The spineless have folded again. The Democracts today announced (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517_pf.html%22) that they are dropping their requirement for withdrawal terms in the Iraq war funding measure. But don't you despair, there's going to be language that "influences policy" in the next bill, you just wait!
If there's one thing the American people can't stand, it's a wimpy, flip flopper. If getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do, then damn the critics and push through your agenda and the American people will praise you for it. The majority of American do AGREE with you don't they?
Just curious about Harry Reid's comment I heard last night that he has a "responsibility to get these troops out of Iraq". Who made Reid C-I-C?
That's some nice spin, IP.
Here's another take...from the same article:
quote:
But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense. Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, "The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk."
Four years with no exit strategy and look now. All of a sudden, Republicans are talking about strings. Why the change of heart? Could it be that the vetoed vote to end the Iraq War has caused a few Republicans rethink their position and look for ways to crawl out of this quagmire? I'm thinking yes.
I'd say that Republicans are starting to face reality, but you may prefer to say that they are losing their backbone. Whichever, if it brings this thing to an end, it'll be better for all of us.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
That's some nice spin, IP.
Here's another take...from the same article:
quote:
But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense. Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, "The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk."
Four years with no exit strategy and look now. All of a sudden, Republicans are talking about strings. Why the change of heart? Could it be that the vetoed vote to end the Iraq War has caused a few Republicans rethink their position and look for ways to crawl out of this quagmire? I'm thinking yes.
I'd say that Republicans are starting to face reality, but you may prefer to say that they are losing their backbone. Whichever, if it brings this thing to an end, it'll be better for all of us.
Spin my a$$.
Either Democrats are right, and they use their power to enact the "will of the people" who are supposedly on their side, or they're wrong and this is all just a stage show for '08.
You guys have bit**ed for months, going on years now, that if you were in power you'd straighten this whole thing out.
You have the power, you have the votes, and supposedly you have the backing of the American people. What's keeping you from doing what's right?
I also noticed that McCain's poll numbers went up dramatically and passed Guiliani in at least two early primary states after he started criticizing the conduct of the Iraq War and its leader.
So it's not just Democrats that are turning against the occupation.
Face it: This occupation is extremely unpopular. It's in the range of 60 percent against, numbers that Reagan would call a "mandate."
Okay. Let's say that I agree with you whole heartedly that W is the devil.
1. We have a Democractic majority that thinks the war is a mistake.
2. We supposedly have a growing number of Republicans that think it's a mistake.
3. The majority of the American people agree with the Democrats that this Iraq is a mistake.
Why, with all this moral authority and all the strings to pull to make this terrible mess go away, will the Democrats not force the hand of the President?
Nothing is standing in your way anymore. If not now, when?
Well, the president's veto pen prevents the strings from being pulled, for one thing. The Democrats have passed a bill that reflects the will of the people, but the president isn't listening.
Second, not nearly enough Republicans have bailed on the president to override the veto.
Although that may change. I've been reading a lot of articles that suggest if things don't improve substantially in Iraq by September, something is going to happen. Maybe the GOP folk will urge the president to say: "You've deposed Saddam, the WMDs aren't there, and a new government is in place. Declare victory and get out, or we're going to get hammered in November."
And I don't agree that Bush is the devil. I don't think Satan would ever show that much incompetence.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Well, the president's veto pen prevents the strings from being pulled, for one thing. The Democrats have passed a bill that reflects the will of the people, but the president isn't listening.
Second, not nearly enough Republicans have bailed on the president to override the veto.
Although that may change. I've been reading a lot of articles that suggest if things don't improve substantially in Iraq by September, something is going to happen. Maybe the GOP folk will urge the president to say: "You've deposed Saddam, the WMDs aren't there, and a new government is in place. Declare victory and get out, or we're going to get hammered in November."
And I don't agree that Bush is the devil. I don't think Satan would ever show that much incompetence.
That's gutless. They have the votes to defund the war and de facto bring the troops home immediately, yet they continue to duff around while this "immoral and unjustified" war continues.
Who's more disgusting. The one who honestly believes the war was justified, or the one who believes it's immoral and has the power to stop it but refuses to do so?
The American people are fed up Mr. President, we have the power to make their will heard, and they will praise us for ending this unjustified occupation!
Weak.
The American people can and will see your party's unwillingness to act upon its principles.
I don't think they flip flopped if they take out the time table.
The troops have to be funded, and so they have to work out a deal with Bush to get this through.
I will be totally shocked if the Republicans win the White House in '08.
I've already jumped on the Obama bandwagon because I think the democratic primary is the real presidential race this time around, and the LAST thing we need is Hillary in there.
I don't agree with everything Obama stands for, but at least he's a fresh start. He's pro gun control, but that will never get passed right now, as more and more states are adopting concealed-carry permits. Even Kansas has joined the club. [:)]
The Clintons and Bush family have been running this Country for the last 20 years!
We need to stand up like that girl in the rogue Obama campaign video that throws the sledgehammer into the screen to shut Hillary up.
We need a change.
Anyone who's been paying attention to the polls knows that the Republicans have big problems in 2008 and that more sitting Republicans face election challenges than Democrats.
I can see a Republican elected president, but it's all but certain that the Congress will have more Democrats just because the way the numbers are shaking out.
Call it "gutless" if you want, but it *was* the Democrats who voted for a timetable while still funding the troops, as the people wanted, and it's the president who rejected it. It was the GOP-led Congress that ignored the people's wishes until November 2006.
Those facts are undeniable.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Anyone who's been paying attention to the polls knows that the Republicans have big problems in 2008 and that more sitting Republicans face election challenges than Democrats.
I can see a Republican elected president, but it's all but certain that the Congress will have more Democrats just because the way the numbers are shaking out.
Call it "gutless" if you want, but it *was* the Democrats who voted for a timetable while still funding the troops, as the people wanted, and it's the president who rejected it. It was the GOP-led Congress that ignored the people's wishes until November 2006.
Those facts are undeniable.
