Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > April > 09 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USPremature exit won’t be on Bush’s watch
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
General David Petraeus Tuesday recommended a 45-day pause in July to consolidate and evaluate once troop levels in Iraq are drawn down to 140,000.
“At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions,” said the general in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. President Bush will most certainly accept that recommendation. Defeat won’t come on his watch.
It’s doubtful that any minds were changed — and certainly not the minds of any of the presidential candidates. Barack Obama said afterwards that he thinks the best the U.S. can expect there is a “messy, sloppy status quo.” Petraeus complained of Iran’s “destructive role” in supporting insurgents. Obama wants a “diplomatic surge” that includes more appeals to Iran.
Nothing changed for me. Withdraw on success.
Nothing changed on the outlook after November, either.
Any minds changed here?
Comments
By TW
April 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
That the Republican presidential candidate is not even mentioned in this mornings offering screams volumes about the rightwing disarray.
The conservative voice has a choice. Failing to become part of the withdraw strategy only deepens the hole into which the Republican Party is disappearing. The conservative voice is vital to our nation. At this time, it is nowhere. Restoration of its credibility begins by letting go of the Iraq anchor. This will happen, eventually. Make the decision to save the party today. Swallow your pride for the sake of the soldiers who’ve yet to perish, and for the future of the Republican Party.
By Jim Wooten
April 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Sorry for the delayed opening. A technical glitch.
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Now that today’s link is working:
Withdraw on success.
Define “success” as something OTHER than “when we achieve victory”, and define “victory” as something OTHER than “we we’re successful”.
Define “success” and “victory” without using each word in the definition of the other. If you can’t do so, quit babbling about “success” and/or “victory” that could never be achieved.
By getalife
April 9, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
The $60 billion Iraq surplus is an outrage.
No more Iraqi welfare, wasted lives and injuries, and spend on our country.
Just vote Dem to stop this insanity.
By Peter
April 9, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Jim I am puzzled, President Bush announced Victory many years ago.
So what is the concept of this statement?
“Defeat won’t come on his watch” ?
By jbmlaw
April 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. No, nothing has changed my mind. I am pleasantly surprised that the Congressional democrats no longer call Iraq a “lost cause;” seemingly even Hillary is now willing to suspend her disbelief. BO’s lack of foreign competence is beginning to show. In response to European diplomatic overtures, Iran has doubled the nuclear centrifuges now spinning fissible materials, so I suspect little short of a thermonuclear surge will have much effect there. It is sweet that Hussein wants to sing Kum-Ba-Ya with the mullahs, though. Listening to the seven-sisters spin on Gen. Petraeus’s presentation is amusing; now it seems that “whoever” is elected this year will be compelled to keep substantial forces in Iraq, to preserve that fragile democracy. Glad the leftists are so principled. Ultimately a democratic Iraq is the key to peace in the middle east, as democracies do not launch wars lightly; even our friends from the less-cerebral side of the aisle are beginning to connect those dots.
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Peter @ 10:39 - Yes, it definitely seems that Jim has forgotten the flight suit and MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Of course, Jim has also forgotten about those non-existent WMDs, Jim has also forgotten that Bin Laden is in Afghanistand and not Iraq, Jim has also forgotten that the Iraqis were to welcome us with open arms, etc., etc., lather, rinse, repeat.
By catlady
April 9, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
So, how many of us predicted this months ago: We are succeeding (so we can’t withdraw troops) or we are still meeting resistance (so we can’t withdraw troops). No matter what the outcome of the evaluation, WE CAN’T WITHDRAW TROOPS! No matter what question is asked, that is the answer we get!
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
The concept of “Iraqi Democracy” seems to be as realistic as the concept of “Hindu Steakhouse”.
By Dennis
April 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten writes, “Defeat won’t come on [Bush’s]watch.”
Neither will victory, Mr. Wooten.
Did you leave that out intentionally or was that just an oversight?
Your boy, GWB, and his other war criminal partners began a needless war in which thousands on all sides have lost their lives and their loved ones.
Yet, since the bombs and the deaths are not in your neighborhoods, neocons like you go on as though Americans should be proud of all the lost lives no matter which side those lives were on and no one should be held accountable.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Gary
April 9, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
To understand yesterday’s testimony you need a Petraeus to Greenspan dictionary.
What is astonishing, is how incompetently the candidates formed the language they used to question Petraeus. Let me at him. Please will someone let me at him?
Look at Hillary’s Q: “What conditions would have 2 exist 4 U 2 recommend 2 the president that the current strategy is not working? Her conclusion is in her premise. It’s an easily dodged and foolishly phrased Q.
Obama’s Q also is convoluted and meandering. Who is writing for these guys? Honestly. Let me at Gen P.
ISAIDLETMEATHIM!!!
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Dennis @ 11:01 - as I said in my initial post to this thread, before “victory” can be achieved, “victory” has to be defined.
And that’s something the Paleocons refuse to do, or insist that it’s a circular definition of “victory is when we have success”/”success is when we reach victory” without ever defining either “success” or “victory”.
