Hagel: U.S. Should Start Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Within 6 Months
Hagel: U.S. Should Start Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Within 6 Months
In June, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) voted against the Levin amendment, a “nonbinding proposal [that] did not set a withdrawal deadline, but urged President Bush to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq this year.” At the time, Hagel explained his vote:
We should not limit the Commander in Chief’s options in Iraq. That is why I will vote against the Levin amendment.
Just two months later, Hagel’s views have shifted considerably. His position now appears consistent with the Levin amendment. From the Lincoln Journal Star:
The United States needs to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within the next six months, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Thursday, rather than ratcheting up its military commitment now.
With Iraq exploding in sectarian violence and “moving closer and closer to a straight-out civil war,†Hagel said, the Bush administration’s decision to transfer nearly 5,000 additional U.S. troops into Baghdad is “only going to make it worse for us.â€
In the end, he said, “feed(ing) more American troop fodder into the fight†could result in “even a worse defeat.â€
A diverse group of 12 Democrats recently sent a letter to President Bush expressing their support for the principles of the Levin amendment. Hagel should think about backing up his words with actions and signing on to this effort.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
105 Responses to “Hagel: U.S. Should Start Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Within 6 Months”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Does the tme measurement of "a friedman" apply here?
August 4th, 2006 at 10:32 amYes please come to your senses. After the hearing and watching that dumb old man answer questions like a mental patient, we need to get our people out of there NOW.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:35 amIs this only Talk? Or does he really mean this? That is the question.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:36 amcan they revote on the levin ammendment? that would be interesting. And maybe a smart move from the Dems. they need to keep on pushing the issue and show their resolve and commitment to the issue
August 4th, 2006 at 10:39 amNot 6 months Hagel, NOW.
Let Hussein out of prison, put him in charge, withdraw and all will be fine in Iraq. All we would have to do is to keep tight control on Hussein, just as we had before idiot Bush invaded his country.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:41 amThis story illustrates the prime difference between Republicans and Democrats.
When the Democrats proposed withdrawing troops, Hagel and his ilk were against it. They called it cutting and running, cowardly, "Limiting the presidents choices" etc... even though they knew then that it was the best course of action.
Now the Republicans are proposing withdrawing troops because of lets face it, public pressure, the Democrats are still pro doing it. It is still the best course of action.
The Republicans think of what is good for their faction, the Democrats seem more interested in what is good for their nation.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:43 amThis is horse shit; Troops are being sent to Iraq.
Troops should be drawn down beginning today. We lost this war the day Bush started it. Getting our troops out of Iraq is not a cut&run tactic, it is simply recognition that our president was wrong to mislead us into his boutique war of machismo - we'll see how macho he is as it gets shoved up his ass by not only Americans but the world.
The draw down can begin now with a simple televised press conference in which Tony Snow says, "we will begin to draw down our troops as soon as we can get the necessary equipment into position to extract our troops and their - not to exceed two weeks."
August 4th, 2006 at 10:44 amThe great irony about Hegel's comments is that he may, as a Republican, present himself as more of an anti-war candidate, if he runs in 2008, than the Democrats. The publicity surrounding the letter that the Democrats sent to the White House should not obscure the fact that they did not indicate how many troops should be withdrawn and when this procedure should finally take place. As Heynow states,those troops should be removed from that quagmire as rapidly and as quickly as possible.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:45 amchuck's running for president.
that's all you need to know about his public statements.
but better hagel than gingrich or mccain.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:45 am6 months is too long > start pulling the troops out now, before Bush sets off WWIII by attacking Iran! If a war starts with Iran, then all the troops in Iraq most likely will be slain, by Iranian hordes and enraged Iraqi Shia groups! Rumsfeld must resign and stand trial for war crimes!
August 4th, 2006 at 10:58 amThese are NOT his views. These are election time statements.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:01 amWhat is it with 6 Months for these guys?