So you admit that they CAN end the war, they just CHOOSE not to for some reason? They continue to play by Bush's rules, even though they have the votes, moral authority and the backing of the people to end the war...this is not leadership.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Okay. Let's say that I agree with you whole heartedly that W is the devil.
1. We have a Democractic majority that thinks the war is a mistake.
2. We supposedly have a growing number of Republicans that think it's a mistake.
3. The majority of the American people agree with the Democrats that this Iraq is a mistake.
Why, with all this moral authority and all the strings to pull to make this terrible mess go away, will the Democrats not force the hand of the President?
Nothing is standing in your way anymore. If not now, when?
No, the Republicans are still
very much in the way. The President vetoed the bill and there are not enough Republicans (yet) to override his veto.
I think you're jumping to conclusions, anyway. All are now "in negotiations" on a new bill. Nobody knows what that bill will look like.
quote:
I don't think they flip flopped if they take out the time table.
The troops have to be funded, and so they have to work out a deal with Bush to get this through.
The troops don't have to be funded, that's Congress' decision. As soon as Bush knew that the Dems meant business and no more money was forthcoming he'd have no choice but to bring them home.
The troops can't all be withdrawn at once, so I would imagine that they do need to be funded.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Anyone who's been paying attention to the polls knows that the Republicans have big problems in 2008 and that more sitting Republicans face election challenges than Democrats.
I can see a Republican elected president, but it's all but certain that the Congress will have more Democrats just because the way the numbers are shaking out.
Call it "gutless" if you want, but it *was* the Democrats who voted for a timetable while still funding the troops, as the people wanted, and it's the president who rejected it. It was the GOP-led Congress that ignored the people's wishes until November 2006.
Those facts are undeniable.
When it comes to b[:O]lls, does it take more to risk losing your job over sticking to your guns and supporting the war, or taking a populist view and ducking for cover and apologizing for voting for a war?
I'll choose those in the more principled category.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
The troops can't all be withdrawn at once, so I would imagine that they do need to be funded.
Sure they can. They could offer a bill that delineates money for exit funding only. They have no obligation to continue the current funding levels that the president has asked for.
They are playing games. The have the power, they have the will of the people behind them.
quote:
No, the Republicans are still very much in the way. The President vetoed the bill and there are not enough Republicans (yet) to override his veto.
I think you're jumping to conclusions, anyway. All are now "in negotiations" on a new bill. Nobody knows what that bill will look like.
What do you care if they're in your way? The American people support YOU; screw the naysayers.
You've bi*ched and b*tched about ending this war and all it takes is
ONE act of Congress to defund and it's all over for this war.
Iplaw, you wanted the war so badly. Now you're advocating defunding it entirely.
Are you all right?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Iplaw, you wanted the war so badly. Now you're advocating defunding it entirely.
Are you all right?
Check your comprehension meter.
What the Democrats are doing is painfully obvious. It's nothing more than a charade and a sham. IP is pointing out if they really wanted to end it, they would end it instead of playing games to make them look better in '08.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Iplaw, you wanted the war so badly. Now you're advocating defunding it entirely.
Are you all right?
I know this was sarcastic, but if I felt as strongly about ending the war as you swake pretend to, I would be pissed at the charades playing out in DC right now.
It just further reinforces my suspicion that the complaints are really not about the war at all.
If the dems were to pass a bill de-funding the war couldn't the president just veto it like he did this one?
quote:
Originally posted by Chris
If the dems were to pass a bill de-funding the war couldn't the president just veto it like he did this one?
No. They wouldn't pass a bill so to speak, they would abstain from passing a measure for funds. Their non-action would defund the war.
I see. I wasn't sure, I guess I need to retake civics. Thanks for the correction.
IP,
I like your logic. Makes your point.
Of course, it's been relatively obvious that was the situation from the get-go.
But, then, Ms. Reid and the girls don't think anyone should ever hit another person.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
IP,
I like your logic. Makes your point.
Of course, it's been relatively obvious that was the situation from the get-go.
But, then, Ms. Reid and the girls don't think anyone should ever hit another person.
Hawwy Weid looks like the kid they used to stick "kick me" signs on his back in school.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Chris
If the dems were to pass a bill de-funding the war couldn't the president just veto it like he did this one?
No. They wouldn't pass a bill so to speak, they would abstain from passing a measure for funds. Their non-action would defund the war.
I see where you are going, and Feingold has already said he'll vote against a funding measure that does not include a withdrawal date.
But I still think you are being premature. And now it looks like I'm not alone. From the librul blogs (//%22http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/3/13254/51357%22):
quote:
Greg Sargent contacted Reid and Pelosi's offices for a response. According to his contacts, it's not true. Pelosi's staff:
Not true. Speaker just told members of the Democratic caucus that the story is totally untrue. We are still deciding what provisions the new bill will include.
Senator Reid's office:
No decisions have been made on this yet. No options have been ruled in or out.
If Pelosi is a poker player, she'll send back a new funding plan with an
earlier withdrawal date. If the Republicans want to keep blocking funds for the troops, that's their choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
If Pelosi is a poker player, she'll send back a new funding plan with an earlier withdrawal date. If the Republicans want to keep blocking funds for the troops, that's their choice.
That's a great idea. Put the ball in the Repubs hands and see if they are willing to hold up funds when the majority of the country wants us out of Iraq. It will also force them to explain why they think there should not be a timetable for a pull out.
Dear Iraqi People, Politicians and Terrorists of the region,
The United States Military Command, at the request of the United States' Democratically-Controlled Congress, offer this Public Service Announcement:
U.S. Armed Forces will be conducting foriegn war-like operations in and around the Iraqi territory between now and September 1, 2007. As these activities can be quite dangerous, we suggest you not attempt hostile engagement of our forces during this time because they will kick your as*(es). However, if you wish to attempt to cause us harm and/or aggrivation, try to take time during this very public opportunity to do so. We will be pleased to fit you in. Otherwise, please mark your calendars and make appropriate adjustments to your schedules so as to cause the least negative effect on your ordinary activities. If everyone cooperates, we'll be outta here in no time.