By Mac
April 9, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
this war is already lost, look at past conflicts in history similar to this one, Algeria, Vietnam, etc. Japan lost the war before it was officially over. I love my country and I don’t like saying it, but it’s true. Iraq was a stupid decision from the start. and to keep on letting our soldiers die just so we don’t have to admit failure is wrong too, it’s downright unpatriotic. and the Republicans and that idiot Bush are just trying to runout the clockl so they can turn this war over to someone else, then they will have to make the tough decision to get out of that craphole that is Iraq, and then all the Republicans can say ‘look those darn liberals and the Democrats lost the war’. how cowardly and unpatriotic is that? especially from people that stand in front of the microphone and try to act like real tough men by saying ‘I take full responsibility’. well the take it, wimp! this war is lost now, Muqtada Al-Sadr should have been blown off the face of this earth years ago, but no, we’re are paying him money to lay low and make it where the stupid surge is supposed to look like it’s working. when the looting started in Baghdad right after the statue of Saddam came down, that’s when we started losing this war. and just to carrying it one so that it’s failure can be blamed on someone else, is cowardly and unpatriotic to this country!
By the balance
April 9, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
if you support George Bush, you and your children of military age should be in uniform right now. Bush’s daughters should be in uniform right now. and anyone that voted for Bush in 2004 should be in uniform right now takling the place of a contractor. but that won’t happen for because of all there bull, no one truly believes in this war, only the people that support defense contractors and oil companies want it to continue. shame on everyone that has played a part in starting and supporting this war, because you have hurt this country for years to come.
By Dave
April 9, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Jim,
It just amazes me the variety of rants from the “Hate America First” cheer leading squad that appear when the conversation turns to actually winning the war. While each of their cool aide drinking, long ago worn out lines can be answered, it would be comparable to “wrestling with a pig in the mud, you just get dirty and the pig loves it.”
No Mission to Difficult, No Sacrifice to Great, Duty First..
Dave
By Tray
April 9, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
I have to say, I’m not impressed with anything GWB has done. However, I also have to say that i believe Kerry couldn’t have done any better, either. I hear Bob Barr may run, and that might be a better vote.
We need to bring every American in Iraq home, and now! we’re fighting a pointless war in a pointless country. Are our gas prices going down?? Nope! Do i feel any safer, not really.
I was told the other day that since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil, and we can thank the troops overseas for that.
WRONG!!!
We can thank Homeland Security for that, they protect American soil, not troops fighting in Iraq. Pull out now, let Iraq decide what they want like we did years ago. If the Iraqi people want freedom and government, the civil population can join Iraqi troops and fight for it. It’s already been shown that they have the money in oil surplus!
My son is going have to pay back all the money the gov’t spent on this pointless war, and that’s just sad…
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
balance @ 11:19 - Paleocon Keyboard Warriors like Dusty, like jbmlaw, etc., adamantly refuse to head down to their local AFESS offices and take that oath, yet their little patellas just start a-twitchin’ to scream “LIBRUL!”, “LEFTIST!”, “LIBRUL!”, “LEFTIST!”, ad nauseum at any who disagree with their sad, distorted perspectives.
I agree with you - the Paleocons and their children need to Put Up Or Shut Up. Either head down to AFESS and Take Those Oaths, or STFU. One, or the other.
By Skeptic Tank
April 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
Ah, Mr. Wooten, but 9/11 WAS executed on Mr. Bush’s watch.
Just shifting the checkers around to blame a liberal that either preceded or succeeded your failing leadership doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
So much of your Thinking Right is actually Blaming Wrong.
By Charles
April 9, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
Withdraw on success has two meanings. For those of us who think rationally its when the new Iraqi government can handle the security of its new state. For those with their hate filled agenda against President Bush its quit NOW and show the radical Muslims we have no backbone - just as Osama Bin Laden predicted. Nothing would make you Liberals more happy than to accommodate these thugs who want you and your family either subjugated, coverted to a radical Islamic faith or killed.
Liberals - What a bunch of pathetic traitors!
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Dave @ 11:32 - Define “winning the war”. To keep screaming “Stay Until Victory! Stay Until Success! Stay Until We’ve Won!” without defining what “victory”, “success” and/or “winning” are, is nothing more than a case of Palecon Tourette’s.
By jbmlaw
April 9, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Dear Dave @ 11:32, you are wise. We have answered all of the ludicrous rants numerous times, but they continue to whine like the Greek chorus in a poorly-written long-forgotten Euripidean drama. Maybe the better analogy are the Animal Farm sheep, trained to recite a single mindless mantra.
By James Carry
April 9, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
First, I am a Republican. Second, I do not believe the U.S. has benefited in any way from war in Iraq. If you disagree, please list those benefits, because I am always open to learning. Third, I believe we must win this war. And I believe it is being mishandled. Before one boot, tire or track headed in the direction of Baghdad, Job 1 should have been shutting down the borders. Five years later, those borders are still not shut down. It wasn’t beyond our capabilities then and is not now. We can and must do better.
Rendevous With Destiny
By Tray
April 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
And for the record-i already served my time in our military.
We need to pull out/fall back/retreat/give up, i don’t give a crap what you call it.
THERE IS NO REAL THREAT TO AMERICANS FROM IRAQ ANYMORE!
THERE IS NO REAL THREAT FROM ANY TERRORISTS ANYMORE!
Let me define ‘real’- terrorists don’t have the ability to launch a nuke at us and wipe out millions of American lives.
they may set off a small bomb, crasha plane, destroy a building-but let me ask this-Aren’t American strong enough to overcome those obstacles? People live in war-torn areas their whole lives, but not Americans.
We need to leave Iraq and get ready for a larger crises in the making-WWIII
By Gary
April 9, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
News Quiz: regardless of Petreaus’s answers to specific questions, what long term reality can we deduce from yesterday’s testimony?
