good to keep a plan close to our vests for awhile, as the election approaches we need a series of uniform talking points on Iraq -- something that squares the limited-scope military victory Murtha insisted on (we took out and captured Saddam) with an acknowledged intention to draw down our troops from Iraq, if not entirely from the region itself. This open-ended committment shit cannot stand. How dare George Bush force somebody else -- I don't care which party -- to clean up his own goddamned mess. It's outrageous. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on March 21, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINKWith Harry Reid as the leader of the opposition party, Bush's Iraq war is going full-steam ahead, 2 right-wingers have been appointed to the Supreme Court, and the Dems lost Senate seats in 2004. With friends like Harry Reid, who needs enemies? Posted by: Lucy's football on March 21, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINKAfter Japan surrendered, we left an occupying force of 150,000. This was in a country that truly was at peace. Iran is in the midst of a civil war and we only have 130,000. Can you spell FUBAR? Posted by: moe99 on March 21, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINKInvade Iraq? Harry Reid,"yea" Find an "astute" way to withdraw when the going is tough? Harry Reid, "yea" Democratic Party: find a way to vote for whatever piece of crap appears to be popular? Yea. I'm a lifelong Dem, and I generally like Reid, but for God's sake, these people need to take a stand for something other than "geez Republicans have really taken a strong stand about invading Iraq, I need to at least appear to agree. Or, "geez, my peacenik base has really taken a strong stand about withdrawing from Iraq, I need to at least appear to agree". What the hell foreign policy principle does Reid stand for? what in the hell do Dems stand for? Roosevelt and Truman are puking in their graves. Posted by: dwight on March 22, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINKJust like the rest of the Disasters of MBA Georges career --of no course.
dwight: I agree with you; it's demoralizing. I was a Dean man in '04 for that very reason. And it's why I'm beginning to hope Gore begins to think about taking another whack at it ... he's been extremely solid on foreign policy since he made the decision to make an end-run around the traditional media ... Bob Posted by: rmck1 on March 22, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINKIs that why the headline I saw today said jimmy swaggert is running in '08? Can't stand to lose again? Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 21, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK The smartest guy in America, at the moment, is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Set a timetable, he says, probably a year, and pull out, no matter what. He is also the only national figure questioning Bush’s styling himself a “wartime president”. As Z. says, Eisenhower, Truman, Johnson, even Nixon, who had real wars on their hands, never resorted to that kind of demagoguery to stir up the rubes. The Dems should not let the man get away with it. You need to blog on Kevin Philips’ new book, Kevin. As a former Republican who has been right about nearly everything, when he says the Republican party is all about corralling the world’s oil, you have to listen. Posted by: James of DC on March 22, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINKOne question, though. Has Reid himself proposed a "plan that allows our troops to begin to come home"? This is a genuine question. I don't remember hearing one, but I might have missed it. Eh, what's Bush's plan? Since Reid is not, as far as I know, in any way in charge of US military deployments, any plan of his would have exactly zero chance of being implemented or even listened to, so therefore I don't know why he would need to propose one. Other, that is, than to give Republicans a chance to paint whatever plan he proposed as "cutting and running." Posted by: Stefan on March 22, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINKYes, it occured to me the other day that Iraq will still be simmering after Bush is off looking at land for libraries. ...Posted by: The Fake fake Al on March 21, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK Maybe, but really how much land would a couple of comic book racks require?? What Me Worry?
Dumbest. President. Ever. Posted by: jcricket on March 22, 2006 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK"Relax, citizens, the President's commitment for an 'open-ended' presence isn't incompatible with previous statements." Let's remember what a Texas governor and presidential candidate named George W. Bush said in 1999 when President Clinton had committed US troops to stop a genocide in Kosovo: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to tell us what the exit strategy is." So what is it, George? You folks keep seeing Iraq as worse than it is because you want it to be worse, so that you can bring the President down. How could it be any worse? I'm serious. How could it be any worse? The Unitied States has committed a crime by invading a country that wasn't threatening us. The