After that date, please send all requests to Harry Reid and/or Nancy Pelosi c/o The United States Congress, that is, if you're not dead.
=====
Need any other reason?
^
That's beautiful!
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Dear Iraqi People, Politicians and Terrorists of the region,
The United States Military Command, at the request of the United States' Democratically-Controlled Congress, offer this Public Service Announcement:
U.S. Armed Forces will be conducting foriegn war-like operations in and around the Iraqi territory between now and September 1, 2007. As these activities can be quite dangerous, we suggest you not attempt hostile engagement of our forces during this time because they will kick your as*(es). However, if you wish to attempt to cause us harm and/or aggrivation, try to take time during this very public opportunity to do so. We will be pleased to fit you in. Otherwise, please mark your calendars and make appropriate adjustments to your schedules so as to cause the least negative effect on your ordinary activities. If everyone cooperates, we'll be outta here in no time.
After that date, please send all requests to Harry Reid and/or Nancy Pelosi c/o The United States Congress, that is, if you're not dead.
=====
Need any other reason?
Dear Wrinkle,
Thank you for your continuous support for American troups in their third and fourth tours of duty in Iraq.
No one would like to see a continuous presence of US forces in Iraq as much as I would.
It makes my recruiting MUCH easier.
Hugs & kisses.
Osama bin Ladin
P.S.
Please don't bother taking on any more terrorist regimes anyhwere else either, as it will just lead to more violence in retaliation from us. If you just learn to submit to Allah now we can all proceed in an orderly fashion.
See, ippy.... that's the problem.
You lump in Saddam Hussein's Stalinist regime with the bin ladin terrorists...
We should have gone after the bin ladin terrorists...
But if Bush had asked the American people to sacrifice and asked for a re-institution of the draft and the abolition of the Bush tax cuts IN A TIME OF WAR to topple a brutal Stalinist dictator and engage in nation building to establish an Iraqi democracy as a beach head against the terrorists, I'd have a little more respect for your position.
Once the weapons of mass destruction argument was proved to be false.... Bush sounded suspiciously like Jimmy Carter.... funny how the republicans and fox news NEVER criticised Bush but would have pilloried any dem who ever argued the war was worth it just for the sake of human rights and establishing democracy in the middle east...
I will be proudly voting for Giant Douchebag in 2008.
Sometimes the truth hurts...
Nir Rosen: There is no best-case scenario for Iraq. It's complete anarchy now. No family is untouched by kidnappings, murders, ethnic cleansing -- everybody lives in a constant state of terror. Leaving aside Kurdistan, which is very different, there's nobody in Iraq who is safe. You can get killed for being a Sunni, for being a Shia, for being educated, for being part of the former regime, for being part of the current regime. The Americans are still killing Iraqi civilians left and right. There's no government in Iraq; it doesn't exist outside of the Green Zone. That's not only the government's fault, that's our fault: We deliberately created a weak government so that we would have final authority over everything in Iraq.
what I havent figured out is every time a spending bill gets held up like this the democrats are accused of not supporting the troops.
When will a paradigm be established that supporting the troops = getting them out of iraq? i don't consider prolonging their stay in the middle of a civil war a very good way of supporting them.
quote:
See, ippy.... that's the problem.
You lump in Saddam Hussein's Stalinist regime with the bin ladin terrorists...
Guess you like to split hairs when it comes to terrorists. ZZZZZzzzzzz.....
quote:
We should have gone after the bin ladin terrorists...
Someone should apologize to those people in Kabul that we bombed then...
quote:
But if Bush had asked the American people to sacrifice and asked for a re-institution of the draft and the abolition of the Bush tax cuts IN A TIME OF WAR to topple a brutal Stalinist dictator and engage in nation building to establish an Iraqi democracy as a beach head against the terrorists, I'd have a little more respect for your position.
I don't quite care if you have any respect for my position or not, seems that you have your facts mixed up in the first place anyways.
quote:
Once the weapons of mass destruction argument was proved to be false....
Wish there was a "Rolled Eyes" emoticon on this forum. It would come in handy sometimes.
quote:
Bush sounded suspiciously like Jimmy Carter....
I've never once heard him mention the word peanut, not once.
quote:
funny how the republicans and fox news NEVER criticised Bush but would have pilloried any dem who ever argued the war was worth it just for the sake of human rights and establishing democracy in the middle east...
Again with the Fox News bashing. I've never seen so many people who watch Fox News in all my life.
quote:
I will be proudly voting for Giant Douchebag in 2008.
Just cause she needs one doesn't mean you can call her that.
Although the Democrats have been very wishy-washy about their plan for ending the war, I still fail to see why I should vote for a Republican candidate who believes the war is a great success. I don't believe there is an effective strategy for winning in Iraq. We can't create a new culture for the people. There will always be Iraqi citizens that hate America and believe we are only in Iraq to steal oil. All we have done in the Iraq war is purvey the United States as a stubborn, bull-headed nation and promote a "for us or against us" attitude. Our global image only angers terrorists further. Our method of fighting terrorism is like trying to kill weeds with just a lawnmower. They always come back if you don't get the "root" of the problem. Our current foreign policy not only drains our monetary resources, but lowers the value of our global image. I want to see someone run for president that has a plan for restoring our global image.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Dear Iraqi People, Politicians and Terrorists of the region,
The United States Military Command, at the request of the United States' Democratically-Controlled Congress, offer this Public Service Announcement:
U.S. Armed Forces will be conducting foriegn war-like operations in and around the Iraqi territory between now and September 1, 2007. As these activities can be quite dangerous, we suggest you not attempt hostile engagement of our forces during this time because they will kick your as*(es). However, if you wish to attempt to cause us harm and/or aggrivation, try to take time during this very public opportunity to do so. We will be pleased to fit you in. Otherwise, please mark your calendars and make appropriate adjustments to your schedules so as to cause the least negative effect on your ordinary activities. If everyone cooperates, we'll be outta here in no time.