By Dave
April 9, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
Nothing has changed for me since 2002 when the build up began. What HAS changed is that 4000+ americans have died in Iraq. Too bad for them…they chose to join the military…they should have gone to college instead. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s have been murdered by or because of us and the war we started. We have created thousands of new terrorists to avenge the deaths of their parents, siblings, relatives, and friends, and ALl of the Bush/Cheney friends that run oil companies and other companies that benefit from this war have made millions and billions of dollars and their corporations have made record profits. Just as I predicted before this war started. We have spent money we do not have and are now deeply in debt in and a recession. We can’t afford to pay our bills, we are losing our homes…but Bush, Cheney & Co will leave in a few months to go on to incredible wealth and riches.
They and their bunch deserve the death penalty. Perhaps the same way they took out Saddam. Death by hanging. I can’t WAIT for the youtube clips!
By AmVet
April 9, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
Charles, brilliant analysis.
And once upon a time, a lot of Americans may have actually agreed with that hyperbolic rhetoric and obvious nonsense.
Wake up! The dysfunctional Iraqi “government” will never accept anything even remotely similar to a western democracy based on western values.
The majority of the Iraqis care more about their demented religion (sound familiar?) than personal freedoms and liberty. And that is why an overwhelming majority of them want us to go home.
And in that regard the American people agree.
Is this really news to you chest-pounders?
Fortunately as evidenced by the results of the Nov. 2006 elections, in which the phony conservatives in the GOP got absolutely decimated, and also by the first non neo-con GOP nominee for the White House in ages, MANY have clearly (and finally!) taken their heads out of their collectives a*******es.
Mercifully, this twisted and inept agenda is at an end.
But sadly the damage to our government and by proxy to us as a people is already done…
By jm
April 9, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this
I wonder how an Iraqi would say “Lame Duck”.
Since even General Petraeus has indicated that the solution in Iraq is political rather than military, why isn’t Secretary Rice hunkered down with the major players. Why hasn’t W the incompetent brought them all to Camp David for a “come to Jesus/Allah” meeting? Maybe vice president Cheney can go back and tell them “war is not the answer again” (amazing how he can say that with a straight face).
Maybe General Petraeus can borrow a tactic that the Catholic church uses when selecting a new pope: lock everyone in a room and don’t let them out until they come to a decision (the white smoke).
By Peter
April 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Well of course Jim Whooten, is saying Bush will not Exit on his watch…..
Jim Whooten has failed to mention that the WAR will NOT be WON on his watch.
He will also fail to mention the economy will NOT be saved on his watch.
He will also fail to mention the budget will not be brought back to the surplus he inherited on his watch.
He will also fail to mention the housing crises won’t be rectified on his watch.
The only thing that seems to be happening on President Bush’s watch is……. he rescuing BIG Business, and the Financial markets that have been making very Poor decisions.
Thank you Jim for pointing out only ONE of the things today that will not happen on Bush’s watch.
By Dave
April 9, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
Oh BTW…I’m the “real” Dave…the “other” rethuglican needs to change his name… either that or go take a bullit for the good ol’ USA.
If you would not fight yourself, nor send your own child into battle…then you yourself do not believe in the war as being just. Bush, Cheney, Rummy…they have NO IMMEDIATE relatives fighting in Iraq. Why is that? How about any of you? How many are signing up or sending your children to the front lines to fight this war you believe in? Don’t all raise your hand at once. Just more armchair warriors. Sick, sad, pathetic, and predictable.
By W
April 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
My loyal believers,
It has been brought to my attention that my credit cards are over the limit. In order to continue to make timely purchases of bullets, I will need each of you to send me your credit cards. Please, only send those that have a minimum unused limit of $10,000.
Your Welcome, Your Leader, W
By Gary
April 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
The mission of US troops in Iraq is to provide the sovereign integrity necessary for a negotiated, compromised and ratified confederation.
The reason I am so skeptical of that mission is because Iraq’s population have had eons to negotiate, compromise and ratify a confederation and never could.
Why does General Petreaus so belatedly belay the belaboring of belicosity? Because he can only know what a soldier knows about securing real estate with lives. No army’s mission should include armed diplomacy, that is, starting a dialogue about civic responsibilities to the mourners of the collateral damage that army inflicted as part of the nation building. In the wake of chaos, how can strategists expect to count on cooler heads?
The mission of Us troops in Iraq is civics 101.
By ghost rider
April 9, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
AmVet
Excellent post.
Yesterday senator Melendez revevealed these startling figures of the state of Iraq since the occupation.
43% of population lives in absolute poverty prior to war 19% of children suffered malnutrition; today 28% last year 75% elementary-aged kids went to school; now 30% prior to war 50% lacked access to clean water; now 70% only 50 of 142 primary health care centes are open to public.
And how did ambassador Crocker respond?
“Security conditions made it difficult to bring projects to closure in a timely fashion.”
And the beat goes on!
By Roosevelt Washington
April 9, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
James Cone, one of the black theologians who wrote the seminal work on Black Liberation Theology titled Black Theology and Black Power, defines the theology thusly: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
Obama’s been listening to this for twenty years and he still thinks he can be president of all the people.
By ron
April 9, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Good afternoon Jim,McCain told everyone how long we may have to keep troops in Iraq and no one liked his prediction.100 years is probably so close to the truth it isn’t funny.The combatants keep changing on a monthly basis over there.It’s hard to tell who the enemy will be next month.
Iran is slowly spinning it’s way toward a nuclear weapon.The world may have to unite and watch what happens.There will be a large Flash!,Bang!,over there some morning and we’ll all be off in another direction.
