Progressive Unity on Iraq: Redeployment Must Begin Immediately
Progressive Unity on Iraq: Redeployment Must Begin Immediately
Today, the Senate will debate a pair of amendments that urge the administration to begin a phased redeployment of American troops out of Iraq. Increasingly, progressives and conservatives are unifying behind two very different approaches to resolving the Iraq conflict. Progressives across the spectrum believe that redeployment of U.S. forces must begin immediately:
“[Sen. Jack] Reed (D-RI) said redeployment should begin ‘as quickly as possible’ to ease the strain on the troops, but added that the measure does not establish a pace.â€
Joint statement of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Our troops have done their job in Iraq. It is time to redeploy – to help increase stability in Iraq, and more importantly, to strengthen the national security of the United States.â€
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): “[The amendment] does urge that a phased redeployment begin this year, partly as a way of moving away from an open-ended commitment and a way of avoiding Iraqi dependency on a U.S. security blanket.”
Conservatives, however, remain wedded to Bush’s stay the course rhetoric, unwilling to make any promises of a near-term departure from Iraq. In defense of Bush, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said:
Retreat is not an option. Those calling for an early withdrawal of American troops from Iraq utterly fail to understand the potentially catastrophic implications of their proposal.
But in fact, the administration and its conservative allies find themselves out of touch with Iraqi sentiment and are growing more and more isolated in their approach. Today, Iraqi National Security Adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, weighed in decidedly in favor of the progressive approach -– the immediate start of a redeployment. Al-Rubaie writes:
Iraq’s ambition is to have full control of the country by the end of 2008. In practice this will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.
Al-Rubaie joins the Iraqi president, Iraqi vice president, and Iraqi prime minister in calling for a withdrawal to begin soon.
UPDATE: At this afternoon’s press briefing, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli was asked about the Al-Rubaie op-ed. “Frankly, I didn’t read it that carefully,” he said.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
90 Responses to “Progressive Unity on Iraq: Redeployment Must Begin Immediately”
Topic Cloud
And only a few months after Murtha asserted that a redeployment would be the right path, and was booed and berated by Republicans…
June 20th, 2006 at 1:16 pmI’ll say it: The new Iraqi government is full of liberal defeatists!
Frist says the Iraqis don’t understand we can’t cut and run and that should be good enough to get your vote.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:17 pmThis whole thing scares the hell out of me…they will stop at nothing to achieve their objective, and I think the only way to begin to stop them is to EDUCATE the MASSES. Take back the MEDIA. I really don’t know what it will take to get that to actually happen, but I see no other way. I believe they are more than capable of false flagging between now and the mid terms. There is just way too much ignorance and false faith out there, especially in the heartland of this country. THEY NEED TO BE EXPOSED FOR WHO THEY REALLY ARE. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE REALLY UP TO.
read more:
The war in Iraq was not a “mistake.†It was a deliberately calculated exercise of U.S. power with a specific end in mind — namely, control of Iraq and the Persian Gulf region. It was illegal and remains so. It was a war crime and remains so. Its perpetrators were war criminals and remain so. Its goals were unworthy and remain so.
Permanent War? Dealing with Realities in Iraq and Washington
June 20th, 2006 at 1:22 pmare we seeing the dems provide a plan, and present a unified front???
anyone know the mean tempature of Hell right now??
June 20th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThe Iraqis want us out? Doesn’t that make them “terrorists”?
June 20th, 2006 at 1:24 pm.
#5 According to Mean Jean, that makes them cowards.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#6 Maybe “Patriots” is the adequate name to call them, Grand Moff. But Bush will make’em swallow the bases. Halliburton is running like hell to end them before 2008…
June 20th, 2006 at 1:27 pmI saw Sen. Levin’s press conference on Iraq with the other 2 Senators > that is a start for Democrats, but they must be more aggressive in ending the the Iraq fiasco occupation to bring our troops home to their families!
June 20th, 2006 at 1:28 pmstay the course…..stay the course……stay the course……..stay the course………we brave Americans never cut & run……after all everything is just a number sez the snowman
June 20th, 2006 at 1:30 pmI have posted a question in response to some right winger bloggers who support the War in Iraq. I would like to pose a set of similar questions to the right wing politicians who don’t want us out of Iraq. Why did we REALLY go there in the first place? With Saddam gone, no WMD’s, a “democracy” started isn’t the “Mission Accomplished” as Bush has already declared? Isn’t the “war” over and it’s time to bring our military home? Or do you think we should be “occupiers” and if so, to what objectives in measureable terms? If we can demand our schools have goals and objectives for students, we can do the same for the Bush administration and its foreign policy = NO SOLDIER LEFT BEHIND.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#4 - anyone know the mean tempature of Hell right now??
Comment by Krazny
WTF?? It’s freezing down here…
June 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pmThe dems first need to expose the NEOCON agenda - the truth about what the objective has been all along.
“The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn’t fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the “American imperialists” that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won’t be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran. ”
go here for more: The president’s real goal in Iraq
and do you know what gets me? This was written in 2002! If only the MSM journalists only did their jobs….
June 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pmGlad to see Dems on th same page!
June 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pm“The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome”.
“Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.”