After that date, please send all requests to Harry Reid and/or Nancy Pelosi c/o The United States Congress, that is, if you're not dead.
=====
Need any other reason?
Would you like us to stay there permanently? If not what do you suggest?
Everyone's crystal ball is crystal clear these days. Yes, there have been mistakes, over-estimations, and under-estimations. IMO, The biggest mistake I see we are making right now is not sitting down with the Syrians and Iranians about stabilizing the situation. They have more of a vested interest in a peaceful neighbor in the region than we do, but those are two countries who ostensibly support terrorists.
You Bush bashers have a great time with the whole "Where's the WMD?" while you ignore that Bush's successor acknowledged there WAS unaccounted for WMD on the day he left office. I watched a speech to the ABA over the weekend on C-Span and Hans Blix was acknowledging there was a very good case for WMD's in '02 & '03.
I also listened to George Tenet on "Meet The Depressed" yesterday. This guy was a Mr. Magoo if there ever was one in our intelligence community. It's no wonder they got a lot of their intel messed up.
There are a lot of people who have bought into Democrats having severe reservations about the Iraq invasion, yet there is quote after quote from the most respected Democrats saying this was a necessary action and there was no doubt Saddam would sell his WMD's to terrorists if we didn't act then. They are saying now Bush sold them that story. Pretty amazing since there was a lot of that information the intelligence committies were compiling before Bush took office.
Whoops, things are sloppier than anyone would have guessed, un-accounted for WMD's are still un-accounted for, and there are elections to win. Kerry didn't have much of a problem with the war until he figured out he was going to need to speak out against it to garner enough votes to mount a serious challenge in '04.
Look, I understand there has to be some sort of timeline to give Iraq incentive to get their butts in gear to be prepared to defend itself, otherwise it will go on indefinitely. I don't believe though legislators are the best arbitor of when you do and don't pull troops out. Leave that up to the military, that is their specialty.
WAPO (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517.html%22)
quote:
Correction to This Article
A May 3 Page One article about negotiations between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war spending bill said the Democrats offered the first major concession by dropping their demand that the bill it include a deadline to bring troops home from Iraq. While Democrats are no longer pushing a firm date for troop withdrawals, party leaders did not specifically make that concession during a Wednesday meeting with Bush at the White House
There was no "agreement to drop their demand for a timeline" when this story was written. As I said earlier, they are still in negotiations on a new bill.
It won't be in there for the next bill, you can bet on it.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I will be proudly voting for Giant Douchebag in 2008.
[xx(]
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hillary_clinton.jpg)
[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I don't believe though legislators are the best arbitor of when you do and don't pull troops out. Leave that up to the military, that is their specialty.
It is not up to the military to decide where we go, when we'll go, or how long we'll be there. The military's job is to fight wars. That's it. This is not a military dictatorship, the military is not in charge of foreign policy. Tactical interest of the military do not trump strategic interests as provided by civilians. The military is run by civilians, and civilians make those decisions.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I don't believe though legislators are the best arbitor of when you do and don't pull troops out. Leave that up to the military, that is their specialty.
It is not up to the military to decide where we go, when we'll go, or how long we'll be there. The military's job is to fight wars. That's it. This is not a military dictatorship, the military is not in charge of foreign policy. Tactical interest of the military do not trump strategic interests as provided by civilians. The military is run by civilians, and civilians make those decisions.
You are taking my comments out of context.
Don't you think commanders in Iraq are better suited to say when/if there needs to be a troop pull-out instead of politicians and wannabe politicians who are fighting over $168K per year jobs and all the attendant benefits, perks, and power?
Arbitrary pull-out dates set by Congress are nothing more than crappy politics at it's worst.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
[brDon't you think commanders in Iraq are better suited to say when/if there needs to be a troop pull-out
No, and it wouldn't matter if the "campaign" were going extremely well. It's not the military's job to make decisions about pulling out the troops. Ever. It would be the height of disloyalty for the military commanders to tell the civilian gov't that sent them there, "we have to leave."
I'm sure military leaders have an opinion, one way or another. It's worth something, but it's not their decision.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Although the Democrats have been very wishy-washy about their plan for ending the war, I still fail to see why I should vote for a Republican candidate who believes the war is a great success.
I don't know anyone who is running for president who thinks it is a great success. We need to keep separate the ideas of the war being the right thing to do, and discussions of implementation or strategy. I don't think anyone is arguing that the war has been waged as effectively as it could have been, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Even if we would have suffered a miserable defeat in Afghanistan, it would still have been the right thing to do.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
[brDon't you think commanders in Iraq are better suited to say when/if there needs to be a troop pull-out
No, and it wouldn't matter if the "campaign" were going extremely well. It's not the military's job to make decisions about pulling out the troops. Ever. It would be the height of disloyalty for the military commanders to tell the civilian gov't that sent them there, "we have to leave."
I'm sure military leaders have an opinion, one way or another. It's worth something, but it's not their decision.
I get that the miltary does not act autonomously to declare war, nor to pull out.
Civics 101.
Point is, Congress is setting arbitrary deadlines without input from General Petraeus and ignoring his comments that we need more time to see if the surge is working. He's in charge of the men on the ground and is the chief military tactician in the battle.
It would be far more prudent for Congress to seek the advice of the commander of the Iraqi occupation forces prior to drawing lines in the sand. I see political shenanegans and an outright power struggle in Washington.
Congress, acting alone without input from the military is not the best judge of when we need to pull out. I'm going to trust what the military leadership says over people who are using the war in a power struggle in Washington. That was my point from the git-go.
Continue to parse words if you like.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Point is, Congress is setting arbitrary deadlines without input from General Petraeus and ignoring his comments that we need more time to see if the surge is working.
It doesn't matter whether or not the surge is working. Doesn't matter whether or not Petraeus "thinks it's working", or says "it's working." Could Petraeus say "it's a misable failure, we need to evacuate now?" If an enlisted man said that in public, he'd be court martialed.