For some odd reason,I have no relatives or immediate family in this war,so go for it.
By ghost rider
April 9, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
I forgot to mention in my previous post this squalor has been created to the tune of 25 billion dollars of your money and mine….
Cheney was quoted as saying “SO”
And the beat goes on!
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
AmVet @ 12:26 - The Paleocons have demonstrated, time after time after time, that they don’t care about things like “demonstrable facts” or “verifiable truth”. They’d rather scream and yell that the sky is a Bright Purple Madras Plaid than deal with, or even simply acknowledge, the reality that the sky is full of dark, ominous clouds filled with a few hundred tornadoes headed our way.
By Dave
April 9, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
Exactly what I was going to add Peter…good post. let’s not forget to add: Record gas prices, record prices for oil companines, record terrorist attacks around the world, and record deficit. He’s setting LOTS of records. Oh… he’ll ALSO win the record of most failed president in history, as well as worst president.
I needed to add this to the “talibangelicals” that voted him into office twice: gays are STILL gay, and abortions are STILL legal! Next time you have to vote…stop listening to your pastors, Rush, Sean, and try this one on for size…READ!!!! You just might “learn” something! But if you believe in a “make believe” santa that created the earth…believing what Rush, Sean, and Bill O’ say as being “the truth”…it kind of makes perfect sence to me as to WHY what they would say is “believable” to you. If you can believe in a fable as fact and not the fiction story book it is…then some idiot telling you that Iraq has WND’s that they are ready to launch them via a paper airplane and a rubber band towards the USA MUST have been believable to you! Shame on you all for being so gulable!!!
By jbmlaw
April 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
Dear jm @ 12:32, you (as always) ask a sound question, “Since even General Petraeus has indicated that the solution in Iraq is political rather than military, why isn’t Secretary Rice hunkered down with the major players?” I read an answer to the question that strikes me as valid. The destruction of the former government of Iraq, meritorious as it may have been, is a public trauma for the people of Iraq. Cultures have an “organic” evolution, and the destruction of Iraq is comparable to the explosion of Mt. St. Helens. Everything was wiped out, but first came back grasses, then scrub bushes, and now the dominant trees, whose shade weakens the grasses and shrubs, are growing again. Similarly wiping out the government of Iraq offered only chaos and anarchy, followed by local and then regional militia, and only now is a more dominant central government coming together. The government’s challenge to Sadr’s powerful militia was an important step toward asserting control over the country. The analogy is not perfect, but it has a sense of truth in it. The short version of this answer is, “you cannot get a baby in a month by making nine women pregnant.”
By Roosevelt Washington
April 9, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
……………………………….
James Cone, one of the black theologians who wrote the seminal work on Black Liberation Theology titled Black Theology and Black Power, defines the theology thusly: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
What a lovely sentiment for a presidential nominee to have.
By Dave
April 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
AND maybe I should PROOFREAD before I post…typing was not my strong point in school…but unlike many of you repulsivicans…I DID like to READ!!!
By Gary
April 9, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
jbm, do any of those 9 women have an older sister for me?
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
RW @ 12:55 & 1:07 - Get back to us when you’ve got as detailed an analysis on one of McCain’s spiritual advisers, Hagee. After all, it’s the FAIR AND BALANCED thing to do, is it not?
By getalife
April 9, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
Of course, mcwar’s kook is worse than Obama’s kook, but Clinton does not have a radical kook spritual adviser.
Nuff said.
By Dave
April 9, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
So Roosevelt…Obama said this? No…of COURSE not. Perhaps we should put down some of the “hate” that Jerry Falwell used to preach. He being a past “spiritual advisor” of Dubya. How about Ted Haggard. What was he doing at the White House? Arranging gay escorts and meth for BOTH he and Dubya?
There is NO GUILT by association…well for those of you…like YOU there seems to be. Unless we turn it around. Want those quotes from Pat Robertson and Falwell? Or do you already know of their hateful “speaches”????
By AmVet
April 9, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
ghostrider and GGG,
One of the numerous infuriating things in dealing with “conservatives” is in regards to their stupefying “altruistic” claims.
Does anyone here really expect me to believe that these xenophobic neo-cons really care about the Iraqi people?
Hell, some of the worst don’t even care about liberal American people!
And isn’t that “liberating” excuse just one of numerous (I’ve lost count) “justifications” for our presence there anyway?
Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Rice wanted Saddam’s head on a platter, and they finally got it.
That they put their personal desires before the best interests of the nation and built a case by essentially lying to the American people and cooking the books for a horrifically ill-conceived, totally mismanaged invasion/long term occupation is still to me somewhat surreal.
But even more than this deadly Republican Rogue’s Gallery, I hold the willfully ignorant voters who put and then kept them in power culpable.
All of this ensuing spin and talking points is mere political pyschobabble for the base/”faithful”, fear mongering (it cost 9/11!!! Rudy the nomination) and eyewash.
And I may never forgive this administration for it…
By Gary
April 9, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
Iraq’s premature withdrawal = Petreaus Interruptus
By Roosevelt Washington
April 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
James H. Cone, one of the black theologians who wrote the seminal work on Black Liberation Theology titled Black Theology and Black Power, defines the theology thusly: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
“Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.”
By Gary
April 9, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
Premature Withdrawal in Iraq = Petreaus Interruptus
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
RW - Does your train of “thought” have a caboose?
By Will
April 9, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
One of the greatest American tragedies is that we must remain until some semblance of success is accomplished in Irag.
History will not be kind to this administration and the inexplicable mismangment of this ill-advised mistake.