June 20th, 2006 at 1:45 pmThe Democrats seem to excel at vacillation. Case in point: John Kerry. A few weeks ago, Kerry seemed to have experienced a Road to Damascus moment, when he finally stated that the troops should be withdrawn. At that tme, at the speech he gave in D.C., with people cheering wildly, he said that the troops should be withdrawn by the end of 2006. Now, Kerry has again changed his mind, proclaiming that the troops should now be withdrawn by July of 2007. He has also adopted Murtha’s position, saying that the troops should be redeployed “over the horizon”. If the troops are to be withdrawn, that is not the same thing as redeploying them to a different part of the Middle East, where they can be called back into Iraq at a moment’s notice. If only someone could introduce the Kerry of today to the Kerry of 1971, who asked the question concerning Vietnam; “Who will tell a man that he will be the last man to die for a mistake”? and apply that question to that abattoir that is known as Iraq. Until he demands that that question should be answered, then there will continue to be needless deaths happening in Iraq and needless military personnel returning to this country missing limbs, along with severed spines, fractured skulls, third degree burns on their bodies, and men and women screaming in the middle of the night because of the psychological trauma that they had endured in that slaughterhouse in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:50 pmWhy not work with the Iraqi government to begin forming a plan for phased withdrawal? Because doing so would remove the political football the Republicans currently think they have. That’s the real story here.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:51 pmFrist: “Those calling for an early withdrawal of American troops from Iraq utterly fail to understand the potentially catastrophic implications of their proposal.” - -
June 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pmSen. Frist has seen the video feeds from Iraq and it’s clear to him that he understands the situation there far better than the Iraqi people who overwhelmingly want the coalition troops out.
How did democrats bring something to the floor . I thought with republican control we couldnt get a vote on anything.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:56 pmIf they can bring this, why dont they always have a counter measure to anything the republicans bring.
And whats the URI
No WMD
June 20th, 2006 at 2:29 pmNo Connection to 9-11
No “Freedom on the Marchâ€
No “Mission Accomplishedâ€
No oil
No democracy
No peace in the Middle East
No cheap gas
Hussein captured, al Zarqawi dead.
2500+ US deaths and no end in site. Remind me again, why did we go into Iraq?
To all the trolls who say the Dems don’t have an alternate plan… HERE IT IS. SPOON-FED TO YOU. And reported in the press, too. Wow. The conservative media is actually *reporting*. Will wonders never cease.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:31 pmOccupation and Dependence…
Carl Levin has a keen understanding of incentives in the conduct of US foreign policy……
June 20th, 2006 at 2:32 pmFrom TP, Nov. 22, 2005:
On Monday, Iraqi political leaders called on the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawal. In January, President Bush said that if asked by the Iraqis, U.S. forces would leave the country:
President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq’s first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers.
They’ve asked. More than once. Why are we still there?
(Yeah, I know the answer, but I want our resident trolls to answer.)
June 20th, 2006 at 2:33 pm#18- jg- This is only a debate. they are nowhere near a vote. Republicans are probably just thinking that there will be some way to use the debate to slander the Democrats who support these amendments. It’s a purely political move on their part, just wait.
#15- Erroll- Senator Kerry can demand answers all he wants, but you are sorely mistaken if you think that it would change ANYTHING occuring in Iraq, or Afghanistan. Why do you assume that he wields that much influence? And GWB will not answer that question, EVER. And He IS the President, and the “Decider”, who has no intention of stopping the “slaughter”, that will be up to future administrations, according to him. Remember when he said that? I do. And I would be willing to bet that he is REALLY not thrilled, by those ‘democratically’ elected leaders in Iraq contradicting him on his ’strategy’. They want us to leave, will GWB just ignore them too?
June 20th, 2006 at 2:36 pmDidn’t Bush say last week that we’ve turned the corner?
June 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pmThe two 101 Airborne Army soldiers found today died badly.
Would someone please explain what corner exactly that we’ve turned?
Maude
The nutty libs would love nothing better then to see the US fail in Iraq and work very hard to that end. Consequences be damned. The nutty libs know that setting a date for pulling out is a date for failure. If the US fails in Iraq they can run on that in 06 and 08 because Lord knows they have nothing else to run on and no ideas. Remember the goal here folks - Nutty libs hate GW Bush so much they would sacrifice National Security to see him fail or embarrassed. If fact, so blinding is their hate for Bush, nutty libs will block progress (fair tax, Iraq war for example) just so they can blame Bush for failures they caused. If the nutty libs sat aside their political agendas long enough to see that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, we most likely would be out by now. Liberalism knows no shame.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pmIf the nutty libs sat aside their political agendas long enough to see that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, we most likely would be out by now. Liberalism knows no shame.
Comment by Stubain — June 20, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Could you explain how this could be? The republicans are in power, how are the democrats holding us back from “winning?” Could you PLEASE explain what the hell the republican strategy is? I have asked this question of every one of you trolls and no one will answer. This leads me to believe you have no idea what it is either.
“stsy the course” is obviously not a strategy as it is not working!!!
June 20th, 2006 at 2:53 pm#25, stupidbrain,
June 20th, 2006 at 2:55 pmI agree.
Libs do hate GW that much.
But we have a reason!
By the way, explain how going into Iraq
was the right thing to do.
250 million people want to know!
If the nutty cons actually had a strategy concerning Iraq-mire, then maybe we would have actually accomplished something other than creating a training ground for terrorists and making the average Iraqi want to join up when they get the chance.