His opinion is his opinion. Regardless of his opinion, Petraeus will do his job, and Congress will too. To say that Petraeus's opinion and the opinion of active military leaders should somehow be the only opinion guiding Congress's actions, is to fundamentally misunderstand the role of Congress. Congress does not answer to the Military. And what they've heard, they do not have to take into consideration.
I'm quite well aware of the respective roles of Congress, executive branch, and the military and am quite aware that Congress has an oversight capacity over the military. As is anyone else who got a C or better in Civics or their Amerian Government classes.
It is my opinion that Congress is flaunting common sense on the issue in order to force a show-down with the President, to help load their guns for the '08 elections. Nothing more, nothing less.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The spineless have folded again. The Democracts today announced (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517_pf.html%22) that they are dropping their requirement for withdrawal terms in the Iraq war funding measure. But don't you despair, there's going to be language that "influences policy" in the next bill, you just wait!
If there's one thing the American people can't stand, it's a wimpy, flip flopper. If getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do, then damn the critics and push through your agenda and the American people will praise you for it. The majority of American do AGREE with you don't they?
I think trying to slip a surrender date in a war funding bill will cost the democrats 08.Surely if the democrats aka the traitor-cats in office felt that they were really doing the will of the people they would just come out of the closet and just deny funding to the troops or demand a immediate pullout instead of trying to sneak in a surrender date in a war funding bill that they know Bush will not sign.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It is my opinion that Congress is flaunting common sense on the issue in order to force a show-down with the President, to help load their guns for the '08 elections. Nothing more, nothing less.
Depends on if a withdrawal defies "common sense" for you. I have nothing bad at all to say about any of our military, or our military leaders. However, the Military, under the leadership of the Executive, is bound by certain opinions. It's part of their job, it's honorable, it's justifiable, but that also has to be taken into consideration. And while a second-term Executive may have no use for public opinion, it's always critical to Congress.
As for the "show-down", Bush gained his 28% approval rating the hard way, a "show-down" of some sort was inevitable. Even though sometimes "flowers fall out of their mouths", the Congress and the Executive branch have some issues to resolve.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It is my opinion that Congress is flaunting common sense on the issue in order to force a show-down with the President, to help load their guns for the '08 elections. Nothing more, nothing less.
Depends on if a withdrawal defies "common sense" for you. I have nothing bad at all to say about any of our military, or our military leaders. However, the Military, under the leadership of the Executive, is bound by certain opinions. It's part of their job, it's honorable, it's justifiable, but that also has to be taken into consideration. And while a second-term Executive may have no use for public opinion, it's always critical to Congress.
As for the "show-down", Bush gained his 28% approval rating the hard way, a "show-down" of some sort was inevitable. Even though sometimes "flowers fall out of their mouths", the Congress and the Executive branch have some issues to resolve.
A withdrawl makes sense, only if it is done on a realistic time-frame that takes into account the ramifications of national security interests to the U.S. in re: WOT and not leaving total chaos (instead of somewhat controlled chaos) behind for the Iraqis to suffer through. I don't expect, and don't want us to be there forever. I don't think anyone wants that.
Setting an arbitrary date when it's obvious that the Iraqis are still ill-prepared to defend themselves is irresponsible. If the military comes back and says: "We believe Iraq will be ready for us to leave Oct. 1st", then that deadline makes perfect sense. In the absence of that, it shows me no conscience on the part of Congress.
Iraq does owe it to us to show us they are serious about stepping up to the plate and taking charge of their own destiny. Get 'em trained and get our troops the eff out of there.
I just happen to believe that Petraeus is better equipped to determine when that time is, and that Congress would do well to seek out and heed that determination. IMO, That should determine a pull-out date not the political ambitions of a bunch of politicians in a power grab.
They definitely have some issues to solve- no argument there.
I don't know. October first may be arbitrary, but it also give the Military and the Executive several months to strategize.
Unless something very odd happens, the Military will be in Iraq indefinitely in some capacity. Just guessing, barring a few events, 50K troops over the next 50 years seems likely. As long as that is not in a strictly combat capacity, that figure is reasonable.
That will be the next "phase" of our deployment IMO. If there is no clear advantage to continuing on the path we are on, Congress can assist in accelerating that process. Surge or no surge, is there any long term advantage to continuing a military presence in combat mode in Iraq? There might be an advantage, I'm not seeing it yet.
I think what disgusts me and other people who genuinely care about what happens to the Iraqis when/if we pull out is that those who are pushing for a timetable for immediate withdrawl have offered very little in the way of strategy and policy other than "let's get em out."
People like to bash Bush for not having planned for the Iraq aftermath properly, which is fair game, but should our exit not be planned just carefully to minimize the damage if/when we leave? To this date, I hear no substance, just obsequious anti-war calls for withdrawl, damn the consequences.
I see no benefit to a long-term conflict.
We DO need to give the Iraqis some sort of incentive to step up training and equipping themselves and a time-line would do that, I just don't see a political charade as being the proper way to set that date.
If I were the chief tactician, I would formulate something like the gradual withdrawl of troops of X amount per month starting at whatever date is a reasonible expectation to have a like-amount of well-trained Iraqis ready to take American soldier's places. Every month or every other month there would be an expectation of X amount of Iraqis trained and ready to replace Americans.
The Iraq gov't would know the end-game and they would have incentive to be prepared to defend themselves and to restore and maintain order on their own or risk failure and be over-run.
That is what we are trying to prevent at this point.
I believe that once US troops begin to withdraw, chaos will uptick quite a bit. In a gradual shut down of US participation, if you're thinning the troops, that leaves the troops that are there on islands facing more and more opposition with less support. I don't like that much.
If you leave provinces, that causes the chaos to uptick in those provinces and potentially spill over to places where US troops are. I don't like that much either.
I prefer a fast withdrawal. Moving back into bases and safer areas, to where the bulk of combat troops can be safely withdrawn, and the rest can be repositioned.