August 4th, 2006 at 11:02 amPost 13 dlet > sex months clears the November elections, sweeps past the holidays, and puts it into February/March of 2007, so perhaps Hagel hopes it never happens, since Bush will probably have started WWIII by attacking Iran by then > that is why the troops must be pulled out before Christmas of this year!
August 4th, 2006 at 11:09 amThe wheels are now turning. 6 months ago it was treason to suggest troop withdrawal.
Shamalama, I agree with you. The Shia are now seeing the opportunity of gaining power throughout the region.
It was so naive of this admin. to think they could just whip a little democracy on them and all the pieces would fall into place.
Now is the time for true pressure to be applied on this admin. to bring the troops home. It won't happen overnight but the whispers just a few months ago have now turned into a roar.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:11 amCongress can do this by cutting off all funds for the Iraq occupation and by telling Halliburton that funds for the new embassy in Baghdad are canceled!
August 4th, 2006 at 11:11 amsix not sex for post 14 > lol > a funny typo!
August 4th, 2006 at 11:12 amSad to think that in direct response to the horrific attacks on 9/11, Bush directly delivers justice in the form of a fundamentalist Islamic republic.
Comment by Shamalamadingdong — August 4, 2006 @ 10:35 am
i wonder how many of the troops actually understand that this has happened... boy, won't they be pissed (the ones who will admit it, anyway)...
August 4th, 2006 at 11:13 amI didn't see any quotes in that article saying that Hagle wants troops out in six months. What he seems to be saying is that he is against putting an additional 5,000 troops in Baghdad because, as Hagle said, "eventually, we need to start pulling people out of there." There doesn't seem to be any timetable put on his remarks. It appears that the Lincoln Star is making that up.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:15 amcut and run! cut and run! cut and run! cut and run!!!
Why do the Republicans want to aid the terrorists? Why do they want to hurt America?
August 4th, 2006 at 11:17 amBush will NEVER withdraw the toops - not in 6 motnhs or at least not until the PNAC white paper objectives are met. They have not left because this administration wants them there for so the staging of the upcoming invasion / conflict (they won't call it a war) will be easy.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:18 amChuck Hagel was CEO of ES&S Voting Systems.
He'll be running in 2008 with support of the Bushies, as payback for handing them the elections in 2000 and 2004.
He gives his false opinions on a regular basis-- never backed up with votes-- in a massive pre-election positioning effort.
If nothing else, the man is smart. He knows which way the wind is blowing.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:20 amHeynow said, "After the hearing and watching that dumb old man answer questions like a mental patient"
What does that say about Hillary, since Rumsfeld laid the smackdown on her?
August 4th, 2006 at 11:20 amMr. Big well he said it right in the first paragraph of the article. I am not sure why you have chosen to ignore the statement, but well join the rest of the world please.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:23 amwith a brand new US embassy now being constructed and a few large military bases and installations in place, there is no way in Hades that the US is going to withdraw from Iraq.
any dern fool can see that.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:24 amg asked, "can they revote on the levin ammendment? that would be interesting. And maybe a smart move from the Dems."
Please put up those cut and run plans again for votes. The Kerry/Feingold vote was especially entertaining.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:27 amMr. Biggy, The very first paragraph reads " The United States needs to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within the next six months, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Thursday, rather than ratcheting up its military commitment now."
So what part of "Sen. Chuck Hagel said Thursday" don't you understand.
It appears that you want to make up your own news to stay in denial.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:29 amKrazny, no Hagle did not say that in the first paragraph. There were no quotes around that. That was the journalist's interpration. Hagle said he would "eventually" like the see the troops out, as does everybody. When does eventually = six months?
August 4th, 2006 at 11:29 amI'm from Nebraska and have followed Chuck's speeches and Senate votes for years. He makes a lot of sense most of the time, but he has this nasty habit of caving in to the Republican leadership when it comes to crunch time. He is as responsible for the poor legislative oversight as most of the other scumbags in the Senate and House. Nevertheless, it is refreshing to see he is willing to sstand up to the Bush administration, even if it is only in a speech.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:29 amwhatever makes you happy, I mean if you can't even admit, that he said what he said, then we really can't get anywhere.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:31 amjustanobserver, what part of providing a direct quote don't you understand? If you read the article you would see that Hagle actually said, "eventually, we need to start pulling people out of there." Eventually does not equal six months.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:33 amKrazny, provide the quote from Hagle, not the journalist, where he says six months, and not "eventually."
August 4th, 2006 at 11:35 amMr. Big,
August 4th, 2006 at 11:36 amYour 15 minutes of "fame" here are, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and DONE.
Troll or lemming? I see NO difference. The broken record spins on, with nobody caring, much less listening...
Mr Big
The paper didn't quote the whole thing, here is an idea, why don't you do some research seen as you are so interested, and come up with somewhere that did, and then post the link. Once we can read the whole speech, then we can make up our minds about who is a liar, okay?
August 4th, 2006 at 11:37 amActually no quote is given on what hagel said. he could have said 6 months and you now it. I don't think the journalist pulled the 6 months figure out of his ass. Dude you are really clutching at straws. I noticed you said nothing about hagel talking about how adding more troops to baghdad would lead to a worse defeat.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:38 amFine Big guy, you want to hold to that. Grab on then because your little world is falling apart before your eyes. There is now open dissent on the Staying the course crowd and its from within. I'm sure that Sen. Hagel will be asked again today to expound on his words and we'll see if the all important 6 months are in any statement. Even if it's not the world sees a changing of ideas in Washington.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:39 amBruce Gorton, the journalist is making the claim that Hagle said six months, but provided no direct quote from him saying any such thing. Isn't it up to the journalist, and not me to back up his arguments? Tell me, when does "eventually" mean six months?
August 4th, 2006 at 11:40 am...besides, you must be SUCH a hit on the Conservative blogs, right? Or do they find you too "left" leaning?
Probably, "commie, trader scum" (isn't that how neocon's treat each other too?)
August 4th, 2006 at 11:42 amIsn’t it up to the journalist, and not me to back up his arguments?
"Big, you ignorant slut" - entirely the reason you stupid Faux news types are SO gullible. You just believe EVERYTHING you hear or read and NEVER attempt to investigate the truth?
Oh God, LEMMINGS, LEMMINGS, I hear nothing, see nothing, LEMMINGS, LEMMINGS.
Krazny said, "Actually no quote is given on what hagel said."
Did you read the whole article? His actual quote is in there.
Hagle said, "eventually, we need to start pulling people out of there."
How the journalist makes the leap to six months, I don't know. Journalists have misquoted and misinterpreted before.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:43 amIraq is an excellent example about why the US should not be meddling in other countries without studying the history, political dynamics, and culture of the country. Obviously, Saddam had a better handle on Iraq. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are out of their league and elements. Tactically and strategically, Bush is overwhemingly inept, incompetent and stupid. Give back Iraq to the Iraqis, get our troops out and call it a day.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:44 amHagel speaks the truth whether he will back it up with any action or not. This war was destined to fail the minute it was dreamed up by the cowards in the PNAC, none of whom ever served in battle. We should bite the bullet, start targeting problems in our owin country and stop trying to force our will on the Middle East. My fifth grade geography teacher told us in 1957 that for the USA to stick our noses into the Middle East would be the biggest mistake we ever made...guess she was pretty intelligent and that is the only thing I remember from that year....
August 4th, 2006 at 11:45 amLOL sure thing, Like I said, I don't think the journalist pulled 6 months out of his ass. He most likely used information, in the opening statement, without giving a quote. I realize you are very dense, but this sort of irrational behavior is why you and people like you will lose over the next few years. Reality has a well know liberal bias.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:46 amMr. Big
That the reporter uses one quote and not another does not mean that the reporter is lying about the contents of the speech, so while your statement that "Eventually" does not equal six months is true, it does not back your argument. Hagel could have said six months and that just not gotten included in the quotes.
If you are going to make the claim that the journalist is a liar, it is up to you to back your claim that the journalist is a liar, and if you aren't prepared to, well then don't make the claim. IE: Put up, or shut up. It is as simple as that.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:48 amKrazny said, "I don’t think the journalist pulled 6 months out of his ass."
Prove it. Where's the direct quote from Hagle?
August 4th, 2006 at 11:49 amWhat exactly are we meant to be "cutting & running" from when we demand redeployment of troops? Didn't Chuckles the prez-nut declare mission accomplished to major combat operations in Iraq, or *gasp* was he speaking uninformed, (albeit uniformed, in a cod-enhanced flightsuit).
The last I checked, our military forces weren't designed for peacekeeping/nation building, except that isn't actually their mission over there now either. Or is it?
What's the strategery, Kenneth?
What's with this false meme that Iraqia are "thisclose" to a "free and democratic country" if only we'd hang out and fight off some nebulous forces. Democracies arise from within; in the absense of any democratic institutions or widespread cross-tribe pact for governance prior to Bush's ass-ault, this country wasn't ready to have its former head cut off. No democracy is going to flourish while a people have no trust in the very same neighbors they'd need to rely on in said democracy. There was no "liberating" of the Iraqis when they had no alternative method of rule [to liberate "to"] and any attempt to muscle them now to collaborate and create one under the current and eons-long socio-cultural strife and on a deadline was just asking for hasty shaped ineffective future failure. And that's not pessimism (I'd rather it was), that's just reality.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:50 amHad Tariq Aziz been the leader of Iraq and not Saddam, Iraq would be a better place today.
Had the Bush Cabal not been so meddlesome, Iraq would be a peaceful, prosperous nation.
It's become a Fool's Paradise now.
All of the political grandstanding wouldn't be necessary.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:51 amBruce Gorton said, "Hagel could have said six months and that just not gotten included in the quotes."
Could have said? Now you are going from he definitely said it, to only he "could" have said it?
August 4th, 2006 at 11:53 amRebel with a cause said, "Let Hussein out of prison, put him in charge, withdraw and all will be fine in Iraq."
And liberals claim they are not pro-terrorist.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:58 am#48
August 4th, 2006 at 12:00 pmWhen was Saddam labeled a terrorist? I thought he was a dictator.
Rail said, "What exactly are we meant to be 'cutting & running' from when we demand redeployment of troops?"
You're turning your backs on the Iraqi people. You would leave them to the barbarians who cut people's heads off.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#49, Iraq was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism by the state department.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:02 pmYou’re turning your backs on the Iraqi people. You would leave them to the barbarians who cut people’s heads off.
Comment by Mr. Big
That's a laugh. We turn our backs on them every day when we "redeploy" to the green zone and our bases.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:04 pm[...] A diverse group of 12 Democrats recently sent a letter to President Bush expressing their support for the principles of the Levin amendment. Hagel should think about backing up his words with actions and signing on to this effort. Source: Hagel: U.S. Should Start Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Within 6 Months - Global [Feed] [...]
August 4th, 2006 at 12:04 pmMr. Big
If you are going to call someone a liar, back it up. You seem very keen on calling this complete stranger to you a liar, and yet you seem very, very slow to back it up with anything at all. I am afraid it appears as though you are simply shouting "Liar!" a bit too easily, something I myself have been guilty of in the past.
If you have a link to Hagel's speech, and it doesn't say six months anywhere, well fine then, but until you post that link your argument seems fairly insubstantial.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:05 pm#51
August 4th, 2006 at 12:06 pmSo following your logic we should invade Syria, Cuba, Iran,North Korea and Sudan immediately.
[...] A diverse group of 12 Democrats recently sent a letter to President Bush expressing their support for the principles of the Levin amendment. Hagel should think about backing up his words with actions and signing on to this effort. Source: Hagel: U.S. Should Start Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Within 6 Months - Leadership [Feed] [...]
August 4th, 2006 at 12:08 pmSacramento Bee: Summary of Lebanese war
Is Shia the same as Shiite?
YES
Yesterday the Lebanese prime asked whether Israel is better of in security terms? He concluded by sayin that this is not a time to think in historic terms.
I dont know. Normally the moolahs are swoofy. Normally they cause hideous superflous fuzz. And this war has a pretty fuzzy background, cleansing the world of an evil belief, the Jewish.
So that the forces of Hizbollah are not entirely victorious anymore, we get to know that the Hizbollah fired point dead 2000 unguided missiles into Israel. Flat out. Rock bottom. Ground zero.
Well, in ideologic terms thats a bit too less for me. I dont proof jews to be wrong by being dummer than them. The result is in fact that Im dummer than them and the Lebanese got a 1000 dead and 900000 displaced.
I think itll be helpfull if the Lebanese as well as Hizbollah come to grips for what theyre doing there.
Nasrallah said Israel is a usurping nation. Well, he simply turned the faxx around. He fired 2000 missiles without any obvious reason into a peacy country. Despite his hillarious bullshit of freeing the world from some evil belief he didnt make up one proper reason why he started this war. He better comes up fast. Otherwise its just crap to disguide from the Iranian nuke prog. And a 1000 dead are many for some hollow lie.
This explains why there rising tensions with the other Shia. Irans playin for power. And I guess even Bush cant deny that the probabilitys pretty high that 911 origined in Iran not Iraq now that we get this picture of Iran.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:11 pmMr. Big Fat Liar,
#51 Once again, small minded types believe EVERYTHING they hear.
You wouldn't know propaganda if it crawled up your ass and made a doo-doo baby.
Since when do big dumb Americans care so "deeply" for Iraqi's well being? Guilt maybe for making their country even WORSE?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:13 pmWhy don't you transfer some of your "compassion" to Africa? You seem so FULL OF IT.
Bruce Gorton said, "If you have a link to Hagel’s speech"
You obviously didn't read the article. These comments came from a telephone news conference, not a speech.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:15 pmMr. Big
Was it vocal? Then to me it qualifies as a speech.
Now, if you have a link to the conference, then post it. Don't try to deflect us all onto irrelevencies and nitpicks, if the reporter is lying then prove it.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:18 pmdiet said, "So following your logic we should invade Syria, Cuba, Iran,North Korea and Sudan immediately."
Military action should be taken off the table completly with those countries in your mind? That would give them comfort.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:19 pm#60 you don't know the difference between a speech and a news conference?
The journalist isn't necessarily a liar. Reporters have misitrepreted or misquoted people before. All I'm asking is that this reporter back up their claim. Did Hagle say "eventually" or six months? Journalists are not perfect. They make mistakes too.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:23 pmGiven the economic position simply invading Iraq, an economy depressed by years of sanctions and whose government was far from being popular with the majority of Iraqis, put you in? I would think the answer to that would be fairly self evident.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:28 pm#61
August 4th, 2006 at 12:29 pmTry answering questions with answers not questions next time. It helps with the flow of conversation. I know you saw Rummy doing it yesterday but you ain't Rummy.
All I’m asking is that this reporter back up their claim.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 4, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
Well, this is your opportunity to shine. The reporter contact's info is at the end of the article. You can either call him or send him an email asking for the audio or the transcript.
If you really feel so strongly about this, you should ask for evidence.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:30 pmMr. Big
What I was getting at was that whether he said it in a speech or a teleconference or while publically jerking off into the Whitehouse koi pond, it doesn't change anything. Getting at me for saying speech instead of conference was meaningless, it was a pure nitpick meant to detract from the argument.
If you think the reporter is lying, distorting or just plain mistaken about what Hagle said, then come up with a link to the transcript of the conference. Don't just say "No you are lying/wrong." Back your arguments.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:35 pmOops... I meant "the reporter's contact info"
August 4th, 2006 at 12:35 pmGregor Samsa said, "If you really feel so strongly about this, you should ask for evidence."
Isn't that the reporter's job?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:35 pmBruce Gorton said, "Getting at me for saying speech instead of conference was meaningless"
Not really. It shows you didn't read the article that you are trying to discuss.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:39 pmIsn’t that the reporter’s job?
Comment by Mr. Big — August 4, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
It is also the responsibility of any concerned citizen in a democracy.
You have put forth the claim that the paraphrase is inaccurate.
Don't come and gripe to us; it is pointless. Show the reporter is wrong by sharing the transcript or audio with the rest of us.
We will be here waiting.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:40 pmOr even better, Mr Big: Write to the newpaper's editor and ask for an investigation and a correction if the reporter was wrong.
As I said before, we will be here waiting.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#67, that's a good idea. The reporter should post a transcript of the news conference to clear this up.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#68
Isn’t that the reporter’s job?
Comment by Mr. Big
Yes its the reporter's job to automatically send you a transcript of the conversation. I mean you are Mr. Big after all.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:42 pmCongratulations, Mr. Big. Thread hijacking works good for you.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#64, you didn't ask me any questions. You made a statement. I asked you a question, and you pulled a Rumsfeld and didn't answer.
I'll try again. Should military action be off the table with respect to Syria, Iran and North Korea?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:46 pmAs for the rest of us -those who think the news piece is accurate- we can continue discussing Sen Hagel's change of mind on the strategy for Iraq.
Until otherwise shown, Sen Hagel is asking the troops be withdrawn within the next six months.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#74, hijacking, or an honest debate? I'm just asking the question is all. Where is the direct quote from Hagle saying six months? The newspaper and this site thought it important enough to put in their headlines. You would think they could find a quote where Hagle actually said that.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:49 pmNo it should not be taken off the table. Do you think we should invade these countries as we have with Iraq since they are on the list of terrorist states? If no, then why did we go into Iraq?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:51 pmGregor Samsa said, "Until otherwise shown, Sen Hagel is asking the troops be withdrawn within the next six months."
And yet the reporter never showed where Hagle said that.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#78 asked, "Do you think we should invade these countries as we have with Iraq since they are on the list of terrorist states?"
I would support an invasion or military action against Iran to ensure they didn't get nukes.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:57 pmMr. Big
Actually I was discussing you accusing that reporter of misrepresenting Hagel, not the story. If you make that sort of claim, well back it up, otherwise don't make the claim.
Gregor Samsa
While I doubt it was sincere, if something shocking happened and the Repubs lost the Senate, but he kept his seat, he would probably follow through on the conference, otherwise probably not. This guy strikes me as being weak, rather then a outright villain, unfortunately he is in a time when both the members of Congress and the Senate need to be strong.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:00 pmAnd yet the reporter never showed where Hagle said that.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 4, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
As I said before, don't gripe to us. It is pointless. Does the paraphrase hurt your psyche so much you have to argue against it here instead of writing to the newspaper?
Until proven otherwise, the paraphrase is accurate: Even Sen Hagel is asking for a troop withdrawal.
It is also interesting he should say that more troops in Iraq could result in an "even worse defeat" (that was quoted Mr Big). Does he think the US is already heading towards a defeat? hhmmm....
August 4th, 2006 at 1:00 pmWhile I doubt it was sincere,
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 4, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
I agree, this is pure politics. Sen Hagel can sense the mood is turning against the war in Iraq and is trying to show he wants to get the troops put of harm's way. Whether sincere or not, it will play well with hs voters.
If memory serves, he is not the first one to try to distance himself from Pres Bush and his "stay the course" meme.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:05 pmMr. Big,
So are you are pro-terrorist in Cuba, Sudan and Syria?
August 4th, 2006 at 1:06 pmGrega Samsa said, "Even Sen Hagel is asking for a troop withdrawal."
Yeah, as he actually said, eventually.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:11 pm#84, military action should not be off the table for any of those terrorist states.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:12 pmYou are too funny Mr Big.
Even Sen Hagel is asking for a troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next six months...
(Did it hurt when you read it?)
August 4th, 2006 at 1:14 pmI hope that I can clear up the confusion that seems to exist about what Senator Hagel said in the article. I had just called long distance to the newspaper in Nebraska and was able to reach the author of the piece, whose name, I believe, is Don Walton. I asked Mr. Walton for clarification regarding Hagel's statements regarding withdrawal. Mr. Walton became somewhat irritated and said that because Hagel was not quoted directly regarding withdrawal of troops in six months does not mean he did not say this. Don Walton said that he had heard Hagel say those very words and emphasized that he would not have written that Hagel had favored withdrawal in six months if the senator had not actually spoken those words himself, as when the article specifically states "Senator Hagel said Thursday."
August 4th, 2006 at 1:16 pmSamsa, that headline should actually read that "Hagel Wants Troop Reductions Eventually," because that's what he actually said.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:17 pm#86,
August 4th, 2006 at 1:19 pmOff the table is not the point. In post #48 you said the all liberals are pro-terrorist because s/o said that Saddam should be put back in power. You also added that Iraq was a terrorist state when Saddam was in power. So do you or do you not advocate invading the countries on the terrorist state list to remove the leaders because they are terrorists? If not you might be labeled as pro-terrorist.
because that’s what he actually said.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 4, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
Evidence? And did you already write the newspaper to ask for a correction?
In the meantime (lol): Troops withdrawal within the next six months... (lol)
August 4th, 2006 at 1:21 pmMr. Big
Okay, military strike on Iran, the Why Not:
Iran has nuclear allies in Pakistan and China. Further, with the degree of debt America owes China, it would be best not to cut off 50% of China's oil supply. Further, Iran's relationship with Russia, could further weaken America's ability to go to war.
This is not even mentioning the fact that most of America's allies going into Iraq have sworn off further engagements alongside the American military. Even Blair has said he wouldn't back an American led coalition into Iran.
As yet another reason why invading Iran is a bad idea, consider the rest of the OPEC nations. If you strike into Iran, it will look exactly like you are trying to capture all of the Middle East's oil. For some very sound economic reasons, nations such as Saudi Arabia wouldn't like that, their pull in the world is based on being able to control oil prices, and they seriously don't want to lose that pull.
Further, North Korea, as the last remaining "Axis of Evil" country would take the war to your far eastern allies. Big threat? Not really, but still not something you want to explode in the middle of a third front war.
Even without OPEC declaring sanctions and switching to trading in Euros, the war would be costly. The increased resistance posed by a people who support their government, as well as a more up to date military would wear on your already exhausted armed forces. A draft would end up being called, because as it is recruitment is down, a messy war with another middle eastern nation would kill it. The offshoots of petrol prices going up would start to be felt, as this is one product that literally effects everything.
Finally, America would reach a position where it cannot afford to furnish its debt, and suffer the same fate as feudal France, communist Russia, and all other societies which when push came to shove, couldn't pay their debts. Just because it may seem unthinkable to you now, doesn't mean it can't happen.
While you may think Iran with nukes is scary, the world without America's economy is nothing to be sneezed at either. A worldwide depression doesn't have the same romance as a nuclear winter, but its results can be just as deadly.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:24 pmSamsa asked, "Evidence?"
Paragraph 6 from the article: “'Eventually, we need to start pulling people out of there,' said the Nebraska Republican"
That should be the headline of this article.