Neo-Conservatism is beyond same.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:56 pmStubain, you’re dreaming. Bush has used at will and even more the resources the USA has, Military, National Guard, CIA, FBI, “security contractors” (mercenaries), bribes and extortion to other countries to make’em participate in this foolish war, all he wanted and needed. And now is the guilt of the liberals? Wake up. This is the real world. The war hadn’t a strong base from the beggining and reality has catched up with this BADLY planned adventure.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:58 pmStubain the issue is not anyone’s wish for failure in Iraq. Quite to the contrary–the American people and the world need this President to be strong and competent. Through his actions and words he has proven thast he is neither. On 9-11 the President had the whole world behind him–too bad he took the sad, sorry advice of Rove and Cheney and decided to politicize 9-11 by dividing the country in a time of war. In backing up the president, you are backing up and supporting failed policy by failed leadership.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:59 pm#25
June 20th, 2006 at 3:00 pmNice post but you are wasting your breath here. These guys are so brain-dead that no matter what happens in Iraq, and I believe we are suceeding, will label it a defeat. You are correct in assuming they have no shame. I believe the WMDs will be found, just not in Iraq. I expect no apology from them or gratitude for that matter. They veiw the United States to be a terrorist organization which is why they aid and abed our enemy by spreading propaganda. Here is a perfect example; shortly after Zarqawi’s death, some of the MSM were reporting that he was beaten and shot by US marines without fact-checking the story first. In their efforts to batter the Bush administration, no statement is off-limits or too outrageous. The dems in congress are showing where they really stand with these debates and I just can’t wait until November!
Has everyone forgot that we are spending millions (if not almost a billion) dollars building Bushville, the new embassy in Irag? The troops will never leave, they will have to have thousands protecting the isolated fortress that is going up.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:00 pmIt’s funny that the neo-0cons refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and transfer their failures to anyone/everyone else.
It would make too much sense to say “Victory would be to train x-number of soldiers and slowly phase troops out as they took over the security duties”.
Rather, the neo-cons say “Victory is amorphous, has no limits and cannot be defined in any fashion, so we can always claim ‘victory’ when we fall on our face time and time again. Hey, look! I wiped my own a$$!!!! Victory is mine!”
Rather than care about the fiscal health of our country, neo-cons would rather sell America to all the foreign investors so they can run wild like crack-whores buying drugs. “Borrow and squander!” has become the true mantra of the neo-con cabal that is ruining our country, shredding the Constitution, and destroying the foundation on which our country was built.
If the neo-con’s didn’t hate average Americans so much, maybe they’d stop before they destroyed America. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for sanity to assert itself in the mind of the neo-con.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:03 pmI wonder if the right will apologize when it is verified there were no WMD’s?
The question of no shame could be asked of the republicans? Ceaslessly linking 9/11 to Saddam and Iraq. except it turns out there was no connection, then lying about saying there was a connection. Lying about WMD’s then blaming the CIA. Releasing the name of an undercover CIA operative to undermine information that did not fit the attack iraq worldview. Lying about not knowing who released classified information, then saying it wasn’t classified since the president said it was okay to release.
Shall I go on?
given the lack of support for the war in Iraq. the dems could very well be successful come november. They are presenting a plan. Which is far more then I can say for the republicans. I guess stay the course aint going down so well with Mainstream America.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:08 pmPerhaps milbog and stubain should patronize the conservative websites where hatred and lies, misinformation and propaganda will sustain them.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#34 - No, the neo-con non-plan isn’t cutting it with America.
“We’re going to stay until we win! Um, no, we don’t know what it means to ‘win’ in Iraq, but we’re staying! Uh, no, we don’t have any real ‘plan’ per-se, but we’re going to stay until we win! Uh, we didn’t really plan on how to get out, we just planned on getting there, and we’re going to stay until we win! Hey, stop asking me what it means to “win”! We’re going to win! We really, really are! Really, we are! Stop asking me questions! I don’t have the answers to your questions, so stop asking them! Security! Help!”
Yeah, if it weren’t so tragic, it would be funny. Too bad it’s American lives that are having to pay the price for the failures of the Bush administration and the neo-con cabal. I guess it takes too much effort to govern well, so the Republicans would rather “borrow and spend†our country into a fiscal hole and then expect the Democrats to bail them out. Again.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:14 pmHEY STEWBRAIN, THIS SHOULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION!
President Bush said last night at a fundraiser that as long as he was president, and as long as the pukes, like yourself, have control of congress WE WILL BE IN IRAQ.
He was red-faced and slurring and lisping. I guess our alcoholic cocaine sniffing prez of 37% of the people was drunk, once again.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:15 pm#25 stubain and #31 milbog I refer you to my question in #10 which I’ve posted in several places and not gotten a decent answer. Do you want to try?
Plus, would you knock off the ridiculous, inflammatory comments? We liberals love America, want to stop terrorists and terrorism, want America in all her beautiful ideology of true freedom to succeed, and we want EVERYONE to share in that - not just those who agree with us.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:16 pmMaude, Bush has turned so many corners, it is like he is lost in a labryinth of his own making. How many corners can one turn before he realizes he is back where he started?
June 20th, 2006 at 3:17 pm#38
That sounds nice except in the real world it doesn’t work. What exactly did you have in mind to stop these terrorist? Harsh language? Appeasement? There were WMDs in Iraq but I don’t want to waste my time in trying to explain to you why I know that. When they are found, do liberals plan to drop that argument? I want our troops to come home as much as any American does and I hope they will soon but that doesn’t mean pulling them out before we can be guaranteed that Iraq will succeed as a free and democratic nation first. Why can’t liberals acknowledge that we are making progress in Iraq. Does the fact that three elections were held there mean nothing to you guys? Does the fact that there is now an official government in place mean nothing? Does the fact that there are 80,000 Iraqis in their security forces mean nothing? You guys aren’t paying too close attention the troop levels either. There was as many as 160k+ American troops and now there are 130k+ which means we have already drawn down the numbers without too much fanfare. When the foreign insurgency fighters have returned to their home countries and are no longer a threat to Iraq and when the Iraqi security forces have matured to the point where they can hold their own, I believe our troops will come home. THE DATE WILL NOT BE DETERMINED BY THE DEMS OR OUR ENEMY!
June 20th, 2006 at 3:38 pmThere were WMDs in Iraq but I don’t want to waste my time in trying to explain to you why I know that.