President, the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense and the National Security Advisor justified this invasion the basis of evidence that they knew, or they ought to have known, was false. Soldiers of the United States have been caught on tape and film committing atrocities which seem to have been approved, in some form and in some cases at least, at the highest levels of the government. The Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Vice-President, and the God-damn President of the United States of America have claimed legal justification for torture. How could it be any worse? Let's face it Steve White, America is being lost. George W. Bush has debased the meaning, the values and the ideals of America. Whatever this country stood for has been sacrificed for the President's weak and narrow notion of defense. This blow to our reputation and our national honor will not be restored in my lifetime. How could it be any worse? More dead? More atrocities? More civil war? Maybe. Maybe those things will come, maybe they won't. Perhaps the civil situation in Iraq will improve, probably it won't. It doesn't matter. Whatever battles are won, we are losing the war for American ideals and values. How could it be any worse? Posted by: Ray on March 22, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINKit is hard for me to fathom the idiocy of some of the arguments on this thread, "...your sentiments are right in line with your fellow liberals who have openly expressed [a] desire for America to lose." I have never heard from any of my liberal, tree hugging, flag burning, abortion loving, flip-flopping, draft dodging, America hating friends that they want the US to lose any war ever. What some of you low 30%ers may take as our desire for a loss, is the fact that we already have lost. It's time to come home. Posted by: nutty little nut nut on March 22, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK...what in the hell do Dems stand for? Posted by: dwight at 12:02 AMWhile there is no charismatic leader on the Democratic side at the moment, it should not be a hindrance. Can you find a less inspiring person than the inarticulate Bush ? As for your rhetorical questions, think. ...liberals who have openly expressed desire for America to lose.Posted by: Freedom FighterBy not listening to experts beforehand, Bush has guaranteed a major loss for American: Troops, treasure, prestige and reputation. Iraq has a constitution, an elected government, and a number of provinces that are no more wracked with violence than Baltimore or Detroit....Posted by: Steve White on March 21, 2006 at 10:00 PMI wonder what government you are seeing, is it a desert mirage? It has been three months since the elections and no government has been formed. Since most of the provinces are devoid of life, comparing them to American cities is silly. There isn't as much violence in the Kurdish north despite some nasty assassinations, but that area is separating itself from Iraq. It also makes no sense to compare Iraq cities to violence in any other city in the world. How many others have daily car bombs? How many others have death squads? How many others are drastically lacking in basic services like sewage, electricity, jobs, fuel, security and potable water? A lot of people in Iraq simply want those things, things they had before Bush illegally invaded their land. Posted by: Mike on March 22, 2006 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK New Orleans can fit most of those criteria Posted by: nutty little nut nut on March 22, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINKLet's remember what a Texas governor and presidential candidate named George W. Bush said in 1999 when President Clinton had committed US troops to stop a genocide in Kosovo: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to tell us what the exit strategy is." I think we heard the exit strategy today. Remember back in 2004 when we said Bush could never win in Iraq because he'd alienated too many potential allies? We needed a new President to negotiate for more international help, one who wasn't tainted by his past arrogant behavior, one who wasn't hated by so much of the world. Well, Bush has come to agree with us. He knows that he's only going to serve as a placeholder until 2009, when the next President will step in with a multi-trillion dollar pooper scooper and clean up after Georgie's oops. Bush can always challenge Reid to name his party's targeted withdrawal date. According to Murtha it is immediately. Posted by: McA on March 22, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINKI wonder what W's speaking fee will be after retirement? I can't wait to read his book. "He's the smartest man I have ever met," said Eve. Posted by: nutty little nut nut on March 22, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINKKevin Drum asks a good question: Has Harry Reid ever proposed his own plan for Iraq? The answer is NO. Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 22, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINKMcA wrote: "According to Murtha it is immediately." Only if you're wholly ignorant of Murtha's actual comments and proposals or if you're deliberately lying. Posted by: PaulB on March 22, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINKPaulB: No, I'm pretty sure that was the entire point of Murtha's press conference. Not a *precipitous* withdrawal, but a withdrawal beginning immediately at the speed of the military's choosing. And not a withdrawal from the region, but a withdrawal from Iraq. It's not "cut and run." But it *is* an acknowledgement that the military has done all it can do in Iraq, has accomplished its military objectives (remove and capture Saddam), and that we had best watch out for our genuine national security interests from a distance. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on March 22, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINKBob, beginning to withdraw immediately is not the same thing as withdrawing immediately. McA implied the latter, which is a deliberate lie, something we have come to expect from our dear little troll friend. Murtha wants a phased withdrawal, as anyone who has actually listened to him would understand. Posted by: PaulB on March 22, 2006 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINKI'm glad Kevin thinks Reid is a pretty astute leader of the Senate Dems. I was afraid you guys would put someone really appealing to the public up there, like that polymath Dick Durban. Posted by: minion of rove on March 22, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINKKevin, you've had this discussion with yourself before. The Dems do not need to furnish a "plan". The decision to come home is, itself, is a plan, which is much more than we have now. The details of the plan can be worked out by the field commanders. Why is this so very hard for you to grasp? Posted by: Libby Sosume on March 22, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINKNice one Georgie boy. The sort of redesign of language that Orwell would have loved. Up until now victory was a short sharp shock. We go in, we kick butt and we leave. But now? "I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out." Quitting is for losers. Winners stay around. Way to go Georgie. Posted by: JJB on March 22, 2006 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINKAnother brilliant post Kevin. You're like Kobe Bryant, off and on! Once you find your rhetoric, run with it, that's my advice to Mr. Reid. Posted by: Jimm on March 22, 2006 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINKPeople, people! Settle down! Bush can see the light at the end of the tunnel!
The Israelis gave the Palestinians the word: we're leaving. Why can't we do the same in Iraq? Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 22, 2006 at 7:39 AM | PERMALINKBush rolled the dice. How do you plan on a tremendously big gamble when the dice keep rolling? If you knew where the dice would stop, you could plan accordingly, but no matter where you try to stop the dice now, you are still gambling on the outcome. Hell of a way to encounter the future. Posted by: lou on March 22, 2006 at 8:04 AM | PERMALINKBush, not obfuscating in 2000 on Meet the Press: BUSH. Well, let me put it to you this way: When I'm the president, we're not going to obfuscate when it comes to foreign policy. If I ever commit troops, I'm going to do so with one thing in mind. And that's to win, Tim. And that's to win in a fashion that not only achieves victory, but gets us out of the theater in quick order. Reid's term, open-ended commitment, is a wise use of words because it embodies uncertainty. The conservative mindset abhors uncertainty so this usage rings true for them. For us liberals, it's about change, changing for the better, which is often in opposition to the conservative who embraces the "familiar," and favors "unwavering loyalty" -- traits that can be perceived to be lacking in liberals. Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 22, 2006 at 8:11 AM | PERMALINKThe notion that in order to point out that the president is committed to an indefinite, perhaps permanent occupation is somehow weakened if you yourself don't present a withdrawal plan is silly. It doesn't matter what Harry Reid thinks should be done. He has no venue within which to execute any plan, and any ideas he has would neccessarily be insusbstantial. The key point here is the one made yesterday by Biden. Everyone disagrees with the administration. Everyone wants to get out, minimizing any additional damage to Iraq in doing so. Everyone as Biden said, except Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove. Posted by: jayackroyd on March 22, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINKPaulB: Bob, beginning to withdraw immediately is not the same thing as withdrawing immediately. McA implied the latter, which is a deliberate lie, something we have come to expect from our dear little troll friend. Murtha wants a phased withdrawal, as anyone who has actually listened to him would understand. Well said, PaulB, well said. I liked the Murtha plan when I heard it and I still do. Murtha isn't about abandoning Iraq but removing the counterproductive U.S. presence in a phased withdrawal to let the Iraqis take the lead as they gain their footing. We can redeploy on the fringes with the ability to send in quick strike forces ad hoc and perhaps a troop level in the north to help the Kurds if they so desire it. Listen to the field commanders and involve diplomacy for those affected in the region, for example, Turkey, would be a good thing. Of course, Murtha's recommendations and Dems offering a plan on Iraq now don't mean squat with the Bushies in charge. Yeah, sure. Repubs will marginalize anything Dems say. However, I do think it's important to talk to the liberal base to minimize voter disenfranchisement. Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 22, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINKCNN.com In the days of the Taliban, those promoting Christianity in Afghanistan could be arrested and those converting from Islam could be tortured and publicly executed. That was supposed to change after U.S.-led forces ousted the oppressive, fundamentalist regime, but the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing. Rahman, a father of two, was arrested and is on trial for rejecting Islam. The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty. Democracy and freedom on the march - Bush style. Why are we not surprised that Bush 43 is no different than Bush 41 when it comes to real democracy and real human rights. Bush 41: aided and abetted Saddam while he was gassing the Kurds, men, women, and children. Bush 43: aids and abets the Afghani regime with American blood while that regime executes Christians. The more things change, the more they stay the same. More proof that no Bush is or ever has been committed to anything other than himself or herself. Where are all the right wing Christians now? Huh? Where are they are why aren't they fuming at what is happening in Afghanistan? Faith as wide as the ocean but no deeper than a film of oil on that same ocean. The greatest right wing Christian fanatic values? Greed. Arrogance. Pride. Mendacity. Country before God. Bush before God. GOP before GOD. Their pocketbook before God. Posted by: Advocate for God on March 22, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINKOT: I'm watching Harper's editor Lewis Lapham on C-SPAN. The topic is his essay, The Case For Impeachment. An excerpt can be read online here. I'm a bit surprised at how many of the call-ins agree with Lapham's POV! Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 22, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINKYes it is a pity that you view Harry Reid as your brightest leader. Since there are so few to choose from I guess the curve, or bar is fairly low. As for ending the war. The president was simply saying the next president (another Republican) will be there to help complete this countries total tranformation into a Democratic Nation. Posted by: daveyo on March 22, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINKBush's plan? Hand off to the next guy. A strategy to be proud of. Posted by: Ace Franze on March 22, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINKJames of DC: You need to blog on Kevin Philips’ new book, Kevin. As a former Republican who has been right about nearly everything, when he says the Republican party is all about corralling the world’s oil, you have to listen. Yes, yes, yes! Saw Phillips on CNN/Lou Dobbs on Monday and as Lou called his book, a brand new very- important book, that is "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century." Transcript link on the interview is here. A book review in the NYTimes is here . I recommend clicking the links. I'm getting the book. Good morning. daveyo, a Democratic Nation, with initial caps and everything! Excellent parody of a mindless rube. Ace, the most amazing thing of the past few months has been the Bush administration's willingness to come right out and say, "We don't fucking care what the citizens of the U.S. think. Fuck you." They've always been open about screwing their constituencies, but they used to at least use flowery doublespeak about it. Now their "strategy" appears to be making announcements that will excite the slavering, glassy-eyed 30-something percent while solidifying the rest of the country's and world's hatred for them. Does Bush's anger at being questioned run this deep? Or is the bubble just too thick? My money's on the "Grab what you can, boys; the gravy train is finally leaving the station" theory. Posted by: shortstop on March 22, 2006 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINKadvocate, I see your ass is wide open today with the shit flowing as usual. Executing Christians has been an on-going problem in Afghanistan for centuries, yet now that it might happen under GW's watch, your concerned. Fuck you, you don't give a fuck about that christian man, you only give a fuck about making the US administration look bad about it. You only care about yourself and your selfish, self-important brain dead agenda, exactly what you blame GW about. Rather hypocritical isn't it? Just admit it, you are defeated, you have become the terrorists bitch, wanting to to pull out at all costs because it's too hard and there is no way we can win, right? What an inspiration you've become to the people who still live under oppression. They're certainly convinced now that if you're in charge, they're fucked. Let the terrorists sort out the problems of the middle east, because advocate and the left doesn't have a clue, a plan or the guts to do