Here is what I want answered: Even the republican radio entertainers and rabid partisans like Saxby Chambliss will admit that the Cheney/Rumsfield Plan for Irag was a “mistake”, and that “mistakes” have been made throughout at least the first four years of this civil war. They speak of these “mistakes” as if, oh well, we are doing better now.
These “mistakes” have cost the lives of untold dear American patriots and untold more who have been wounded and maimed.
If President Bush had listened to Senator McCain and others from the beginning, we may have been done with this mess and our precious patriots would be out of harm’s way, at least in Irag.
Who is going to pay for this “mistakes”? Who is going to be held accountable? Someone owes the families and loved ones of those wounded and killed by these “mistakes” more than simply an acknowledgement of “mistakes”.
The democrats? Oh please, dont get me started. If this bunch had been in Congress during WWII they would have been demanding to know the exact date of the D-Day invasion (about as silly as demanding a withdrawal date from Iraq) or they would have been demanding to know the date and location of where the bomb would be dropped in Japan.
A pox on both their houses.
By Skeptic Tank
April 9, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
The same jokers who herald this war and have done so from Day One, will be the first ones to cry out for Hillary’s impeachment the day after she’s inaugurated, for “lousing up a perfectly good war”.
Mark my words. “Not On Our Watch” Wooten will peg all blame for the failed war in Iraq on the Democrats the moment they take over the executive branch.
By Truthifier
April 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
A few questions:
1) How do supporters of the war in Iraq define “success”? Under what scenario would Mr. Wooten and others say “OK, it’s time for the troops to come home”?
2) Assuming that one agrees with the argument that the surge has “worked” by increasing US troop levels to cause a reduction in violence, doesn’t it stand to reason that once the troops are removed the violence will return? How long does the surge have to “work” before it is brings the war to a conclusion?
There are no “right” answers to my questions. Personally I’m conflicted. I don’t support the war, but think that we have an obligation to fix the situation. If anyone saw retired General Brent Scowcroft on MSNBC this morning, he offered a very pragmatic assessment of the situation.
By Captain Freedom
April 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
THE Captain is Himself no stranger to the substantial penalties for early withdrawal, and is cheered that Our Leader and his Vice Dick have the clear vision to leave it in there and get the job done.
Pulling out is just not manly. It is important to maintain full troop potency until the target is well and thoroughly f^cked.
By jm
April 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw@1;03 - sounds like “nation building” to me.
By jbmlaw
April 9, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
Dear jm @ 1:55, were I an honest person I would simply affirm your observation. However, under the circumstances the best I will do is suggest that, while we may be planting trees, only God can grow them.
By Skeptic Tank
April 9, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
Truthifier: I’m with you 100%. I haven’t believed in this conflict since the moment our incompetent Commander in Chief started beating the war drums. The time to stop the war was THEN. Now that we have committed, it’s too late to have second thoughts. We need to finish what we started, regardless of the toll it will take on our troops, on our economy, or on our image in the world community. We owe the Iraqi people that much. On that, I differ from most Democrats. The battle against an Iraq invasion should have been fought PRIOR to the war. It’s too late now to admit regrets, or pretend that the truth had been hidden from us at the time. Are you listening, Mrs. Clinton?
By jbmlaw
April 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Dear will @ 1:45, “Here is what I want answered: Even the republican radio entertainers and rabid partisans like Saxby Chambliss will admit that the Cheney/Rumsfield Plan for Irag was a “mistake”, and that “mistakes” have been made throughout at least the first four years of this civil war. They speak of these “mistakes” as if, oh well, we are doing better now. “ Answer: no.
By TW
April 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Truthifier - 1) How do supporters of the war in Iraq define “success”?
‘It doesn’t matter’ - that’s the answer. The Iraq war is the sickest get rich scheme in the history of this country. Ask yourself why those who beat their chests the hardest about WMD are the same tight little group that has made money hand over fist under this bush administration.
War? Civilians dying, soldiers dying, families shattered - so what. Those who made the call have demonstrated that they could care less about the ole USA, and will no doubt shortly move to the island they are now able to buy.
No way anybody can claim to be a proud American and continue to pump a blind fist into the air over the abortion in Iraq…no way…
By AmVet
April 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this
Will, good stuff.
I remember a time, not long ago at all, when our heroic Commander-in-Chief would not even admit to a single mistake in this bungled invasion/occupation.
Not one.
I have seen a great deal of political hubris in my life (I came of age in the time of Tricky Dick), but this man takes the cake hands down.
Though excoriated by the faketriots for her comments originally, I agreed with Natalie Maine’s observations in 2003 about this, arguably the worst President in American history.
And he has not done one d@mned thing to make me change my mind.
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
AmVet - The fact that Duh-Bya wouldn’t take his own father’s advice as well as the cover provided by Jim Baker concerning withdrawing from Iraq, just says it all.
The fact that McCain wants to be Bushy McClone when it comes to Iraq should give us all pause, but as we know, the Paleocons are as disconnected from reality now as they were when they and Fearless Leader were claiming that Iraq had WMDs, when they and Fearless Leader proclaimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, when they and Fearless Leader claimed that Iraq’s oil income would pay for “everything”, etc., etc.
By Blind Homer
April 9, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw - Iran after the Shah would be a better example. Theocracy, not democracy, is the basis of law and society in their culture and they will inevitably revert to that if left alone. Also Condi is trying to keep a low profile waiting on the VP nod from McCain to counter the Black Barack Attack.