Comment by milbog — June 20, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
I would guess because Bill O’reilly or Rush Limbaugh said so. Another useless rant from another usless turd. I thank god that you and your type are losing power everyday. Please keep up the bullshit, it pushes the moderates away.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:45 pmThe nutty libs would love nothing better then to see the US fail in Iraq and work very hard to that end. Consequences be damned.
Comment by Stubain — June 20, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Speaking of consequences, how many more deaths of our troops is it worth to support the Great Noble Cause? Apparently we are going to be there another 2.5 years since President Decider is leaving it up to the next president to handle our fate in Iraq.
Bush has refused requests from the Iraqi government to provide a timeline for withdrawal, after telling the world that we would leave if the Iraqi government asked us to get out.
What’s that? You don’t want to see any more deaths, but in the end it’s worth it? Tell that to the families of the two kidnapped soldiers who were found dead, their bodies tortured. Tell that to the newly widowed wife of a 22 year old soldier from my hometown who was laid to rest last month. The same widow with a newborn daughter whose father will never get to lay his eyes on his beautiful little girl.
You want it both ways. You hate to see our kids killed, but it’s worth it. You are a pathetic individual.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:54 pm#40 milbog You still haven’t answered my question. Why are we in Iraq? I supported our going into Afghanistan and the first Gulf War because the objectives were stated and I agreed with them. The “target” for going into Iraq has been “moving” and elusive, making me believe that the REAL goal is something I and other Americans would not have supported at the beginning, or now. Something like the Project for a New American Century’s wish to have the U.S. simply be the predominant power in the region. If “you conservatives” want “us liberals” to agree with you, then give us some coherent, logical reasons to do so.
Why can’t liberals acknowledge that we are making progress in Iraq.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:55 pmProgress toward what? Does the fact that three elections were held there mean nothing to you guys? Does the fact that there is now an official government in place mean nothing? What are these things “supposed” to mean in the goal of our military action, which has not been articulated? Does the fact that there are 80,000 Iraqis in their security forces mean nothing? You guys aren’t paying too close attention the troop levels either. There was as many as 160k+ American troops and now there are 130k+ which means we have already drawn down the numbers without too much fanfare. So, are we 40%? 70%? 10% of the way toward some goal in this regard? When the foreign insurgency fighters have returned to their home countries and are no longer a threat to Iraq and when the Iraqi security forces have matured to the point where they can hold their own, I believe our troops will come home. How many insurgents would leave if we did? What exactly do you mean by “matured” - how do we measure this? WHAT MEASURES DETERMINE THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL OR IS IT JUST REPUBS WISHES?
Cyra Brown #23
Try as I may, I could not make much sense from your comments. Are you saying that because Kerry may not have much influence, since his party is in the minority, that he should not speak out and demand answers from this administration? That type of reasoning, such as it is, strikes me as rather bizarre. The topic of this post concerned the issue of withdrawal and redeployment [which are not the same thing]. My comments addressed that very topic. For some reason, you wanted to know if I thought Bush is interested in stopping the slaughter [why did you put that word in quotation marks? Do you not believe that Americans and Iraqis are being slaughtered for no valid reason?]. No, I do not believe that Bush really cares all that much, because I think this war, to him, is simply an abstract concept. But my criticism was directed at Kerry, which is what this topic, and my comments, were concerned with. For some reason, you seem to believe that he should be given a pass for his suggestion for withdrawal, when later in the link, he then says that he wants the troops redeployed “over the horizon”. As I explained before, that is the same proposal that Murtha has put forth, which, again, means that those troops can be called back into combat, where they do not belong, at a moment’s notice. Again, it does not matter if Kerry and Murtha, because they are in the minority, have little influence. The Democrats are speaking out so the citizens in this country can see where they stand on Iraq. Even though most people do not like how Bush is handling Iraq, the Democrats, who are, apparently, still fearful that people will think of them as being soft on national security, still cannot find the courage to demand an immediate withdrawal of those troops from Iraq. That is called lacking the courage of your convictions by doing the right thing and calling and end to the needless slaughter [there is that word again] of American military personnel.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:02 pmTHE DATE WILL NOT BE DETERMINED BY THE DEMS OR OUR ENEMY!
Comment by milbog — June 20, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Nor apparently by the Iraqi government, who has asked Bush for a withdrawal plan, which he has refused to give them after telling us that he would leave Iraq if the new government asked us to.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:11 pm#15 Errol
June 20th, 2006 at 4:12 pmA few weeks ago? Maybe you missed Senator Kerry’s April 5th editorial in the New York Times, “Two Deadlines and an Exit.”
“If Iraq’s leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year’s end.”
-John Kerry
Now, quite honestly, if you want to call his decision to change the date for withdrawlal “vacillation,” that is of course your right, but I would consider that a bit of an exaggeration. Unlike our dearly beloved president, Senator Kerry realizes that it is necessary to be flexible, especially in circumstances as tense and dangerous as these.
And if you object to his agreement with Representative Murtha’s proposal to redeploy the troops “over the horizon,” I have to ask, do you really think that everything will just turn peachy the second US troops leave? It’s not for nothing that Iraq is widely designated a “quagmire” and is so often compared to Vietnam. Senator Kerry, and other Democrats urging a withdrawal from Iraq, are looking at the picture in practical terms. You compare the Senator of today to the war veteran of 1971. While I admire his principled stand against the Vietnam war then, I could not expect, after several decades of serving the law and in the government, that he would have the same stance on this war now, and for that matter, I am glad that he doesn’t.
I would guess because Bill O’reilly or Rush Limbaugh said so. Another useless rant from another usless turd. I thank god that you and your type are losing power everyday. Please keep up the bullshit, it pushes the moderates away.