anything about it. Bush's plan? Hand off to the next guy. A strategy to be proud of. But entirely in keeping with his trajectory of failing upward again and again - and being bailed out by Daddy's friends' - even as the scale of the failures escalate into the truly catastrophic as is the case currently. And exactly who has the wherewithal this time around to bail GWB out of this mess created by his own willful detachment from reality? Against the backdrop of a $9,000,000,000,000 debt? ... Such external dependency of any nation is simply without precedent in the annals of globalization and international finance." Stephen Roach - Morgan Stanley Typical Apollo, avoiding the real problem. Try reading, or writing a book about Islamic Theocracy; The Peril and Politics of a Radical Religion. Now that book would be much more relevant in today's world, I guess only for those though that don't have their heads firmly planted in the collective left's ass. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINKJay 1.0: Executing Christians has been an on-going problem in Afghanistan for centuries... Jay 1.1: wanting to to pull out at all costs because it's too hard and there is no way we can win, right? Gee Jay, it sounds like you think GW and crew can change that centuries-old tradition in a few short years. Yup, no problem. We'll definitely succeed where generations of occupiers, from Alexander the Great, through the British, and up throught the Soviets failed. If you believe that, then fine. Just show us the PLAN. What the fuck is the PLAN? Is the PLAN to just support KARZAI, who's as crooked as a politician can get? Who could care less if Christians get executed? If not, then please detail this plan. And hectoring others who fail to see this plan, since GW has never really put one out - for Afghanistan or Iraq. Until yesterday. The new plan is to just dump these nascent caliphates on the next president. Wow. What a fucking plan. Tell you what Jay - when you and the rest of the Bush disciples formulate a plan, come back and tell us. Until then, stop with the sophmoric tripe about "siding with the terrorists" just because we don't believe the shit that Bush is shoveling. Posted by: NSA Mole on March 22, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINKJay, If I get in a whack-a-troll mood, I'll be back to expose your lunacy. Why don't you go see a psychotherapist? You need lots of help. Get some. Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 22, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINKNSA, typical fucking bullshit from the brain dead left. No plan? A freely elected democratic government in Afghanistan for the first time EVER, with votes and support from the women of the country. That right there is better than any plan the left has ever come with for anything. So unless and until the left gets a fucking clue about stemming the tide of Islamic Theocracy; The Peril and Politics of a Radical Religion, than we'll talk. Until then, keep your mindless comments directed towards your choir. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINKThat's exactly what happens to me too when the left talks, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Good night and good luck Apollo. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINKAl said he would be my boyfriend but he's way too old. Icky! Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINKThat's exactly what happens to me too when the left talks, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Unless you lie, then leaving this blog is the proper response. Buh-bye. Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 22, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINKWhen I'm not reading about Islamic Theocracy I like to look at the kid's undewear pages in my Sears catalog. I don't even care if they're Muslims. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINKLet me preface my comment by stating I'm a Liberal and proud of it. Generally speaking, I'm against foreign interventions and wary of the ideology of spreading democracy by force. However - I think that we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to leave them with something better than they had before we came or endure a war worse than we have trying to do so. As Colin Powell said, "you broke it, you fix it." (Too bad he didnt have the courage to resign for this and other convictions) I feel ashamed of the way my country leaps into wars and then has few qualms about pulling out when the going gets tough and leaving the mess behind to fix itself. I'm not quite sure at what level of loss and expense I would advocate our leaving, but honestly, it would be a lot closer to that of the Vietnam War. It's just our moral responsibility to stay. And beyond that - we ought to be willing to step up the conflict and institute a draft. If, as a nation, we were willing to face our true moral responsibilities in this conflict, maybe next time we would think longer and harder about starting a war in the first place. Posted by: phlsphr on March 22, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINKWell I see the mindless liberals, void of any coherent debate or plan, have now fallen back on personal attacks. Well Done, you are certainly positioned to lose yet another election. Fucking mindless idiots, it's really too bad your mothers didn't choose abortion. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINKInstead of "open-ended," why not simply "endless" or "never-ending"? Posted by: ZakAttack on March 22, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINKMy mommy had an abortion. She named it Jay. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINKWaaah! Mommy, the bad policeman was mean to me when he caught me with my hand down my pants at the park. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINKphlsphr, nice post. We probably disagree on some issues, but that is one of the more reasonable liberal posts I've read. We've accomplished a lot in three years and it is time to let the Iraqi's start taking care of Iraq. A Senate delgation is in Iraq now and have been told that a permanent government could be in place within 30-45 days. Considering that the Iraqi military now controls over 50% of the country and projected to be 75% by the end of summer, hopefully at that time we can begin to bring our troops home. At that point then I think we can definitely say that we succeeded. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINKKevin, I see the pedophile Cut 'N Run Jay is back to his defense of cutting and running. Shorter Cut 'N Run Jay: Run away! Run away! Posted by: Stefan on March 22, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINKIraqi police uniforms turn me on. My friend, Jeffy Gannon, is going to set up an Iraqi Police website where you can see photos of me and him prancing around in them. I like Jeffy but he's too old for me too. We will have all the fun of wearing the nifty uniforms though and taking turns playing Torturer and Prisoner. This is a lot less icky then actually joining the army or the police. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINKStefan: Shorter Cut 'N Run Jay: Run away! Run away! LOL! Inspired Monty Python. Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 22, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINKShit-for-brains Steffy, I know it's hard for you (no pun intended) to tell the difference but gradually bringing troops home this summer when the permenent government is in place and the Iraqi's control over 75% of their country, that's called victory. That's a word liberals are unfamiliar with and rightly so because you are all LOSERS. Posted by: Jay on March 22, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINKSpank me, liberals! Spank me, please. Posted by: Jay's ass on March 22, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINKCut 'N Run Jay at 9:46 AM: Just admit it, you are defeated, you have become the terrorists bitch, wanting to to pull out at all costs because it's too hard and there is no way we can win, right? What an inspiration you've become to the people who still live under oppression. They're certainly convinced now that if you're in charge, they're fucked. Let the terrorists sort out the problems of the middle east, because advocate and the left doesn't have a clue, a plan or the guts to do anything about it. Cut 'N Run Jay at 10:23 AM: We've accomplished a lot in three years and it is time to let the Iraqi's start taking care of Iraq....hopefully at that time we can begin to bring our troops home. Just admit it, you are defeated, you have become the terrorists' bitch, wanting to to pull out of Iraq at all costs because it's too hard and there is no way we can win, right? What an inspiration you've become to the Iraqi people who still live under oppression. They're certainly convinced now that if you're in charge, they're fucked. Let the terrorists sort out the problems of Iraq, because Cut 'N Run Jay and the Right don't have a clue, a plan or the guts to do anything about it. We've accomplished a lot in three years and it is time to let the Iraqi's start taking care of Iraq. A Senate delgation is in Iraq now and have been told that a permanent government could be in place within 30-45 days. Considering that the Iraqi military now controls over 50% of the country and projected to be 75% by the end of summer, hopefully at that time we can begin to bring our troops home. At that point then I think we can definitely say that we succeeded. Well, that sounds like a reasonable plan. Is it Bush's plan? We don't know. Why? Because he isn't saying. And why is that? Because it would help the enemy? And which enemy? The insurgents or the Democrats? My personal guess is that he wants to spring the withdrawal on the country as an "October surprise" for this years election. And he'll find some excuse to say "things are better than I thought they would be". Good news! Bush has used National Security and foreign policy as a political tool far too much. Our doubt and cynicism about the president's pronouncements and moves are a direct result of that. And his deceptions. As you sow, so shall you reap I'm not quite sure at what level of loss and expense I would advocate our leaving, but honestly, it would be a lot closer to that of the Vietnam War. You mean, at the point where we've killed 2-3 million Iraqis rather than just several hundred thousand? Posted by: Stefan on March 22, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK | |
