There's a pretty big difference between a US-proposed timetable and an Iraqi one. The first sends the message that we are not willing to see this struggle through to the end and/or have no faith in the Iraqi government. Accepting the second would send the opposite message; that we respect Iraq's sovereignty and that they are, ultimately, in control of their own future. Bush should accpet the plan while at the same time making it clear that we would be willing to stay if the nation of Iraq changed its mind.

President Bush would be flatly insane to turn this opportunity down.

Yeah, and...?

He can't agree to this - this is Iraq cutting and running!

Bush does want to stay for the rest of his administration. Leaving=losing in his mind. If he's clever, he'll finesse the whole thing with months, if not years, of negotiations over the timetable. Then the terms of the timetable will be so vague, it will be difficult to tell when they're met. Then he will be out of office and the whole thing will be sonme other shlub's problem.

and he would rather chew off his own big toe than do anything that might turn down the volume on the domestic partisan jihad that's been so politically successful for Republicans ever since 9/11.

By the way, in case any conservatarians care, this is precisely why I am a Bush hater. He could have used 9/11 to unite the country, but instead specifically and deliberatly chose to use it to aid the Republican party.

Union bashing in the dept of homeland security, anyone? This war isn't about democracy or oil or terrorism - it's about holding power in the US by shouting "treason" at every opportunity.

Fuck him, and fuck them.

Conversely, if he resists it, it would be hard not to conclude that he was doing so solely because a "broad, conditions-based timetable" also happens to be exactly the position of the vast majority of the Democratic Party...

Or to conclude that certain parties never plan to leave. We should not attribute this disinclination to depart Iraq solely to domestic politics. "Cutting and running" is a useful club to use domestically, but on a global powermongering scale, they have reasons to stay as well.

I can't help but notice that Kevin is back to supporting anonymous sources. Anyway, this is a good opportunity. A negotiated timetable sounds like a win for everybody. I can't help but notice that it will also be good for the republican party, because when this works, it'll prove that Bush was right to try to bring democracy to the middle east all along. Curiously, the Democrats not-so-secretly cheering for the US to lose has resulted in the situation where anything Iraq related is good for the GOP, because the left simply can't be trusted with it.

Iraqi sponsored "cut and run" strategy...Wow...! I guess the new government isn't playing by "the book"

President Bush would be flatly insane to turn this opportunity down.

Except that they have repeatedly staked out their partisan political position that any timetable is a victory for the terrorists and a defeatest approach. If you buy what Karl Rove and Andrew Sullivan recently said, a timetable means all you have left is hoping for catastrophe or is that only if the Democrats support it?

Wow. This is the first sign of hope from Iraq in a long time. The Shia and Kurdish leaders seem serious about brining the country together, although absent a firm date for withdrawal, I question whether Sunni will embrace it (to say nothing of Bush). One of the problems for the Democrats is that among the "other things" that Kevin refers to is a provision, "Recognizing the legitimacy of the national resistance and differentiating or separating it from terrorism." Got that? It doesn't merely grant amnesty to people who have killed Americans, it's grants them legitimacy. No American politician will accept this, so my question is: will it be possible to support the withdrawal provision while rejecting the "resistance" provision or will they get lumped together, allowing Bush to oppose the reconciliation plan.

dj moonbat gets it...
"Or to conclude that certain parties never plan to leave."
It is the REAL cause for this 'war' ... enduring bases, projection of power in the M.E. - without stepping on Bandar's toes.
Don't. you. get. it. yet?

I predicted this six months ago, that the left would be declaring victory in Iraq when the gradual withdrawal begins. For all of you mental midgets, this is so consistent with what GW has been saying since the beginning, that when the Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down. A conditions based withdrawal plan is exactly the same thing, whhen the Iraq's are ready we will go home.

If you think that the voting public will somehow be hoodwinked into thinking that the left made this happen, you're all more stupid than I previously thought. And that says a lot.

President Bush would be flatly insane to turn this opportunity down

What leads you to believe the President is the person who would make this call? The Vice-President and his handlers just the other day told you that any timetable equates to the white flag of surrender.

Chicken-hawks never put up a white flag...it may cost them an election or two...

Couldn't a halfway competent Democratic party seize on this? "See, the Iraqi government agrees with us, there needs to be a withdrawal plan and not this vague 'stay the course' stuff. We've offered two plans, the Republicans have killed them - we're the party that can work with the Iraqis to successfully conclude the war and bring the troops home."

The left knows very well that they lost miserably on the Iraq issue and are now trying like hell to save face by trying to establish a withdrawal plan that sounds different than GW's and attempting to do an about face on supporting the Iraqi democracy. Rememeber, it wasn't too long ago that the left said that democracy would never work in the ME, specifically Iraq.

The reason Bush went into Iraq is to establish a permanent presence there. Period. It's going to be very interesting to see how they try to get around this agreement. Because they will not abandon their goal, no matter what.

It'll be fun watching their true agenda unmasked.

Maliki plan: cut and stay.

No, cragie. The left has used 9/11 to bash everything about America and GW that they possibly could. Harboring deep resentment that they are no longer the party in power, the left has resorted to throwing a temper tantrum.

The entire far left are nothing more than children with no vision, no core values, no optimism, no platform and no integrity. Hopefully they'll grow up one day.

"Recognizing the legitimacy of the national resistance and differentiating or separating it from terrorism." Got that? It doesn't merely grant amnesty to people who have killed Americans, it's grants them legitimacy.

Uh...19 Republican Senators already voted for this position? What makes you think they will back off now?

Jay, are you 13 years old? You sound like one of those bitter teen GOP virgins who has to wear a tie to school guaranteeing a girl will not talk to you.

Unable to debate the points made, because they are all true, Yaj resorts to personal attacks and exemplifies someone who is more stupid than I thought. Well done Yaj.

Bush could decide tomorrow to withdraw all US forces out of Iraq pronto and the Bushists would simply re-initialize their hard drives to forget everything they ever said about "Cutting and runing."

It'll be like the Dept of Homeland Security all over again. Remember Bush initially opposed that - and so did his amen chorus. Then Bush changed his mind - and not only did Bushists do a complete about-face, they retroactively decided it had been his idea in the first place.

Bushists have no rudders. Their only guiding light is Bush - and that, only because he perfectly embodies their own love of bombast, bragadoccio, and bullies.

Did you get that? No one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable.

The disagreement occurs when you resolve the phrase "conditions-based timetable". Do the conditions have to preced the times, or can the times precede the conditions? If the former, you have Bush's plan; if the latter you have Kerry's (more or less). And of course, there is the detail of the list of conditions in the former case, andthe list of times in the latter case.

Hoepfully, the Iraqis will now debate these details in their media and in their legislature.

Ah, the many faces of the hack troll.

I can't help but notice that Kevin is back to supporting anonymous sources.

Translation: Here's an opportunity to smear a liberal for no apparent reason for some imagined offense and see if it sticks.

Anyway, this is a good opportunity. A negotiated timetable sounds like a win for everybody.

Translation - Scholars differ, but take your pick from:
This was our idea all along. We never said we were against a timetable. We just never knew the Iraqis were interested in it. When we heard the Iraqi vice president and president had asked for one a couple weeks ago, we just figured that was the MSM being unfair and unbalanced. I mean, consider the source, people!
OR
This negotiated timetable is sensible, unlike your idea of a negotiated timetable leading to a cut-and-run.

I can't help but notice that it will also be good for the republican party, because when this works, it'll prove that Bush was right to try to bring democracy to the middle east all along. Curiously, the Democrats not-so-secretly cheering for the US to lose has resulted in the situation where anything Iraq related is good for the GOP, because the left simply can't be trusted with it.

Translation: In fact, I'll go so far as to say this new-fangled idea of a negotiated timetable goes farther than merely a retreat. It is, in fact, God's hand on earth. It is democracy in action and further proof that He has anointed Us as His messengers. Unlike your "cut-and-run" negotiated timetable.

Jay:

"The left knows very well that they lost miserably on the Iraq issue and are now trying like hell to save face by trying to establish a withdrawal plan that sounds different than GW's and attempting to do an about face on supporting the Iraqi democracy."

Thanks, Jay. I was worried GW didn't have a clue, let alone a plan.

And I was worried Bush had lost support of the American people. Guess I can disregard all these polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Must be the work of America-haters...

I'm relieved...

I would pay good money to watch President Bush chew off his own big toe. GOOD money.

Desperation is setting in on the left. Whenever we begin to come home (again, because of the success of the Iraqi gov't and military) the left will attempt to frame it as Cutting and running. They are soooo predictable.

btw, DHS is mainly another huge gov't beauracracy proposed by the left that was initially opposed by GW and still opposed by many conservatives. FEMA use to be a fairly agile agency until it was put inder the DHS umbrella. However, it is still NOT DESIGNED to be a first responder. Many on the left still fail to recognize that. Of course they fail to recognize even their own party members (lieberman) so why should I be surprised.

Yes friend, you should disregard the polls considering your huge embarassments of relying on those polls in '00, '02, and '04. I would think you would have learned that by now.

chimpy aint leavin iraq. they went for the oil and they are NOT leaving under ANY circumstances.

They have build 17 PERMANENT MILIARY BASES there.

oh

and he aint leavin office in 2008 either

Wait a minute here. Do I see Republicans discussing and supporting WITHDRAWL PLANS now? Is this part of the Bush playbook? The Dems offer proposals for withdrawl, hinging on the idea that Iraqis need to take control of their own affairs and Republicans vote against it. Now, Iraqis propose a withdrawl plan--one that, if you read the article, Americans over there are somewhat predisposed to--and Republicans are all for it. Talk about face saving garbage.

Is it all just pure politics, or is it just me?

Glad to know the polls are nothing but a pack of lies, or worse - products of liberal bias.

As I recall, polls in '00, '02, '04 were all within the margin of error (and of course, Gore did win the popular vote); but these half-dozen polls show disapproval outpacing approval (on Bush's handling of the war) by a range of 15% to 28%. I'm happy I can just toss them out.

I'm not sure what gives you such a sense of certainty, but perhaps you could bottle it and get it patented.

Lets hear it for the silent majority!

KC read my earlier posts. GW has had a withdrawal plan from the begining, remember? "When the Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down." That IS a broad conditions based withdrawal plan and is exactly what Maliki is saying, that when he feels they are standing up, we will come home.

I knew six months ago that when this happened, the left would try to frame it as their victory. Pathetic really.

Here's Jay:

Slogans are reality. Deal with it.

The silent majority is not your friend; much more conservative than you think. LOL.

There were polls that were all over the map in those aforementioned years. The polls that the left used to refer to were those claiming a sure victory for Gore/Dem. Representatives/Kerry. (of course the right would use the opposite polls) Point is the left leans on the polls far too much and far too often. Remember the '04 "exit" polls, hell Kerry was writing his acceptance speech and I will point out GW won the popular vote by more than 3.5 million (not the 500,000 Gore won by).

I take all polls with a huge grain of salt, there is too much inherent bias. Though if you like polls, wait til you see the polls for GW when our troops are back home and Iraq is standing on its own.

Jay,

"When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" is a catchphrase. An example of a plan would be: "When the Iraqis are capable of this specific thing, we will withdraw this specific number of troops."

I've heard no such thing from any Republican in Washington.

Jay, talk about not being able to stick to the topic. What does exit polls have to do with anything?

You take FAR too many cues from talk radio hosts in your pathetic attempts at debate. Just because you talk louder and faster does not make your arguement more valid.

The White House is already hinting at rejecting this plan and at least one Iraqi official has said there is no "finite" timetable being proposed:

Will Maliki Call for a Withdrawl Timetable?

.

Though if you like polls, wait til you see the polls for GW when our troops are back home and Iraq is standing on its own.

And wait until you see the polls when Cheney's hand-chosen team of Italian-shotgun-toting commandos locates and takes out the Al Qaeda Zombie Brigade guarding the underground bunker full of WMDs!

I am surprised they haven't told you that by now zeeeej. Because that's the type of specific information the jihadists could act on. You should write your representative and tell him that YOU want more specific information.

It is a broad "conditions" based plan and those "conditions" have measurements, they're just not widely known for reasons that should be obvious.

Does sarin gas not register on your radar? Granted it's an old story and there were only 500 shells, but that is technically WMD. 500 shells of mustard gas can kill A LOT of people.

The question of whether the Bush admin will accept these proposals is moot. The insurgents will not accept the proposals unless the constitution that sells off Iraq's resources is rescinded. Since there is no hope that the present government of Iraq will negotiate on these terms, the proposals are doomed from the start.

No, cragie. The left has used 9/11 to bash everything about America and GW that they possibly could. Harboring deep resentment that they are no longer the party in power, the left has resorted to throwing a temper tantrum.

Ha! I get it now - "Jay" is a Turing machine. But it doesn't pass the test!

It all makes sense now...

How is anyone louder on a blogsite?

I'll try and keep it down.

But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during theIran -Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

Asked about the potential danger to U.S. troops, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said: "They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found."

The newly declassified military intelligence report was released Wednesday by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. Santorum and Hoekstra had urged him to release report this week during congressional debates on Iraq.
The senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee questioned the timing of the report's release. "What worries me is that the intelligence community — Ambassador Negroponte in particular — may be playing a partisan role in the 2006 election," California Rep. Jane Harman

article here

Jay, most kids are outside playing today, with their families and friends and, oops, sorry, nevermind...I forgot, my apologies

I agree with Mario's comment up top the thread, that this proposal coming from the Iraqis is different than coming from us, and is A Good Thing.

But I also wanted to mention that the term "conditions-based timetable" is a stupid one. Is it conditions-based? Or time-based?

Ladies and Gentlemen, you have just witnessed left spin, congratulations burgman. It's no secret that those shells were old, expired and probably worthless nor is it any debate that this is a "new" story, I believe having been found months ago. However, sarin gas IS WMD and 500 shelss could kill a lot of people.

This is an example of the left trying to save face after having painted themselves in a corner by screaming about the absence of WMD for years. And is the same has them trying to claim partial victory in Iraq by calling the conditions based plan "cut and run". Pathetic really.

The phrase "mentally ill" just begins to scratch the surface with Jay here.

I've been travelling of late so the unified Republican opposition to any kind of time-table for withdrawal seems to have come out of the blue. Last I checked--a couple of weeks ago--the Republicans were squabbling among themselves almost as badly as the Democrats.

Then, suddenly, a new steely resolve emerges: the Republicans will not absolutely never, ever "cut and run"! New claims are made that link Iraq and Al Qaeda. Suddenly, we again hear that the US has found WMD! GWB takes a surprise photo op to Baghdad.

Curious minds wonder where all this energy is coming from.

So I ask myself, what are the odds that the Iraqi government could draft a national reconciliation plan calling for US withdrawal without Bushco being fully aware of it???

In other words, the new Republican resolve is political posturing based on foreknowledge. They score political points by working themselves into a lather of resolve, and then score bonus points by graciously acceding to the request to withdraw made by the Democratically elected, fully functioning Iraqi government. You see, we told you that "Freedom is on the March!!"

Jay says that "When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." It has been over three years and one Iraqi company is able to stand on their own. How long should the U.S. wait? Five years? Do I hear ten years? How about twenty or fifty years? Or is the wait never ending? Ther have been over 2500 Americans killed in a war that was based on the premise that a third world country actually posed some kind of legitimate threat, via WMD, to this country. That allegation has been proven to be demonstrably false. What has not been proven to be false is that there are over 18,000 Americans grievously wounded in this idiotic occupation of Iraq, with many of them returning to this country missing an arm and/or a leg, suffering a fractured skull, paralyzed from the waist down, third degree burns over their body, eyes which can no longer see, psychological trauma brought about by the horror of war. This, apparently, is quite acceptable to Jay as long as the Iraqis still do not have the ability to "stand up". It is long past the point for U.S. troops to return to this country unharmed and for the Iraqis to control their own destiny. As Congressman Murtha has repeatedly taken pains to point out, along with such independent journalists such as Dahr Jamail and Nir Rosen, it is the presence of the belligerent U.S. military that is roiling the insurgents. As Rosen, who has spent close to two years in Iraq, has pointed out in a 2005 issue of The Atlantic, "If the occupation were to end, so, too, would the insurgency. After al, what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left?" All the more reason to bring those troops home as rapidly as possible.

Understand something: What Maliki will propose is entirely different than the Bush approach -- including Casey's new drawdown plans that are just up on the NYT website. That approach is conditions-based.

Maliki's approach is a *hard* timetable, guaranteed by the UN and unconditional. It is close in spirit to Kerry's proposal, and probably would receive strong support from the Iraqi public.

Whether he can sit down and hammer this out with all the factions is another matter, of course -- but don't confuse this with the Bush/GOP "conditions-based" (read: open-ended) committment.

Bob

Jay is the most pathetic troll I've ever seen on this site. He can't seem to stay on topic or figure out what he's trying to say. Not surprising for a middle school kid, but very much out of place here.

Hush, now, Jay. Adults are speaking.

The problem is that the Iraqi Army is NOT ready now, nor will they likely ever be ready to operate without US forces leading the fight against the Sunni insurgency. US forces are still doing the lions share of the heavy lifting over there. Iraqi Army operations of more PR than anything else... The Iraqi government is actually pretty impotent everywhere but the Green Zone, lawlessness and sectarian violence are on the increase throughout Iraq, even in areas once deemed 'safe', i.e. Basra. The Sunni insurgency will not stop fighting until they achieve what they consider victory (basically a Sunni dominated Iraq once again) because to them death is preferable to being relegated to 2nd-class status with no economic or political clout... Iraq is basically a house of cards without US forces. Thats the reality

Jay is the most pathetic troll I've ever seen on this site.

That's because he is a write-only program. It doesn't much matter what you say - "Jay" can't read or process it. It just squawks out the talking points, interspersed with "bwak! Polly wants a cracker! Baawk!"

Regardless of what Bush's initial goals were, things have gone so badly that I can't imagine that he could pass up on this golden opportunity to declare victory and cut and run. Al-Maliki gets to buy himself some goodwill, some time, and some credibility as the person who is getting the Americans to leave, and the political process is seen to accomplish more than endless street-fighting and suicide-bombing. No actual dates are fixed so al-Maliki doesn't actually have to forego American support just yet. If this actually works to bring a reasonable end to the Iraq mess, then it's worthwhile, even if Bush wins some unearned credit as a result.

I am surprised they haven't told you that by now zeeeej. Because that's the type of specific information the jihadists could act on. You should write your representative and tell him that YOU want more specific information.

It is a broad "conditions" based plan and those "conditions" have measurements, they're just not widely known for reasons that should be obvious.

Oh, it's a secret plan! So secret it's hidden in a place impossible to find - with the WMDs.

Let's see if I got this right:

Bush is expertly implementing a well-designed exit strategy, only I don't know about it, even though I feel entitled to it as a liberal. Nobody else does either, but they don't dare ask because it might empower the jihadists. Not me though; I want the plan so I can reveal its every detail to the world because I hate Bush and by extension America (because real Americans love Bush) and therefore want all of our troops to die horrible deaths.

The White House has no plan for Iraq, beyond slogans. They were convinced they could flip off the rest of the world and get away with it. It didn't work. Now they will allow our country to suffer any damage to its economy, its military, its unity and its reputation, as long as it means they won't risk looking weak as a consequence. They will call this strategy "Stay the Course."

Most Americans realize this on some level. But you're too busy in your GOP jersey and elephant hat cheering them on to notice.

if he resists it, it would be hard not to conclude that he was doing so solely because a "broad, conditions-based timetable" also happens to be exactly the position of the vast majority of the Democratic Party — and he would rather chew off his own big toe than do anything that might turn down the volume on the domestic partisan jihad that's been so politically successful for Republicans

It's already hard not to conclude that.

Also, what craigie said at 3:58 PM.

82ndAbnVet:

Well, the iraqi government is pretty impotent in the Green Zone as well ...

I think you're marginally wrong, though. The Sunni insurgency *is* losing a little steam; what's happening is that the conflict is widening into an endless vicious cycle of vengance killings -- like the execution of one of Saddam's defense lawyers by the (Shi'ite, Mokatada-controlled) Mahdi Army, and the bombing yesterday of a Sunni mosque.

If it simply were a matter of delegitimating a single faction that's causing all the trouble -- say, the tikfiris inspired by Zarqawi, or even these combined with the Sunni rejectionists -- it might actually be possible to win this thing militarily.

In about 10 or 15 years, like with most insurgencies that pan out for the occupying power ...

But it's not. It's becoming every day a bit more like Bosnia -- and the more that happens, the more our military presence supporting a Shi'ite-controlled government becomes counterproductive.

Bob

Mokatada = Moktada

and he would rather chew off his own big toe

Too Jonah Lucianne Golbergian (non)humor.

I think that Joe Biden (not that I'm a huge fan or anything) summed it up beautifully:

The GOP is totally united behind a failed policy.

Bob

OK, I agree, as long as the timetable is less than a year.

Jay:

Even if those 500 decaying mustard gas and sarin shells were anything more than old news -- i.e. even if they were still usable (which nobody believes they are) -- there's a still a big question whether chemical weapons, nasty as they are, truly qualify as being called weapons of mass destruction.

They're battlefield munitions. Their effects are not pleasant -- but so is, umm, being shelled with white phosphorus (where, you know, your skin melts off your body) or napalm. But once discharged, their effects don't linger.

Weaponized anthrax, botulism, smallpox -- even a bunch of medical radwaste stuffed around an artillery shell -- are what qualify as bona-fide WMD. They hang around in the environment.

Bob

Why should we assume the Bush/Cheney administration wants to withdraw from Iraq?

It's a bottomless sinkhole into which they can throw taxpayer dollars, many of which go to their friends and clients in private industry, while all the while saddling the government with increasingly insupportable debt, which makes those pesky Social Security and Medicare programs less and less viable as time goes on.

End result is, the politically-connected rich get richer, average Americans get worse off, and it goes on indefinitely. A Republican's dream.

One fatal mistake in analyzing Republican action is to to assume that Republicans, in common with most other Americans, want to see their country succeed. They do not. The only concern of Republicans is that they hold power and that their contributors get richer. If the country has to go down the tubes in order to abet those goals, Republicans don't care.

Why get out of Iraq when the ongoing quagmire is making so many Republican-connected firms rich?

There would be no loss of face and no loss of national honor.

Unfortunately, this is not a matter of saving face or maintaining honor. Iraq is and will be a disaster no matter what the United States now does or does not do.

Those who say that staying in Iraq would be a disaster are correct. However, those who say 'cut and running' would be a disaster are also correct.

It is much like arguing whether Napoleon, in 1812, was correct in retreating from Moscow ( cut and running ) or whether he should have toughed it out ( stay the course ).

vanessa:

While these sorts of views are always tempting (like the notion that the Bush Administration knew about 9/11 beforehand and chose not to do anything about it), I've never been able to get quite so cynical about what motivates Bush and the GOP. Remember, KBR (the division of Haliburton in Iraq) has been losing money since the war began, and Halliburton's been trying to sell it off. My read is more modest, and here are some of the main factors that I believe are motivating them:

1) A profound lack of understanding about both the Mideast and what it takes to allow democracy to flourish.

2) A grotesquely arrogant sense of American exceptionalism -- that no matter what happens, we're always the good guys in the world.

3) A belief that being the world's only superpower liberates us from playing by international rules -- because rules are written for the weaker parties.

4) A need to secure the Iraqi oil supply for the immediate future -- not to "steal it" from Iraqis but to make it available on the world market -- because of impending Peak Oil.

5) A sense at this point that to begin to disengage will dishonor the sacrifice of all those killed in the war, not to mention to declare all the billions of dollars spent wasted. (This is the same dynamic that keeps completely hopeless pork barrel projects going, btw.)

6) Bill Clinton's chesnut (which may be less true than we all seem to think) that the American people prefer a policy that's "strong and wrong" to one that's "weak and right" (not that I personally believe that a firm anti-Iraq war position is weak -- especially if it's unpopular).

Bob

I find it odd too, that this Newsweek story comes out the same day the NYTimes reports that General Casey is discussing troop draw downs. Boy, are those Dems all about cutting and running!

KC:

Well, again, remember that the distinction is between a conditional drawdown which might never happen if the violence never recedes and the ISF don't get their acts together (Bush, Casey, GOP) and an unconditional withdrawal to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government and allow it to develop popular legitimacy (Maliki, Kerry).

Bob

Why should we believe the Iraqis will "stand up" any more than the South Vietnamese "stood up?" Sorry, folks, but the history of the Middle East does not give me a damn bit of confidence that any of this will turn out in some predictable fashion.....10 years from now we will still be dealing with the side-effects of this little experiment.....

82ndAbnVet: "Iraq is basically a house of cards without US forces. That's the reality."

That's what I believe as well. This reality continues to be the problem, with or without withdrawal plans. If the US leaves a power vacuum, then the house of cards fall down in a very messy way. Or the US stays with no end in sight, and that is just as messy.

So what do you make of the rumors of the the Maliki proposal? One of my speculations is that the Shiite's want the US out exactly because the US forces are preventing a bloodbath. The new government offers "anmesty" to the Sunnis--if they don't accept, then the Shiite government can crack down on the Sunnis in as vicious and bloodbathy a way as they want, possibly with Iranian support.

Iraqi sponsored "cut and run" strategy...Wow...! I guess the new government isn't playing by the Bushie "book"

I think it is important to note, as the following passage from the Times article makes clear, that BushCo, through Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad, had a hand in the negotiating this deal.

It builds on months of secret talks involving Jalal al-Talabani, the Iraqi President, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, and seven Sunni insurgent groups.

I see three possibilities as to whether this is a deal that BushCo wanted. The first possibility is that Khalilzad struck the deal on his own and against BushCo policy. I think this is unlikely since he has strong Neocon credentials: doctorate in political science University of Chicago, worked under Wolfowitz in Reagan and Bush I, signed the open letter to Clinton from the PNAC, worked with Cheney during Gulf War I,…..

The second possibility is that BushCo sees the writing on the wall and wants to withdrawal. This deal gives them the cover they need. However, this is hard to reconcile with BushCo’s construction of permanent bases in Iraq.

This leads to the third possibility which is Khalilzad couldn’t control the terms of the deal. If this is the case, it would shed new light on Bush’s sneak trip to Baghdad. He may have tried to head off the deal by going face to face with the Iraqis.

Cheney and John Bolton’s reactions to the deal will tell us if it is door two or door three. I am pretty sure it’s not door one, but if it is, their reaction will be the same as if it is door three.

"anything Iraq related is good for the GOP"

Boy, that's some mighty good analysis there, Mr. American Hawk! Your job at Fox News awaits.

Sorry I haven't addressed you earlier zeeej but the left begins to sound like a broken record and I tend nod off after a while.

"The WH has no plan for Iraq........"

OK maybe I am the only one who watched three successful elections form the current permanently elected gov't who wrote and voted on the countries new constitution, Saddam on trial and the recruitment and training of what is now a 250,000+ military/security force soon capable enough that our troops will be heading home.

What was your plan again?

PTate:

I don't know if it breaks down quite that cleanly. I think the extent of ordinary Iraqis wanting us to leave soon breaks down according to whether our military is being a help or a hindrance in their local security situation, and that not only varies widely by region, but also according to our shifting tactical deployments.

I think that Iraqis *in government* generally by and large support our presence, because we're the only force capable of providing security in the Green Zone and the ministry areas of Baghdad. To the extent that you have your life invested in being a bureaucrat is a bigger variable than what sect you are in whether you support us.

I think by and large there are more Shia as a percentage who support the occupation than Sunnis, because our overall goal is supporting a government that's largely Shia. Sestani has been more supportive of the occupation than any Sunni imam.

This being said, there are certainly Sunni *areas* that currently depend on us to protect them from Shi'ite reprisal killings -- but that varies by locale and depends on the specific security situation. Still, *that* being said, I think it's fair to say that the largely Sunni Anbar Provence remains the most anti-US region of Iraq.

I don't think the militias -- Sunni, Shi'ite or Kurd -- support us much if at all. They feel they don't need us to protect them, and we're their strongest check on their power. I think the insurgency is split into two camps. I think whether Iraqi patriots or Sunni rejectionists, they legitimately want us to leave, the sooner the better -- both for the good reason that this is the natural reaction of a patriot to an occupation and the bad reason that their particular sect wants to dominate the country. I see the religious side of the insurgency -- especially the foreign fighters -- as paradoxically wanting us to stay as long as possible, because that serves their long-term goal of building a revolutionary Islamist movement by providing Iraq with a non-Islamic bogeyman.

So in sum: If you're a Kurd, you want us gone, tomorrow if not sooner. If you're a Shi'ite, you reluctantly tolerate our check on your militias because you know the country will be yours soon enough. If you're a Sunni, you're put in the horrible double-bind of needing us for protection while feeling the most humiliated by the occupation because it overthrew your former status as top dog.

If you're an Islamist fanatic -- or a common criminal, for that matter -- you simply thrive on the chaos the occupation creates.

Bob

Jay:

" ... soon capable enough ... "

Your 'plan' is based on wishful thinking.

The security forces have morphed into the new insurgency.

Bob

rmck1:

Your analygsis is grim, but it sounds plausible. What a terrible, terrible mess, eh? And to think that Bushco and its fanatics claim THIS is progress in the WOT.

rmck1's analysis is nothing more than one elites negative opinion of a people he deems incapable of peacefully governing themselves. This would also be another attempt of rmck1 saving face considering his previous posts claiming US efforts in Iraq to be an utter failure.

Well with Zarqawi dead, a permanent gov't in place, a military/security force gaining strength (notice rmck1's complete lack of confidence in their ability), and our troops soon to be gradually withdrawing, Iraq may be an utter victory.

and he aint leavin office in 2008 either
Posted by: marblex

I agree. I bet he won't leave until sometime around ohhhh...January 20th of 2009.

On a somewhat more serious note, if a representative Iraqi government asks us to leave, how can we reasonably refuse?

Jay, how many elections did they have in South Vietnam? How big (on paper) was the ARVN? Did any of it matter in the real world?

Jay:

First, Thanks muchly for mistaking me for a member of the "elite." Pretty heady compliment if you knew anything about my life :)

Mainly, though, I'd like you to riddle me this:

If the Iraqis are so capable of "peacefully governing themselves," they why, pray tell, are we occupying their country in the first place?

Of course if you got to the bottom of *that* one, your head would explode -- but seeing how it's so pointy, the mess would doubtless be well-contained :)

Bob

al-Maliki will disown this plan. If he refuses, several of his family members will disappear. Their corpses will be discovered later by American troops. Their deaths will appear to be the work of insurgents.

What was your plan again?

My plan is to do whatever I can to put actual patriots in Congress and the White House.

Jay:

On a less facetious note, of course I believe that the Iraqis are capable of peacefully governing themselves.

Why do you think I support a firm timetable for withdrawl -- if not for confidence in that very thing?

Otherwise, I'd be a ... neo-colonialist with a carefully concealed disdain for my poor brown brothers who seem to have such a difficulty protecting themselves.

You know ... like Bush and the GOP?

Bob

".....riddle me this."

What, are you the joker now?

No matter how many inane, old and tired questions you may pose rmck1, the Lefts position on Iraq may soon to be proven a complete and utter failure and the soon to be attempts of saving face by those responsible will be fun to watch.

rmck1, don't ever point to ones skin color as a point of identification. It clearly demonstrates your racism.

Gradual withdrawal is soon to happen. Broadcasting the specific events to happen and/or times would be foolish. Even Hillary is smarter than that.

"rmck1, don't ever point to ones skin color as a point of identification. It clearly demonstrates your racism."

Jay, you're in way over your head. You don't recognize sarcasm. This isn't your junior high listserve. You are a callow young fool. Please be quiet now. Adults are talking.

Bush of course has no plan to leave. The reason we invaded was to establish a permanent military presence in the country.

Bush has already stated that the decision to leave will be the next president's. Till that time, Iraq is stuck with us and we are stuck with Iraq.

What Maliki's plan will do, though, is affect the domestic debate going on this year. It becomes a harder job for the Reps to argue Dems want to "cut and run" when the Dem plan (generally, to get out sometime, sooner rather than later) matches the Iraqi government's.

Joel, obviously you're the one who doesn't get sarcasm. LOL.

btw, it's just the childish liberals talking, I know how easily confused you are.

"btw, it's just the childish liberals talking, I know how easily confused you are."

That's called projecting, Jay. I don't expect you to understand the term now, but maybe they'll explain it to you when you get to high school.

Moron.

JJF is the perfect example of the left now attempting to save face on the Iraq issue and the soon to be gradual withdrawal.

The plan all along has been "We will stand down when the Iraqi's stand up". Remember that line morons. That's a conditions based policy. Watching the left trying to seem like their vistory is hysterical.

Joel are you still talking? I almost forgot you were there.

The plan all along has been "We will stand down when the Iraqi's stand up".

Most of the Iraqis are actually standing up, Jay.

Except for the ones who can't stand up because they're dead.

But I'm very confident that we are being greeted as liberators.

"KC read my earlier posts."

I rather chew off my OWN big toe than read any more of Jay's posts. What a tool.

the Lefts position on Iraq may soon to be proven a complete and utter failure and the soon to be attempts of saving face by those responsible will be fun to watch.

Given that the right was spectularly wrong about just abotu everything in Iraq -- 100s of tons of chem weapons, active bio programs, 7 mobile biolabs, reconsituted nuclear weapons, operational AQ links, being greeted as liberators, the insurgency, the cost (likely to be an order of amgnitude higher), troop strengh required, that would be really fun to watch.

Jay the Pedophile's loose grasp on English seems to be slipping completely away. I suppose it's hard typing in a non-native language while jerking off to a picture of Dubya.

JJF is the perfect example of the left now attempting to save face on the Iraq issue...

Pardon me, bub, but Bush has fucked up Iraq as badly as anybody could have possibly fucked it up. Saving face is not the problem for the left.

The plan all along has been "We will stand down when the Iraqi's stand up". Remember that line morons...

Seems like the Iraqis are standing up, according to Maliki. Think Bush is gonna pull out? Hell no. Don't listen to what a lying son-of-a-bitch tells you. Watch what he does. Actions, not words, matter.

Which may be lucky for you, since you can't spell or punctuate.

Because he has absorbed all administration spin and flatout lies as his own--I will reply to a number of "Jay"'s comments.

The U.S. told the world we were going into Iraq because of WMDs there, as well as biological warfare agents. No WMDs, and as posted the poisons were scanty and degraded. What did that have to do with protecting the U.S.? How in hell would any of that stuff, assuming it existed, get to the U.S. Saddam had NO delivery methods--specifically no ICBMs.

And do not say that Al-Qaeda would have brought them in through the Mexican border. Knowing that there was NO connection between A-Q and Saddam as the administration did (they KNEW the "intelligence" was inconclusive AND suspect--remember the British memo?)---knowing all that, don't even start.

I'm already tired of repeating the obvious. I predict GW will soon be missing a big toe. The Plan for a New American Century has a little-known clause: "Should any development threaten the permanent occupation of strategic and oil-producing sovereign states, the sitting President of the USA will chew off his big toe to demonstrate that a change in policy is unwarranted."

Because he has absorbed all administration spin as his own thoughts,it is useful to reply to a number of "Jay"'s comments.

The U.S. told the world we were going into Iraq because of WMDs there, as well as biological warfare agents. No WMDs, and as posted the poisons were scanty and degraded. What did that have to do with protecting the U.S.? How in hell would any of that stuff, assuming it existed, get to the U.S. Saddam had NO delivery methods--specifically no ICBMs.

And do not say that Al-Qaeda would have brought them in through the Mexican border. Knowing that there was NO connection between A-Q and Saddam as the administration did (they KNEW the "intelligence" was inconclusive AND suspect--remember the British memo?)---knowing all that, don't even start.

I'm already tired of repeating the obvious. I predict GW will soon be missing a big toe. The Plan for a New American Century has a little-known clause: "Should any development threaten the permanent occupation of strategic and oil-producing sovereign states, the sitting President of the USA will chew off his big toe to demonstrate that a change in policy is unwarranted."

Because he has absorbed all administration spin and flatout lies as his own--I will reply to a number of "Jay"'s comments.

The U.S. told the world we were going into Iraq because of WMDs there, as well as biological warfare agents. No WMDs, and as posted the poisons were scanty and degraded. What did that have to do with protecting the U.S.? How in hell would any of that stuff, assuming it existed, get to the U.S. Saddam had NO delivery methods--specifically no ICBMs.

And do not say that Al-Qaeda would have brought them in through the Mexican border. Knowing that there was NO connection between A-Q and Saddam as the administration did (they KNEW the "intelligence" was inconclusive AND suspect--remember the British memo?)---knowing all that, don't even start.

I'm already tired of repeating the obvious. I predict GW will soon be missing a big toe. The Plan for a New American Century has a little-known clause: "Should any development threaten the permanent occupation of strategic and oil-producing sovereign states, the sitting President of the USA will chew off his big toe to demonstrate that a change in policy is unwarranted."

I'm already tired of repeating the obvious.

Then stop repeating it :)

"I almost forgot you were there."

heh.

I'm not surprised. You can't seem to remember from moment to moment what the topic of the thread is, let alone who is posting.

ADD. It's very common among teenage boys like yourself.

'Why should we believe the Iraqis will "stand up"
"Iraq is basically a house of cards without US forces. That's the reality." '

Well, Iraq as been around quite some time in one form or another.

The Bosnian scenario is not as bad as some other scenarios, for instance a middle east wide war over Iraq. Even militia politics, scaled up, would be no worse, per capita, then Lebanon in the 80s. Wholesale slauhter? Probably not, Iraqis know how to make an even fight. Ethnic cleansing, sure plenty of that.

Lebanon went through this and their national army even survived intact. The key to get through the mess is for the army to more or less stay out to the ethnic fighting. If we achieve that minimal aim, then things will eventually end up stable.

"The key to get through the mess is for the army to more or less stay out to the ethnic fighting. If we achieve that minimal aim, then things will eventually end up stable."

Matt, the key is for the Iraqi Army to more or less stay out of the ethnic fighting. We can't achieve this. The Iraqi Army must achieve this. We are the destabilizing factor. We need to go home and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

"Well, Iraq as been around quite some time in one form or another."