Comment by Krazny — June 20, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Care to explain just how I and my fellow conservatives are losing our power? By the way God is usually spelled with a capital ‘G’.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:18 pm#40- milbog, just about all of those 30,000 troops have been ‘drawn down’ can reasonably be attributed to being KILLED, they claim just over 2,500 deaths, but then, they are only counting the ones who died ‘on the battleground’ excluding all those who died later of their wounds, or have committed suicide. The rest? All of those who are now permanently disabled, be it physically or mentally. There are more than 20,000 people in that group, although you cannot get any real numbers from those secretive Bushies. Oh MY no, that would be so bad for ‘morale’. Americans MIGHT get angry, if we were to tell them the truth! We don’t want that, now do we? That would explain the lack of ‘fanfare’, wouldn’t it? And the “insurgents” you mentioned? The majority of them are IN their home country. BushCo made that happen, by their failure to anticipate…anything, basically. But that is what comes from not having a plan. Unless that was the plan, all along. They will never tell.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:21 pmA 35% approval rating for the president and his policies, an even lower approval rating for congress. Anger at the white house and the republican controlled houses over debt, over debating bullshit, when so many more important things need to be discussed.
Yes Milbog the rabid neo-cons who hijacked the republican party are losing power. I know I am right.
lol
June 20th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#48
June 20th, 2006 at 4:28 pmThere is no point in carrying on this conversation. Your mind is basically mush. The Iraq War will be considered in future years as the determining point in the War on Terror. Bush had the courage to make the tough decision not to run away from terrorism as did his predecessor but face it head on. History will prove him right. I truly am wasting my time here. You want to change the direction, win an election. Then we’ll talk.
#47 That’s only if you actually believe in him.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:28 pmYup sure took courage to attack a toothless dictator in Iraq, instead of going after the money and fanatics. History will prove only that you supported the sorriest presidency of modern times. Bush has never faced anything head on. He failed this country, and continues to fail this country. My hope is he will be impeached before the end of his term so some sort of sanity will return to the white house.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:34 pmI truly am wasting my time here. You want to change the direction, win an election. Then we’ll talk.
Comment by milbog — June 20, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Don’t let the door hit ya buddy. If you had an intelligent arguement I would say stick around and talk. However, as you will still not answer the question as to what the republican strategy is then it is obvious you do not know.
Have a wonderful day!!
June 20th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#25 stubain and #31 milbog I refer you to my question in #10 which I’ve posted in several places and not gotten a decent answer. Do you want to try?
Plus, would you knock off the ridiculous, inflammatory comments? We liberals love America, want to stop terrorists and terrorism, want America in all her beautiful ideology of true freedom to succeed, and we want EVERYONE to share in that - not just those who agree with us.
Comment by PLC (Patriotic Liberal Christian)
I will gladly answer your question. No time now but check back in a couple of hours.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:41 pmPLC - the trolls are waiting for their talking points from Rush!!!
June 20th, 2006 at 4:50 pm#44-Erroll- It is obvious that you are unable to comprehend my response to your post. No… I was clearly not saying that Senator Kerry should not speak out and demand answers. I said he can do it all he wants, BUT HE WILL NOT GET AN ANSWER FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION. And I didn’t want to know if you thought that Bush was interested in stopping the “slaughter”, I said Bush has no intention of stopping it. I DID ask if you remembered when Bush said it would be up to other administrations to decide the fate of Iraq. And I used the quotation marks because I was quoting you. As for the rest of your response, you are not even able to comprehend my post, so see no reason to address anything else you wrote because it is not about anything I said, just your interpretation of it. M-O-O-N, that spells Erroll, laws yes.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:55 pmYou guys aren’t paying too close attention the troop levels either. There was as many as 160k+ American troops and now there are 130k+ which means we have already drawn down the numbers without too much fanfare.
Comment by milbog — June 20, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
A majority of those 22,000 troops were in Iraq to help with security for the elections. So you start with 138,000 troops, temporarily raise it to 160,000 due to the elections, and then call a draw down to the original level a sign of bringing the troops home???
You are truly funny. Here…read more:
From the Washington Post, Sept. 2005:
The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq. Pentagon officials said in late August that they expected to temporarily boost that number to 160,000 as part of U.S. and Iraqi efforts to block an expected increase in insurgent attacks timed to the October vote and December parliamentary elections. Pentagon officials said at the time that the troop increase would be accomplished mainly by delaying the return home of some units and speeding the arrival of others slated to replace them.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:03 pm“I am truly wasting my time here.” Well… DUH! I guess my mushy brain scared him off, doggone it. I was hoping he had something to say about my theory on the reduction of troops in Iraq, but maybe next time. So, Buh- Bye, milbog!
June 20th, 2006 at 5:08 pmOh, and #40, when the U.S. military announces a drawdown to, say, 85,000 troops over a 6 month period, with no plans to replace them, then come back here and we’ll celebrate.
But I wouldn’t wait around too long. Bush has decided to let the next president decide our fate in Iraq, and he has refused several requests from the Iraqi government to give them a withdrawal plan after stating to the public that we would leave Iraq if the new government asked us to.
See you around mid-2009.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:17 pmCyra, #56, thanks for the “M-O-O-N that spells Errol” laugh! And it’s from my favorite Stephen King book!