"Sen. Hagel Says Troops Should Eventually Come Home"
August 4th, 2006 at 1:25 pm#90 said, "In post #48 you said the all liberals are pro-terrorist because s/o said that Saddam should be put back in power."
I asked the question. Should liberals not be considered pro-terrorist? Here was one of them who wants to take Saddam out of prison and put him back into power where he can enrich himself again, and build palaces to himself while the Iraqis suffer.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:29 pm#92, good post and good arguments.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#94
August 4th, 2006 at 1:44 pmIronic statement about palace building and Iraqi suffering while we are occupying most of those palaces, building a massive compound/embassy/palace and the amount of suffering upon the Iraqis is more widespread and deadlier.
Hagel is a Trojan Horse. Check his relationship to the voting machine companies and you'll see what I mean
August 4th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#96, and what happened to that promise to knock down Saddam's prision, Abu Ghraib? We're torturing them there so we don;t have to torture them here.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:51 pmNew Palace, new occupier, same suffering. Good observation dlet.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:59 pmJay R.: I dunno, sex sounds like a lot more fun than six.
August 4th, 2006 at 4:11 pm" Cowards cut and run, Marines never do"- Jean Schmidt(R-OH).
August 4th, 2006 at 4:17 pmJean Schmidt-head is a laughing joke.
August 4th, 2006 at 4:28 pmWhy does Hagel's plan sound familiar? Oh yeah, it was the Democrats' idea months ago.
August 4th, 2006 at 5:47 pmRail said, “What exactly are we meant to be ‘cutting & running’ from when we demand redeployment of troops?â€
You’re turning your backs on the Iraqi people. You would leave them to the barbarians who cut people’s heads off.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 4, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Did you read my entire post--one can't "cut and run" from a mission that has been declare already accomplished.
We, the American people were sold a bill of goods based on how about how the Iraqi people were yearning to be set free from their oppressor Hussein so they could transition to a democratic government (well, in addition to the WMD sham). So we sent our neighbors, spouses, kids and siblings in the form of troops to accomplish that mission. We should have popped the Saddam zit without decimating the country/invading and occupying. Since these warmongers were determined to go in, they should at least have fostered a shadow government beforehand, or had a plan for the post-invasion during the invasion; occupation shouldn't and wasn't supposed to be an option. Are you telling me we're cutting and running from an occupation we we're supposed to be perpretrating in the first place?
Who are the "barbarians" you speak of? Do you refer to attacks of Shia on Sunni, and vice versa--the Iraqiis we were supposed to be liberating? Stopping that internal strife wasn't part of the plan we were told. Damn straight we need to leave from a civil war, unfortunately even though its one that this white house enabled. Leave that to a truly international force; we have no moral authority to pick sides after being so wrong, plus our forces aren't designed for that (more for blitzkreig type quick assaults, not peacekeeping).
Are you referring to foreign fighters who entered Iraq in the wake of Bush's folly--that make up less than 5% of "insurgents"? Theoretically that's the job of the new Iraqi regime to quelsh, isn't it? Or would you have use be Iraqi police interminably. This moronic administration cut off the head of the country without another to replace it, and so several smaller ones popped up seeking control. There was no good reason to fully dismantle the Republican Guard, instead of recruiting them to a new Iraqi army, but here we are. It's near impossible to train a new army force in a war zone; do we train our forces in Iraq--no. This admin insists on defying military intelligence to train an Iraqi force in Iraq instead of Germany, where perhaps they could mature to become independently capable.
August 4th, 2006 at 6:46 pm[...] Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has changed his position on Iraq, saying we should begin redeploying troops in the next six months. And after three years of claiming we should wait another six months, Tom Friedman is also jumping on board: [T]hree years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means “staying the course†is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible. [...]
August 5th, 2006 at 10:24 pm[...] proposed and passed through legislature at the same time that measures to withdraw troops as soon as possible are being [...]
March 24th, 2007 at 4:25 pm