From what I can tell, the Sunni's are expecting a full-scale Civil War as soon as we leave, the Shia's are prepared, and the Kurds may cause us some problems that we can't really anticipate quite yet. Add in foreigners, 2 million refugees, and 2 million displaced in country: I don't think there is much we can do about it. Now, anyway. We may very well be back.
Having to go back isn't an appealing option to me and I have a feeling that is what would happen should we just pack up and go. Worse yet, it could spill beyond the borders of Iraq.
I believe gradually weaning them off American security by replacing with like numbers of well-equipped and well-trained native-Iraqi forces is the only workable option.
That's why the Iraqis have got to step up to the plate. There have been some very dis-heartening stories about theft of military gear, a lax attitude on the part of the Iraqi command, and from some accounts, lack of interest from young Iraqis in defending their nation. There was a well-written piece in UTW a few weeks ago about Col. Ted Westhusing (cover story) that touched on these issues and the frustration he felt.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Having to go back isn't an appealing option to me and I have a feeling that is what would happen should we just pack up and go. Worse yet, it could spill beyond the borders of Iraq.
I believe gradually weaning them off American security by replacing with like numbers of well-equipped and well-trained native-Iraqi forces is the only workable option.
Going back sure doesn't appeal to me, I was opposed to this initially. But we might not have too many choices in the matter later. Way too many factors, and our oil interests which obviously aren't limited to Iraq.
The Iraqi gov't is one that causes the US all kinds of technical and philophical problems. It can't be trusted, we don't know what it will do even if fully operational. Ultimately, it may be easier for us to deal with whatever battered and bruised gov't comes out of the civil conflict.
^ Quite possibly so. The biggest problem, obviously, is in uniting common Iraqi forces to fight for the country instead of their sectarian interests. We see sovereignity as having borders, a lot of Muslims see sovereignity as common religious belief.
It would basically be like trying to unite the United States military if Protestants and Catholics were mortal combat enemies.
Iplaw, On September 26, 2006, before the last general election, you originated a thread called "How to lose an election in 60 days" predicting that the Democrats would "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." I expect that your current thread will be every bit as prophetic.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Iplaw, On September 26, 2006, before the last general election, you originated a thread called "How to lose an election in 60 days" predicting that the Democrats would "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." I expect that your current thread will be every bit as prophetic.
You forgot to say "hateful."
quote:
I think what disgusts me and other people who genuinely care about what happens to the Iraqis when/if we pull out is that those who are pushing for a timetable for immediate withdrawl have offered very little in the way of strategy and policy other than "let's get em out."
What disgusts me and other people who genuinely care - and cared - about what happens to the Iraqis is how much more so many people cared about getting some good television (aka Shock and Awe) than about the Iraqi people.
Shock and Awe = Bad case of American lookee shiny shiny! We're blowing up Baghdad! Make some more popcorn, Marge - and bring that onion dip with you! Ya don't want to miss the show!
Meanwhile, how many were dying while we were salivating into the Cheetoes?
quote:
People like to bash Bush for not having planned for the Iraq aftermath properly, which is fair game,
No, people justifiably are infuriated that a complete incompetent chickenhawk and his cronies invaded a country because they just felt like it and PREDICTABLY turned it into a hotbed of anti-American sentiment and terrorism.
quote:
but should our exit not be planned just carefully to minimize the damage if/when we leave?
The Iraqis want us gone - yesterday. We've destroyed their country. We have a moral obligation to fix what we broke (their country), which means we owe them reparations bigtime. We also have a moral obligation to admit we were wrong and get the soldiers and warfare out of there before we do even more damage.
quote:
To this date, I hear no substance, just obsequious anti-war calls for withdrawl, damn the consequences.
Hmmm. Talk about spin. [:D] [:D] [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Chris
[br
Would you like us to stay there permanently? If not what do you suggest?
Options to cut-n-run or stay permanently? Hmm...
Historically, a permanent presence is the far more likely option. We've yet to pull forces from Japan, Germany, Korea or the Balkans.
Anyone who thought this was going to be an afternoon's work doesn't have a grasp of the problem.
Pullout is defeat on a scale not seen before.
Of course, Dems wouldn't even do that and have to live with the ensuing bloodshed as their own making, especially before an election. Maybe after, when two years of void after two years of terror will let American memories fade, or revise history, as they have here.
The sad part is people are lying to themselves, and believing it.
quote:
What disgusts me and other people who genuinely care - and cared - about what happens to the Iraqis is how much more so many people cared about getting some good television (aka Shock and Awe) than about the Iraqi people.
Shock and Awe = Bad case of American lookee shiny shiny! We're blowing up Baghdad! Make some more popcorn, Marge - and bring that onion dip with you! Ya don't want to miss the show!
Meanwhile, how many were dying while we were salivating into the Cheetoes?
Okay...so we did it because American Idol was slipping in the ratings and we were bored? This is a new one for me, and has to be the kookiest argument against the war that I've ever heard of.
Maybe we went to war with Iraq because we really, really hate sand? Sounds more plausible than your explaination.
quote:
No, people justifiably are infuriated that a complete incompetent chickenhawk and his cronies invaded a country because they just felt like it and PREDICTABLY turned it into a hotbed of anti-American sentiment and terrorism.
Yes, just because they FELT like it. I thought it was for TV ratings? The only thing more ignorant than that statement is the fact that you think the area wasn't a hotbed of anti-Americanism and terrorism before we got there. I suggest Stratfor.com for a little perspective.
quote:
The Iraqis want us gone - yesterday. We've destroyed their country. We have a moral obligation to fix what we broke (their country), which means we owe them reparations bigtime. We also have a moral obligation to admit we were wrong and get the soldiers and warfare out of there before we do even more damage.
This is getting fun. Explain how we've destroyed their country you thoughtless thing? Iraq now has an infrastructure with 24 hour utilities and water purification that it could have never imagined under Saddam. They have freedom of the press and a very expansive and ever growing media, and to top it off they aren't being oppressed by a narcisistic potentate dictator who tortured innocent men, women and children for his own twisted pleasure.