June 20th, 2006 at 5:28 pmAlexandra #46
I admire your generosity in labeling Kerry’s vacillation as being flexible, regarding Kerry’s changing his withdrawal proposal [which, reading the article in the link, is actually a redeployment “over the horizon”]. You regard Kerry’s change of withdrawal date [which seems to me to be a misnomer] as “flexible” and “a bit of an exaggeration”. First, there is no exaggeration as to his first withdrawal date. As you yourself pointed out, Kerry first proposed a withdrawal date at the end of 2006. He then changed his proposal to July of 2007. You think that is being, in your words, flexible. i suspect you have never been in a combat zone. But Kerry has, which is why I, justifiably, I believe, have thrown his own words back to him. Along with flexible you also use the word practical. Really? If you had read my post at #15, you might want to explain those words to those families and friends of the soldiers and Marines who would be getting killed and maimed and crippled and returning to this country with third degree burns over their bodies, missing a hand and an arm and a leg, those who return to this country in a state of paralysis, those whose skulls have been fractured, and those who have been psychologically impaired because of this needless war.
Your second point is equally invalid concerning redeploying those troops “over the horizon”. As independent journalist Nir Rosen, who has spent close to two years in Iraq, writing in last December’s issue of The Atlantic, has pointed out, “If the occupation were to end, so, too, would the insurgency. After all, what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left”? Retired General William Odom, writing last October at antiwar.com., concurs with this view, stating that “Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying”. Regardless of whether U.S. troops are over or under, above or below the horizon, the bottom line is they do not belong there. All the Iraqis have to see are those troops simply being shifted, either in great or small numbers, to places like Kuwait or Kurdistan, and the first thing that they will think of is the phrase “permanent occupation”. As difficult as it may be for many Americans to fathom, that is not the sure fire way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
Speaking of hearts and minds, I would like to suggest that you rent the 1974 Oscar winning documentary Hearts and Minds, which chronicles the physical and psychological trauma that so many veterans encountered and endured in a place called Vietnam. If and when you do, then just maybe you and other liberal hawks might not be so cavalier in recommending that those troops in Iraq return to this country in a year, much less six months.
One last point. The issue of redeployment is one giant subterfuge. Even if U.S. troops are redeployed to another region, it would not mean that the violence would be abated. The focus of the war would simply be shifted from the ground to the air, where the Americans would then proceed to bomb the hell out of the Iraqis. The carnage from the air would be an attempt to make up for the amount of American troops that would no longer be in Iraq. Less American casualties, but a hell of a lot more Iraqis being blown up. Again, not a very good way to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:46 pm#60-Ms. Jane, my pleasure! I am delighted to know that someone knew what I was saying. When Tp is thick with trolls, that phrase continually comes to mind. And I am not ‘dissing’ Tom Cullen, just noting the similar trouble with comprehension. But at least Tom comes by his through no fault of his own. I enjoy your posts, and your husband’s as well. Have a great evening! :)
June 20th, 2006 at 5:57 pm#54 Stubain Well, it’s been three hours and no response to my basic question about what the measureable goals are which define “victory” in Iraq. I’m glad I’m not holding my breath but my church is about to send over one of young men and I’d sure like to know what he’s going to be there for. NO SOLDIER LEFT BEHIND
June 20th, 2006 at 7:58 pmThe last time the left forced a cut and run, two and a half million people were butchered by the No. Vietnamese and Cambodians. Maybe Kerry and company are going for a new record–say, three million blown up by terrorists after we have pulled out.
June 20th, 2006 at 8:32 pmPLC - that unfortunate young man is being sent as replacement cannon fodder for the planned chaos turned occupation designed solely for the enrichment of the neocon corporate cronies… so sorry…
you should try to change his mind… you might find some inspiration here…
June 20th, 2006 at 9:20 pm#61 Erroll
June 20th, 2006 at 10:11 pmMaybe you misinterpreted what I said earlier. I didn’t call his change of dates an exaggeration, rather I called your characterization of the change as “vacillation” as being the exaggeration.
I found it astonishing when you described me as a “liberal hawk.” I have been against this war from the beginning, I never believed any of the reasons given by the administration, and I was an early protester of the invasion in 2003. And if you would point out to me that Senator Kerry voted for the war, yes, I am well aware of it and am quite sorry that he did. I will not try to justify him for that decision. However, to quote another early opponent of the war, Colin Powell, the only individual in the administration with any sense to begin with, “you break it, you own it.” Break it we certainly did, and we’re doing a terrible job of trying to fix things now. The Senator’s proposal is rational because it allows for troop withdrawal, yet it recognizes that uncertain as the aftermath of such an event would be for the Iraqi people, it’s better to be cautious and retain some troops not too far away.
In quoting journalist Ni Rosen and General William Odom, you basically justify my point about why a complete withdrawal would be a bad idea. Insurgents are no longer just attacking Americans, but other Iraqis as well. Can you tell me with utter certainty that all of this would suddenly cease the moment the last American soldier left Iraqi soil?
I am not an advocate of war. I think that it is a travesty that the military budget in the US is higher than the military budgets of the next twenty nations that spend the most combined. I can’t predict what would occur in the event of an actual withdrawal, though warfare by aircraft sounds plausible, to say the least. But this is basically the reality that our government has unfortunately wrought upon the whole world right now. So you criticize the proposals of Senator Kerry and other Democratic senators recommending withdrawals and redeployment elsewhere; I ask you, what would you suggest instead?
Alexandra
I do not wish this to sound patrionizing but you at least seem to be looking at this with an open mind. You think that the comments by Nir Rosen and General Odom somehow validate your point of view. I don’t know why you think that since, as Rosen points out, “what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left”? Rosen goes on to say in the article that a large reason why this fighting is taking place is that the Sunni Arab fighters and the clerics, whom he had spoken to, all gave one reason why they were fighting against the Americans: intiqaam, i.e revenge. They remember the damage the Americans did to their homes and to their relatives and friends who were killed by the American military forces during combat and when the Americans shot at and killed innocent civilians during raids on their homes. What Rosen was told by the Iraqis is backed up by General Odom and Murtha himself has repeatedly tried to drive this point home: It is the presence of the United States military that is inflaming the insurgency.