By W
April 9, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
My loyal believers,
Let me start by explaining the situation in the Middle East. We are at war. There is nothing civil about our war. Wars are just that — Wars. Wars cost money, lots of money. If you want to be civil, then send me you money so I can pay for our wars.
Your Welcome, Your Leader, W
By Tray
April 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
I’ve seen some people bash McCain, and really, i see him as the best choice of the 3 right now. I don’t agree with his standpoint in Iraq, and i think we should withdraw, however, I’d rather mcCain than a racist Obama or ‘let me run the country again’ Clinton (this is her second presidency, really).
By George Washington
April 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
Iraq was and is a war of lies, No WMDs, no Al Cutie, no connection to 9/11….Why did we invade? Because Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel 20 thousand dollars after the fact, a lot of money to the dirt poor pals. Wolfie, Pearlie and some others were part of an israeli government think tank more than a decade ago…their think tank came up with the idea of getting the stupid americans to invade and occupy Iraq, and destory Saddam…Its that simple, to solve a problem in Israel, Wolfie, Pearlie and the other zionists were perfectly willing to tell any lie, betray any friend, and squander thousands of american lives, and trillions of american dollars. The worst part is that they got away with it, that their febble cover up has worked…This has embolded the pro israel lobby to work for even bigger sacrifices from America…They want us to nuke Iran….
By jbmlaw
April 9, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Dear Blind @ 2:27, I respectfully disagree, and cite Japan as the perfect counter-example. No government in the history of Japan remotely compared to the post-MacArthur diet. Cultures can change, with the appropriate incentive. Pre-requisite is the total destruction of the old culture. I think that has happened in Iraq, just as it happened in post-Shah Iran and in post-WW2 Japan. The only question is whether the “nourishing” guidance of the US in Japan has a beneficial effect, or does a free capitalist society spontaneously arise. If the former, PoFo’s “Petraeus Interruptus” would be one horribly bad policy decision; if the latter, of course, it could happen again without our aid. I would observe that Iran is not a stable government, nor a stable society, although both are slightly more stable than the current state of Iraq.
By Tray
April 9, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this
*George Washington, I have no problem nuking Iran, beats sending 4000 Americans to their deaths, and maybe it’ll teach some other countries a lesson about screwing with us.
Yes, it will probably start WWIII, however, if we don’t start it, Iran, Russia, or N. Korea will. We bombed Japan once, did anyone screw with us after that, no, they had to wait years to build up the courage to do it again!
And seriously, what is the world losing by nuking Iran?? Do they some major export the rest of the world depends on?? NO!
By Gary
April 9, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw, your japan is not a good example. Iraq never was a country, evolved over the eons naturally, but rather an arbitrary line on a cartographer’s map. The ancient socio-political traditions are intact even without saddam and the sunni bathist regime.
If we interruptus the coalitis prematurus the we will betrayus Petreaus and the fault will be the liberal surrenderus monkus amoungst us. (if a may be so pendatus)
By George Washington
April 9, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
Tray, I disagree, I would sooner nuke Israel than nuke Iran….Shove it up your zionist ASSets, BOY.
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
Well one good thing has come out of today’s blog. At 2:09 the Esquire admitted that he lacks honesty in his dealing in these environs.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step, Counselor. Congratulations, and good luck on the next 11 steps!
By Peter
April 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
I regards to Bush’s watch…..it seems like nothing positive has actually been ACCOMPLISHED on Bush’s watch….
Sort of reminds me of Jim’s column the other day, when he actually stated not too much is happening on Sonny Perdue’s watch.
What we do know that will actually happen on President Bush’s watch…..
He will do what ever he wants to do, not worry at all if that thing is Constitutional or not….. then Leave a BIG MESS for the next president to clean up !
We are all watching Bush’s watch, and hoping he doesn’t start WW III, before his watch ends.
By El Buttface
April 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
Now you people are just being silly. Take a break. (like for six years)
By Tray
April 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
Sorry George, I just don’t see Isreal as a threat to the US, not like Iran. Better yet, though, I say nuke the entire ‘Holy Grounds’ area, that’ll end any fighting over that land, no one will want it then!!LOL!!!
I’m not zionist…lol, nice try. Know me before you judge me, man.
Very simple example-why do we even have to have political parties that define our motivations? I can be a republican against the war, or a democrat for the war. I can be whatever the hell i want to be. Personally, I’d vote a back-yard redneck president before any of our candidates. Get someone in the House that knows what it’s like to be a typical American, and that person will do more for our country than any rich-a*, fund raising, have my hand in everyone’s pocket, I’ll take a bribe Senator.
The biggest problem in America is that we don’t care for our own people enough!! We have starving people on the streets, people who can’t find jobs, drugs and crime running rampant everywhere, but our so called gov’t is more worried about iraq than here…i swear, our fore-fathers are turning overe in their graves about this!
By AmVet
April 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
Gary, you are correct that Japan and Iraq are not good corollaries.
The most obvious difference is that Iraq did not attack us. (Though I believe that even in recent polls a significant percentage of the “conservative” morons in this country still believe they did).
Japan was and still is a near total homogeneous society.
Iraq with at least three major tribal groups who are centuries old enemies is anything but.
Japan was and still is essentially a quasi-secular society where freedom of religion was incorporated into their constitution in 1947.
Does anyone really believe ANY Islamic middle-eastern country would accommodate such “progressive” thought?
Many (most?) Japanese were happy to accept Western ideas into their society after the war.
Iraqis share no such strong desires for social “enlightenment”.