Are you completely uneducated about pre-war Iraq? It certainly sounds like it.
Cecelia sounds like someone who's spent a great many nights watching B-movie reruns alone and learned early to love a good pull out.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Cecelia sounds like someone who's spent a great many nights watching B-movie reruns alone and learned early to love a good pull out.
Curiously, she seems to follow HT's posts when HT can't find a taker for his/her/it's clap-trap.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Anyone who thought this was going to be an afternoon's work doesn't have a grasp of the problem.
Well said. Let's review the "greeted with flowers and candy" parade:
PAUL WOLFOWITZ - Promoted head of World Bank; embroiled in scandal involving his girlfriend's salary.
DOUGLAS FEITH - Stepped down. Teaching at Georgetown.
STEPHEN HADLEY - Promoted to National Security Advisor.
RICHARD PERLE - Stepped down. Investigated for ethical violations concerning war profiteering and other conflicts of interest.
ELLIOT ABRAMS - Promoted to deputy national security adviser.
DAVID WURMSER - Promoted to Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.
ANDREW NATSIOS - Stepped down. Pres. Bush appointed him Special Envoy for Darfur.
DAN BARTLETT - Promoted to Counselor to the President.
MITCH DANIELS - Elected Gov. of Indiana
GEORGE TENET - Stepped down. Awarded Medal of Freedom by President. Says he's been made a scapegoat.
COLIN POWELL - Stepped down. Said of his U.N. speech that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."
DONALD RUMSFELD - Stepped down, day after 2006 election.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE - Promoted to Secretary of State.
DICK CHENEY - Grrrr...go F yourself.
GEORGE W. BUSH - Commandering.
Of these 15 "anyones", the principle architects of the Iraq War, 8 have received promotions, medals, or other jobs from the President. It's a good thing that we hold people like this accountable.
What the hell are you talking about?
All of this talk about funding the war, will we or won't we? Pull out now, big mistake, we support the troops but not the war, I voted for it before I voted against it, I voted against it before I voted for it .... Blah Blah Blah.
How about we just win the da*ned thing and be done with it?
Put enough boots on the ground and bombs in the air to get it overwith.
quote:
DICK CHENEY - Grrrr...go F yourself.
Yeah, but he said that to Patrick Leahy, who, in fact, is in the process of doing so, publically.
Patrick Leahy (//%22http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=leahynormallylj7.png%22)
<Litterell says:
Put enough boots on the ground and bombs in the air to get it overwith.
<end clip>
Where are you going to bomb if you don't know where the enemy is?
So where are we going to get the troops? To end violence in Iraq, I've read estimates as low as 300,000 to a high of 500,000. At a minimum, you're going to need to double your troop numbers.
Where are they going to come from?
And if this war on "terra" is so important, why isn't the commander in chief committing to winning it in Iraq?
There's a big disconnect between all of the speechifying about the so-called grave dangers we face and the feeble reality on the ground in Iraq. It's pretty apparent that the Oval Office thought the war would be a walk in the park and they'd be out in six months, tops. Now it's four-plus years, and no end in sight.
Frankly, I don't believe a word this president says anymore. He has no credibility. Even wingnut Bill O'Reilly says that.
Chicken Little, if you condemn Bush for that petty list of 'scandals' you had better not be a big fan of Clinton's. He was at least as bad with his crony appointment, their turnover, and other scandals both financial and sexual.
ps. Fark.com always refers to the vice president as "Dick 'go f**k yourself' Cheney." That's awesome. They also do "Senator Ted Kennedy (D-AA)." Makes me chuckle.
That's assuming Kennedy has ever attended Alcoholics Anonymous.
"I'm not an anonymous alcoholic; I went public!"
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Anyone who thought this was going to be an afternoon's work doesn't have a grasp of the problem.
Well said. Let's review the "greeted with flowers and candy" parade:
PAUL WOLFOWITZ - Promoted head of World Bank; embroiled in scandal involving his girlfriend's salary.
DOUGLAS FEITH - Stepped down. Teaching at Georgetown.
STEPHEN HADLEY - Promoted to National Security Advisor.
RICHARD PERLE - Stepped down. Investigated for ethical violations concerning war profiteering and other conflicts of interest.
ELLIOT ABRAMS - Promoted to deputy national security adviser.
DAVID WURMSER - Promoted to Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.
ANDREW NATSIOS - Stepped down. Pres. Bush appointed him Special Envoy for Darfur.
DAN BARTLETT - Promoted to Counselor to the President.
MITCH DANIELS - Elected Gov. of Indiana
GEORGE TENET - Stepped down. Awarded Medal of Freedom by President. Says he's been made a scapegoat.
COLIN POWELL - Stepped down. Said of his U.N. speech that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."
DONALD RUMSFELD - Stepped down, day after 2006 election.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE - Promoted to Secretary of State.
DICK CHENEY - Grrrr...go F yourself.
GEORGE W. BUSH - Commandering.
Of these 15 "anyones", the principle architects of the Iraq War, 8 have received promotions, medals, or other jobs from the President. It's a good thing that we hold people like this accountable.
*YAWN*While you are at it, why don't you try to blame the Bush Admin for Tom Sizemore's drug problem. They seem to have effed up everything if I were to believe all your posts.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Chicken Little, if you condemn Bush for that petty list of 'scandals' you had better not be a big fan of Clinton's. He was at least as bad with his crony appointment, their turnover, and other scandals both financial and sexual.
ps. Fark.com always refers to the vice president as "Dick 'go f**k yourself' Cheney." That's awesome. They also do "Senator Ted Kennedy (D-AA)." Makes me chuckle.
Not a list of scandals. A list of incompetent boobs who thought the war would be won in weeks. Four years later, most of them have been promoted and rewarded for their inability to predict, or react to, the situation in Iraq. There's something very wrong with that picture.