Last month, in the Boston Globe, the paper focused on a Pentagon report which said, among things, that “the vast majority of the attacks- from crude bombing attempts and shootings to more sophisticated, military-style assaults and suicide attacks- were targeted at US-led coalition military forces, BUT [my emphasis] the majority of deaths have been of civilians, who are far more vulnerable to insurgent tactics.” This detail, which the Pentagon admits as being true, has received little exposure among the so-called liberal media, despite the fact that this should be seen as the raison d’etre for why so many Iraqis have been getting killed. Again, though many Iraqis have been killed, they were not the main target: the U.S.-led coalition military forces were the intended goal of the resistance fighters. This revelation is hugely significant but few people are even aware of it because it has received such little attention in the MSM.
Murtha has also continually tried to make clear that a British defense ministry survey had revealed last August that 80 percent of Iraqis want the U.S. out of their country. This revelation of how the Iraqis feel about the U.S. should, at least theoretically, put to rest that lie that Powell has propagated, “you break it, you own it.” As Nir Rosen and other independent journalists, who have interviewed and talked to the Iraqi people can attest, such as Dahr Jamail and Robert Fisk, among others, the Iraqis want the occupying power to leave their homeland. Do you honestly think that the Iraqi people would not resent the Americans in light of what happened at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo Bay, at Haditha, at Ishiqa, and other atrocities that have taken place in Iraq? As Dahr Jamail reported last month at antiwar.com., what happened at Haditha, where U.S. Marines slaughtered at least 20 civilians, was merely the most widely known of the Iraqi atrocities. He writes about what happened at the al-Latifya district south of Baghdad last May, when seven helicopters landed to pursue and kill more than 25 people. He reports about an Iraqi individual whose house was attacked by American soldiers at Samara, who proceeded to kill the family which included “the father, mother, and daughter, who is in the 6th grade, along with their son, who was suffering from mental and physical disabilities.” There have been other atrocities which go a long way in replicating what happened at My Lai.
To stay in Iraq, as i have tried to point out, will simply create more bloodshed while redeploying those troops either over or under, above or below, the horizon will not in the least placate the Iraqis. If the Chinese invaded this country, there would be pockets of resistance springing up throughout this country in order to expel the invader. That is what is happening in Iraq. Again, as I, and others whom I have mentioned earlier have stated, it is the presence of the U.S. military that is causing the carnage in Iraq to happen. The only logical position for an antiwar person to take is to call for the rapid, and immediate and total withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces from Iraq and the surrounding region. For Kerry to claim that the earliest practicable date to withdraw is a year from now is simply absurd. I took pains to attempt to point out in an earlier post that by that time there will be many Americans killed and many more returning to this country grievously wounded and maimed and crippled. The question is very simple, Alexandra. Is this what you desire to have happen? Because if Kerry’s plan somehow takes place, this is surely what will take place
June 21st, 2006 at 12:16 amImmediate withdrawal = surrender
We leave when the job is finished, no matter how much liberals whine and moan. This means killing every last AL-QAEDA in Iraq. Yes, in case you forgot, we are fighting against AL-QAEDA in Iraq. Who can possibly be opposed to killing AL QAEDA blood thirsty murdering fanatics? After all, have you all forgotten that it was AL QAEDA that attacked us on 9/11? We should kill every last one of them everywhere they exist and then eliminate Hezbollah, Jamas, and all other terrorist scum. And no, we are not creating more terrorists by being there, These guys were not selling tires before we invaded.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:28 amSorry, Chris, but your neoconservative emotion seems to be getting in the way of the actual facts. As Nir Rosen again points out in The Atlantic, the vast majority of those fighting in Iraq disavow any connection to al-Qaeda or any of its branches. Rosen, who has spent much time in Iraq, reports that al-Qaeda has found very few followers among the Iraqi people. Even before Zarqawi’s death, many Iraqis began to turn against them. In Sadr City, for example, the local townspeople placed burning tires around the necks of the foreign jihadis. The foreign fighters are reduced to hiding out in the smaller villagers in the area, where they can remain as unobtrusive as possible. Rosen, who has spent over a year in Iraq writing as an independent journalist, writes that “When the Americans depart and the Sunnis join the Iraqi government, some of the foreign jihadis in Iraq may try to continue the struggle- but they will have committed enemies in both Baghdad and the Shiite south, and the entire Sunni triangle will be against them. They will have nowhere to hide. Nor can they merely take their battle to the West. The jihadis need a failed state like Iraq in which to operate. When they leave Iraq, they will be hounded by Arab and Western security agencies.” Contrary to your false assumption, as Rosen points out, it is indeed the presence of the U,S, military that is causing the foreign fighters to gather in Iraq, They are opportunists who are always looking to roil the waters by trying to align the local population against the coalition forces. But once that source is gone, i.e. the U.S. military, then the jihadis must look elsewhere to stir up trouble. To me, the reporting of independent journalists such as Nir Rosen and Dahr Jamail and Robert Fisk brings to the table a ton of credibility, especially compared to such pseudo journalists as Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham and Bill “no combat experience” O’Reilly.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:25 am#68 Chris “surrender” in a war means one government giving over its governance of a country to another government. If we leave Iraq, who are we surrendering to? How would we giving up our government? Further, I think our citizens are actually surrendering “government of the people” to the Bush administration with all the rights-reducing policies, procedures, laws, Constitutional Amendment proposals, etc. they have put forth.