Japan had a longstanding rich history of contributing to modern culture and thought.
Iraq - not so much. Well at least ever since the hanging gardens days.
By ghost rider
April 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
Tray..Which mental institution did you escape from? Bomb Iran! Why stop at Iran…How about China? How about Russia or North Korea or any country that disagrees with the U.S. Good Grief…
I
By George Washington
April 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
Tray, we are in agreement, let us solve the whole stinking mideast problem by nuking the holy land to a two hundred by two hundred mile sheet of glass….It will save us hundreds of billions in WELFARE checks to Israel, eliminate the Pal problem, and instill fear in all our enemies, including those who pose as are friends and allies for financial and military gain…W88’s away….
By El Buttface
April 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
Tray, knock it off. You’re blogging like a retard.
By Blind Homer
April 9, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw - More like Germany. Gulf I turned out like WWI with bad guys rising from the ashes so we decided to try the WWII Japan/Germany occupation approach (personally I believe this was an afterthought, we went in for the WMD and to depose Saddam). East Germany adopted the communist model and West Germany the democratic model so occupation actually resulted in two successful outcomes there. I’m just sceptical that we can get the Germany/Japan result dealing with the strong Islamo-facist element. I think at best we need the McCain scenario, 50 or 100 more years of occupation to make that happen. And what’s the point in that, the oil will be gone by then?
By jm
April 9, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw@2:50 - Japan evolved into and has centuries of history in being a nation, while Iraq was put together on a cocktail napkin after World War I. Also, General MacArthur was smart enough to keep Emperor Hirohito on the throne to provide stability.
By George Washington
April 9, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
Hillary Joke: In 1997, Bill and Hillary were at a Braves baseball game, and it was very noisy in their seats above the dugout. A Braves staff member approached the first couple and spoke to the President. The President nodded, reached over and picked up Hillary by the scruff of the neck, and threw her onto the dugout roof, where she landed hissing and clawing the air, arching her back like a rabid cat. A secret service agent leaned over to the president and wispered in his ear “He said you should throw out the first PITCH Mr. President, Pitch.” All the guys in the Presidential box laughed, saying it was a natural enough mistake, as Hillary continued issuing a string of foul words, and urinating all over the dugout roof….
By Tray
April 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
i forget that everything is taken literally on these blogs…
My point, ghost rider, is why waste American lives for pointless sh*t?? What has the war in Iraq done for anybody in America?? CAN ANYONE ANSWER THAT QUESTION???
I’ll tell you what isn’t an answer-“it kept the terrorists from attacking again…” ha-no it didn’t!!
We have a department of homeland security, they handle threats to the US. The only threat they wouldn’t handle, was if a missle were fired from another country in our direction. So, terrorists aren’t being persuaded from attacking us because of what we’re doing in Iraq. There have been more than a dozen terrorist attack attempts made in the US since our invasion, so the war there isn’t deterring any attacks here. Homeland security is! Granted, they aren’t the best, but fighting over there for no benefit is just mind boggling!
By Must Have
April 9, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
GW, knock it off, you’re blogging like a retard.
By George Washington
April 9, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
Retards are under rated…..
By drey
April 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
Keep Blogging, MustHave, you’re blogging like a genius.
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
Retards are just “Sr Rated”.
(Do the anagram, folks…)
By getalife
April 9, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this
“In 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, which Cheney wrote in secret with the oil industry. Hillary Clinton opposed Cheney’s energy bill, has a plan to eliminate oil industry tax breaks, and would require oil companies to contribute to a $50 billion strategic energy fund to jumpstart research and investment in clean energy technologies.”
When you pay 4 bucks a gallon at the pump, stop whining, you voted for him.
You get what you vote for.
By GayGreyGeek
April 9, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
getaclue - We’ll be paying $4/gallon long before the November election. If anyone’s to blame, it’s Duh-Bya and Uncle Dick.
Give it up. Hillary’s the Democratic Huckabee. Stick a fork in her and be done with it.
By deegee
April 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this
We have the Sunnis running al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We have al-Sadr giving marching orders to his Shia loyalists. We have al-Maliki taking the US military by surprise by going on the offense in Basra. We have Iran brokering a cease-fire between rival Shia groups in Basra after the Iraqi military failed to live up to expectations. And we have a dog and pony show in Washington yesterday as the Green Zone in Baghdad is attacked by mortar rounds, again. And you think that the US is in control of when we leave Iraq?
By The surge is working...
April 9, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
jbm at 10:42, how is a democratic Iraq the key to peace in the middle east? How does the existence of a democratic Iraq change the culture in Iran or Syria? How does it prevent those terrorist nations from starting a war with Israel or anyone else? A democratic Iraq may not lightly start a war, but the existence of same does not dampen the powder keg that is the Middle East. Are you suggesting we invade Syria and/or Iran too? This “less cerebral” member of the left wants to know.
By Devaastator
April 9, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
A win’s a win, but what’s enough? And perhaps more importantly, will anything be enough?
Those are some of the tough questions that face Hillary Rodham Clinton, and to a lesser degree Barack Obama, as they jockey for position and the Democratic presidential nomination in the final two weeks before Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary.
Pennsylvania was supposed to be “Clinton Country.” Just a couple weeks ago supporters boasted that Clinton was unbeatable. But as a new Quinnipiac University poll shows the contest narrowed to 6 percentage points, it’s looking like Pennsylvania could be Clinton’s last stand.
“She’s getting dangerously close to the edge to losing this,” said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “It is a game of horseshoes, and close for Obama is a victory for him.”
Pennsylvania is the “make it or break it point for the Clinton campaign,” he said.
Clinton, who once led by a 16- to 20-point margin, has watched as Obama cut her advantage to 6 points — 50 percent to 44 percent — in the Quinnipiac poll of 1,340 likely Pennsylvania Democratic voters.
Across just about every demographic — old, young, blacks, whites, women, men, rich, poor and in Democrat-rich regions such as southeastern Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, Clinton’s numbers are slipping.
At the same time, Obama has played his own expectations game as he constantly reminded voters that he’s the underdog during a recent campaign swing through Pennsylvania.
“We don’t have great expectations of a victory there and we’ve stated that from the start,” Steve Hildebrand, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, told reporters Tuesday.
“We’d love to be even, or even ahead, but the fact of the matter is we still have substantial deficits in the state and we are looking to close it,” he said.
After wins in Ohio, Rhode Island and the popular vote in Texas breathed new life into her campaign, Pennsylvania was expected to provide a big victory for Clinton.
Instead, it’s becoming the latest must-win state for her.
“She’s got to put a stop to the slide and she’s got to convince white women especially that it’s time for a woman and she’s not out of the race,” said Richards.
One bright spot for Clinton is that while Obama’s standing has improved as Pennsylvania Democrats have gotten to know him, their views of her have remained fairly consistent.
For Clinton, added Richards, the Pennsylvania race comes down to one of perception. She has to persuade voters, and especially undecided superdelegates and donors, that she remains a viable candidate.
Even then, it may be too late, said Charlie Cook, political analyst and publisher of The Cook Political Report.
Clinton needs to win every remaining state with performances well in excess of 63 percent in order to meaningfully close Obama’s delegate gap.
Even then, it would be a tall order to convince superdelegates to break a “tie” in her favor, he said.
“It is not mathematically possible for Clinton to get anywhere close to the needed number to win the nomination,” he said.
Don’t count out Clinton yet, say supporters, including Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell.
“I think she’ll close well and get most of the undecideds,” Rendell said, predicting a 4- to 9-point win in Pennsylvania.
The narrowing race is no surprise given Obama’s financial advantage. The Illinois senator’s campaign raised $40 million in March compared to $20 million by Clinton.
By @@
April 9, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Absotively, posolutely NO Jim. Why? when our troops have accomplished so much and are close to success.
The left can still hold onto the “early exit strategy” of our greatest natural resource though. Our babies.
Now that’s a victory they’re proud of.
By Glenn
April 9, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
Jim,
Did you get a substitute stringer out of the pool to write today’s piece in your absence? ‘Cause anyone familiar with this blog wouldn’t ask whether the General’s report had changed our views on Iraq. I’m a bit surprised that you could’ve elicited any response at all to such a liminal question.
The ChiDems are never going to change on the issue (until one of them comes nose-to-nose with a freshly deactivated Iraq veteran). What was done in Iraq in the name of the U.S. was mass murder. The multiple motives for the annihilation of the Iraqi people were ulterior. No explanation of the U.S. mission there will stop them asking what the mission is. No definition of success or failure, victory or defeat will stop them asking for those definitions. You even can respond thoughtfully to their demands to explain what “conservativism” is (if you can, Mr. Wooten), but they won’t even take “yes” for an answer—-even when it would enable them to know their perceived enemy.
The national security interest is to them a new rubber toy in a bathtub war game in which we are cast as baby killers and chickenhawks. No, Jim, they’re so liberal of mind that they will never change theirs. Next time don’t bother asking.
By AmVet
April 9, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
Your tax dollars, NOT hard at work.
But then what can we expect in this failure of leadership and culture of corruption from the top down?
http://newsmax.com/newsfront/gaocreditcards/2008/04/08/86495.html
WASHINGTON - Federal employees charged millions of dollars for Internet dating, tailor-made suits, lingerie, lavish dinners and other questionable expenses to their government credit cards over a 15-month period, congressional auditors say.
A report by the Government Accountability Office, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, examined spending controls across the federal government following reports of credit-card abuse at departments including Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.
The review of card spending at more than a dozen departments from 2005 to 2006 found that nearly 41 percent of roughly $14 billion in credit-card purchases, whether legitimate or questionable, did not follow procedure — either because they were not properly authorized or they had not been signed for by an independent third party as called for in federal rules to deter fraud.
For purchases over $2,500, nearly half — or 48 percent — were unauthorized or improperly received.
By Glenn
April 9, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this
@@,
I mad about you, but please don’t refer to babies as a “resource”. Just don’t, please.
By Glenn
April 9, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
WELL! How d’ya like this. Now that the Session has ended the DNC-AJC has taken an interest in the psychopolitical menage a trois that has crippled Georgia state lawmaking. Here’s what our journal of record has to say today:
Gov. Sonny Perdue signed three bills Wednesday at the Capitol dealing with health care, education and transportation, but perhaps the bigger news was who was with him. Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and House Speaker Glenn Richardson — who’ve been in a heated war of words over the Legislature’s failure to pass tax cuts on Friday — flanked the governor. On the legislative session’s final day Richardson called on Cagle to “stand up and be a man” and said he should be ousted after tax reform failed to pass. Cagle accused Richardson of being “blinded by ego” and suggested he was a “bully.” Neither backed away from the remarks Wednesday.
Except that the DNC-AJC didn’t say it; AP did. And DNC-AJC didn’t run it on the Front Page; it ran a link to the home page of the AJC.com. And that’s not an excerpt; that’s the story i