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
All of this talk about funding the war, will we or won't we? Pull out now, big mistake, we support the troops but not the war, I voted for it before I voted against it, I voted against it before I voted for it .... Blah Blah Blah.
How about we just win the da*ned thing and be done with it?
Put enough boots on the ground and bombs in the air to get it overwith.
That just will not work. We aren't fighting a unified group of soldiers, like previous conflicts. One extremist faction may surrender while 300 others become more determined to fight back. Its like we're fighting a bunch of little tiny nations. If we do what you are suggesting, we will destroy as many of the people we are trying to protect as we do enemies. These people we are fighting truly believe that God himself is telling them to fight to the death against America, and there is absolutely no measure of diplomacy or level of physical terror that will change their beief.
The real mistake is to think that any measure of dimplomacy will ever work. These people aren't the diplomatic type, and have stated so on numerous occasions.
In general, it won't end until the price of being a terrorist doesn't seem as attractive as the potential of being a citizen.
At some point, recruting becomes difficult because they get knocked to their knees around every corner while the kids down the block are driving new cars and getting all the girls.
It does take getting over that nasty 'dying for All-ha' thing as being fashionable.
It got me wondering if this Allah guy is real. I mean, you never hear of him making any appearences in potato chips, old wallpaper or tree bark like the J-guy and little Ms. Mary.
It also might help if those little 'mortal-monument' things they make up showed before AND after photos. Seeing what their own guts might look like dripping from the ceiling and sliming down walls might help reduce the popular trend.
Marketing could make a world of difference.
At least, that's what the press does here, only against us instead of them.
I dunno. If your daily existence is the hell of living in 120 degree arid weather with sandstorms and sand fleas, and living in poverty, blowing yourself up and being rewarded with your own oasis full of virgin concubines sounds pretty attractive.
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of suicide bombers don't come from the affluent segments of Islamic society, so death doesn't seem like such a bad thing.
Savage is a nut-case but he's made a good point similar to yours. If we were allowed to hang dead terrorists from lamp posts in the ME, that it might have somewhat of a deterrent effect.
It's interesting how there are so many bleeding heart types on this board that are "concerned about the Iraqi people". Why is that? They never gave a damn about them before and they don't give a damn about the millions of other people that live under brutal dictators in this world.
If you are really concerned about people then we should gear up to invade half a dozen or more African countries and several more ME countries that have dictatorships.
The "concern" for the Iraqis is just an after the fact justification for this pointless war. There was never a threat from Saddam. It's been established that he had no connection to Al Quaeda. How was he going to deliver the mythical WMD's even if he had them? With that stupid drone (lawn mower engine powered) that Colin Powell showed at the UN?
This whole argument is so old and pointless. The war is lost. Your argument was lost years ago. However, I understand that it's hard to admit a mistake.
I admit that I made a mistake and voted for these clowns in 2000. I still consider myself a conservative Republican but the truth doesn't follow party lines.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Chicken Little, if you condemn Bush for that petty list of 'scandals' you had better not be a big fan of Clinton's. He was at least as bad with his crony appointment, their turnover, and other scandals both financial and sexual.
ps. Fark.com always refers to the vice president as "Dick 'go f**k yourself' Cheney." That's awesome. They also do "Senator Ted Kennedy (D-AA)." Makes me chuckle.
Not a list of scandals. A list of incompetent boobs who thought the war would be won in weeks. Four years later, most of them have been promoted and rewarded for their inability to predict, or react to, the situation in Iraq. There's something very wrong with that picture.
Amen!
quote:
Originally posted by mike2000
It's interesting how there are so many bleeding heart types on this board that are "concerned about the Iraqi people". Why is that? They never gave a damn about them before and they don't give a damn about the millions of other people that live under brutal dictators in this world.
Really? How the hell do you know this? BTW, I have a watch I lost about 2 years ago that I can't find, maybe you could read my mind and help me find it, you've got a gift....
quote:
If you are really concerned about people then we should gear up to invade half a dozen or more African countries and several more ME countries that have dictatorships.
I agree, but we can't do it alone, but is the UN going to offer their services? Don't bet on it. They're too busy getting involved in things like oil-for-food to worry about the genocide and torture of innocents.
quote:
The "concern" for the Iraqis is just an after the fact justification for this pointless war. There was never a threat from Saddam. It's been established that he had no connection to Al Quaeda. How was he going to deliver the mythical WMD's even if he had them? With that stupid drone (lawn mower engine powered) that Colin Powell showed at the UN?
How about with the NoDong missiles he was attempting to purchase in February of 2003 from the North Koreans? You can't possibly be so dense as to try to make the argument that terrorists could NEVER strike us here...[xx(] We played that game before, and lost.
Speaking of food-for-oil, it looks like Condi Rice was involved in the scandal:
Excerpt:
According to the Volcker report, surcharges on Iraqi oil exports were introduced in August 2000 by the Iraqi state oil company, the State Oil Marketing Organization. At the time, Condoleezza Rice, now secretary of state, was a member of Chevron's board and led its public policy committee, which oversaw areas of potential political concerns for the company.
Ms. Rice resigned from Chevron's board on Jan. 16, 2001, after being named national security advisor by President Bush.
<end clip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/business/08chevron.html?_r=5&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the scandal at the UN...is that post supposed to be something similar?
That's really stretching it, she was basically a liaison between PR, their lobbiests, and the board. Hardly the one profiting from the oil for food scandal. Her sole involvement was working for an oil company when it was going on, there is no link between her position and the scandal, let alone her and the scandal.
Interesting that you brought it up though... since all the primary members that were against the war in Iraq were major players in the scandal:
- The United Nations (oil for payola)
- Russia (oil for arms program)
- France (oil for arms and illegal imports)
- Germany (oil for future oil contracts and illegal imports)
Funny how the mean embargo of the evil Americans killed "800,000 children" as Saddam built new and grander palaces. Too bad we allocated those funds so poorly and were just so mean, or they may of had a chance. Damn U.S. And the whole time Condi was sitting in a board room advising the directors on what the political climate might be... damn her too!