June 21st, 2006 at 8:01 amwinning in iraq = losing for the libs
June 21st, 2006 at 9:21 amErroll
June 21st, 2006 at 11:41 amNo matter what analysis any journalist may give, they are not soothsayers and cannot decree with certainty the events that would ensue in the case of a complete and immediate troop withdrawal. On that note, I am not trying to predict what may or may not happen in the case of an immediate withsdrawal, or a delayed withdrawal with redeployment, or without redeployment. My purpose is simply to defend the position of the Senator, to whom you continue to give far too little credit.
Can you name any other single legislator who has taken as decisive a stand on troop withdrawal as Senator Kerry has? A lot of Democrats are talking about withdrawals, but their insistence to avoid setting an actual deadline seems to imply a certain level of political pandering, because of course “withdrawal” is what the public wants to hear, but by leaving the details ambiguous they can keep themselves covered. “Polls suggest many Americans are eager to see American troops come home from Iraq but are uneasy about leaving too soon.” This line is quoted from an article that made the front page of today’s New York Times, on the division between Kerry and the Democratic caucus, and indeed his extension of the deadline was an effort to reach a compromise with them, although it clearly hasn’t worked.
You say the only logical position for an antiwar person to take is immediate withdrawal. Please note that by specifying July 2007 as a deadline, Senator Kerry does not necessarily mean that THIS is when all troops will be returning home, but that this is the absolute latest that troop withdrawal could begin.
It is nice to imagine that everything would just clean itself up were American soldiers to start returning home tomorrow, or better yet this afternoon, but that is also quite unrealistic, because thanks to the messes made by American contractors in the region, the infrastructure is a shambles and the current Iraqi government is so weak that without American troops to bolster its authority, it would fall apart and chaos would ensue. I can’t say this with certainty, of course, but it seems quite likely that this would be a consequence, given what is going on now. And as if Senator Kerry isn’t already taking positions fraught with political risks, to suggest immediate and total withdrawal would REALLY be political suicide. Legislators cannot merely vote or make proposals on the basis of principles alone. Kerry has already done enough to make himself a pariah in the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, NOT the entire country is anti-war. As a US Senator, Kerry represents both the interests of both his state and the country. I honestly can’t understand how you could expect much more from ANY legislator.
Why does Congress continue to allocate more borrowed money to continue this atrocity in Iraq? They have never had an accounting for the use of the money they have previously allocated. Congress is responsible for making the war in Iraq possible. We need to concentrate on making changes in our “representation”.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:16 pmAlexandra
I think you misunderstand. As far as I can determine, there are only two senators calling for withdrawal, Kerry and Feingold. and their position seems to be based upon political expediency instead of any kind of moral imperative. Their position may seem laudable because their colleagues are too pusillanimous to speak out for withdrawal. You say a lot of Democrats are speaking out for withdrawal. Who else besides Kerry and Feingold in the Senate is calling for withdrawal? It is faint praise indeed when the best that can be said are for two senators whose plan calls for withdrawal, not to end, but to BEGIN, in July of 2007. As I have said before, it is especially egregious regarding Kerry because, ironically, he is one of the few senators in either party to have seen combat and one would think that he would have a lot more empathy for the plight of those soldiers and Marines who are stationed in that hellhole, especially in the summer, in Iraq.
Regarding your point about chaos, as I mentioned earlier, General Odom has commented, rightly I believe, that chaos and civil war are already happening in Iraq, due to the belligerent presence of the U.S. military and that will continue to happen as long as the United States continues to occupy and kill and maim and torture the citizens of that sovereign nation.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:39 pm[…] Yes, there are some differences between the two resolutions, but the basic thrust is the same – calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces to begin in 2006, coupled with increased efforts to set Iraq’s political transition and reconstruction back on track. Both approaches call on President Bush to put a stronger focus on the broader war on terror, reflecting a concern raised by 87 percent terrorism experts surveyed by Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress who say that the war in Iraq has had a negative impact on the war on terror. […]
June 21st, 2006 at 4:43 pmAhhh, the “Progressives Unity Approach to Iraq…Begin ‘Cut and Run’ Immediately” - What visions can be conjured up?? “Effective multi-lateral and multi-tasking” Iraqi policy - perhaps EVEN as effective as the nightmare in Rwanda or Darfur?? (Those corrupt UN officials REALLY know how to relate to rogue governments - and SO effective in quelling senseless brutality and murder!)
The total plan of Progressive/Socialists can be summed up very concisely:
Leave Iraq as quickly as possible, demanding of course, that Iraq be responsible for it’s own security ASAP. Never mind about the influence of Iran. Never mind if thousands are slaughtered deliberately. Shed large crocodile tears and relate to all who will listen how badly they FEEL. Go to Starbucks and order a Venti non-fat Latte.
June 21st, 2006 at 4:47 pmHypocrites…..
Like everything broke in this country, our “redcoat” occupation of Iraq should simply be subject to recall.
June 21st, 2006 at 8:16 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:02 pmYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pmflexible joint
All fiberscopes introduce a certain amount of image distortion; much of this is similar to the distortion of modern night vision
March 31st, 2008 at 7:58 amCash Loans
Secure cash program providing fast cash advance before payday.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:35 amhow to establish corporate credit
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:08 pmBad Credit Loans Personal Loan Auto Loan Calculator
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 10:35 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 4:25 amEric
Job well done.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:28 amHarry Convict
Good work. I am going to read some more on this.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:09 amgas pains
I came across your site while I did a search on Google for %KEYWORD% and your article on %TITLE% was informative.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:23 pmCar Loan
Bad credit auto loans could be precise supportive outcome to run across a good car loans help in the eletronic highway.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:30 amNaked Girls Naked Young Girl Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 5:03 amChubby Grannies Chubby Granny Masturbate Pussy Big Tit Chubby Grannys
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 6:44 am