Iraq is an invention of Winston Churchill after WWI. It is a contrivance, imposed on the people of the region by outsiders and maintained, through much of its history, by force.

A lot of people apparently have nothing better to do than waste time arguing with people who aren't going to change their minds come hell or high water. I'm talking to both sides here.

"I'm talking to both sides here."

So you'll be leaving then?

Much better the Prime Minister of Iraq talk about when the troops should leave, than blow-hards like Murtha and Kerry.

Much better the Prime Minister of Iraq talk about when the troops should leave, than blow-hards like Murtha and Kerry.

roght , cause murtha and kerry aren't proposing the amnesty which makes maliki's plan superior in your eyes, right?

shorter frazier:
kerry, murtha = enemy
guy who proposes amnesty for killing americans = ally

OT, harry truman was the only US president ot fight in WWI (ike was stateside)

NEWS FLASH: Baghdad In a State of Emergency

Maybe it’s because George W. Bush and KarlRove both “cut and ran” from their service in the military or may it is just because conservatives are mentally ill, but aren’t they able to admit that Iraq is now in anarchy, a civil war is underway and this is now the largest foreign policy failure in American history?

Jay: so consistent with what GW has been saying since the beginning,

How could anyone be so ignorant?

You really think GW wanted Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq to seize the reins of power in Iraq?

You really think Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq's seizing of the reins of power in Iraq it is worth all the blood and treasure being spilled?

Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq have been forcefully trying to make a secular Iraq a fundamentalist Islamic republic for over TWENTY years.

Thanks to you and Bush, Iraq is now a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic which has extremely close and long standing ties to Iran which Bush called an axis of evil, a country whose leader denies the fact of the holocaust and has threatened to wipe Israel of the map.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's fundamentalist Islamic republic ?

Down goes Frazier: Much better the Prime Minister of Iraq talk about when the troops should leave, than blow-hards like Murtha and Kerry.

What do you know about Al-Maliki and the Al dawa party?

Al Dawa, the political party of Al-Maliki, is an Iranian-based fundamentalist Shiite faction.

For at least the last two decades, Al Dawa has been trying to violently transform secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Shiite republic.

E.g.:

In 1983, a `suicider' from Al Dawa drove a truck loaded with explosives into the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. Six were killed and over eighty were injured.

See:

U.S. News & World Report
December 26, 1983 / January 2, 1984

The New Face of Mideast Terrorism

A new brand of terrorism confronting the U.S. in the Mideast was demonstrated in the closing days of 1983 when a suicide bomber wrecked the American Embassy in Kuwait.

Actions that once were hallmarks of Mideast radicals -- takeovers of buildings, hijackings of airliners and seizing of hostages -- are waning. In their place: Terrorism sponsored by governments -- notably Iran and Syria -- and carried out by Moslem fanatics fired by hatred of the U.S. and a desire for martyrdom.

Prompted as much by current issues as by ideology, the new terrorism is more lethal, widespread and harder to contain than terrorism of the 1970s.

U.S. officials blamed the December 12 bombing of their embassy in Kuwait on ''Islamic fundamentalists'' of the Shiite sect, backed by Iran and Syria.

The Americans charged that the attack was ''clearly connected'' to three disastrous bombings in Beirut -- one in April that killed more than 60 people at the U.S. Embassy and two suicide attacks in October that killed more than 240 American servicemen at the Marine barracks and 58 soldiers at the French peacekeeping headquarters. Shiites also are blamed for a bomb that killed 61 persons at an Israeli command center in southern Lebanon in November.

Suspicion for the attacks in Lebanon centered on one group -- the Islamic Jihad [Holy War], a secretive Shiite unit based in Syrian-controlled eastern Lebanon. It is closely linked to the Iranian regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who calls the U.S. the ''great Satan.''

The terrorist who detonated the truckload of explosives at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait was identified as a 25-year-old Iraqi belonging to an outlawed Moslem unit, the Iranian Dawa Group.

Drum: also happens to be exactly the position of the vast majority of the Democratic Party

Nah. If Dubya accepted the proposal, the 'Publicans would spin it into some sort of great victory for conservative foreign policy...

Actually, I'm thinking that this puts Bush into a tight spot...

Jay: The plan all along has been "We will stand down when the Iraqi's stand up". Remember that line morons. That's a conditions based policy.

The plan all along has been "We will stand down when the fundamentalist Shiite factions with close and long standing ties to Iran stand up"?

That makes zero sense.

Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (sic!) are those standing up.

They are not pro-western.

They are Islamic fundamentalist parties.

See Bush's Islamic Republic by Galbraith in the New York Review of Books:

[snip]

SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law—rather than Iraq's relatively progressive civil code—would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not "of the book," such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.

This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam's fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq's southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern—and legislate—without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq's American-written interim constitution—the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).

[snip]

grape_crush: Nah. If Dubya accepted the proposal, the 'Publicans would spin it into some sort of great victory for conservative foreign policy...

Bush and bovine gazed his supporters have *inadvertently* fathered a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic in direct response to the horrific attacks of 9/11.

You think that is spinnable?

Let us consider the phrase "As the Iraqis stand up, we stand down."

Unfortunately, to the Iraqis, the only cogent, legitimate meaning "standing up" could have would be that the Iraqis expel the Americans.

The posture so many Americans give to this language would, to the Iraqis, be better understood by the phrase "bend over."

Because of their monumental and inglorious screw up that is the Iraq occupation, the Republicans should be thankful they even have a say in all this.

In a more rational world, the Republican Party leaders responsible for the Iraq fiasco would have, by now, committed harakiri in order to beg forgiveness from the American pe