What I particularly hate is the way all the Repubs are saying "cut and run" every time they mention any Democratic withdrawal plan. I tend to believe that after 3 years and 2500 deaths (and thousands of ruined lives from injuries), the "cut and run" ship has long since sailed. That would have had to happen around "mission accomplished" time.

John Kerry?

Matt Lauer needs to look up the word "analogy". Of course Dan Bartlett wasn't going to name names, he's a flunky. He's not allowed to make political attacks against congressmen during an official interview unless it's specifically condoned by the administration and Lauer knew it. his question was nothing more than an attempt to belittle Bartlett and the administration.

Pulling out of Iraq before the Iraqi government is able to maintain stability or suppress the insurgency is not only admitting defeat, it is performing a grave disservice to the people of Iraq. We screwed it up, now we have to make it right before we leave.

The people who voted for withdrawl know that. They know that pulling out is abandoning Iraq to the Muslim extremists. They know that it would mean that Syria and Iran would have immense influence over the country. Either they don't care, or they are only bringing it up to pander to the idiots who are sending them letters.

Setting a timetable is almost as bad. I'd like to get our troops home as soon as possible too, but setting a time either gives us an impossible goal that is inflexible or it gives the insurgents a goal. "If we can only hold out for x more months, we'll win!!"

I thought Dean said something to that effect.

Scooby's'pawn: Matt Lauer needs to look up the word "analogy". Of course Dan Bartlett wasn't going to name names, he's a flunky. He's not allowed to make political attacks against congressmen during an official interview unless it's specifically condoned by the administration and Lauer knew it. his question was nothing more than an attempt to belittle Bartlett and the administration.

Well, yeah, but that takes all the fun out of it :)

Any self respecting American would sanction a 10000, day war. CMON! OOHRAH!

vernonFL: We shouldn't just quit, we got into this mess, we need to finish it.

So finish it in one year.

How long does it take to train Iraqis to be their own security force?

Most of the plans Democrats have advanced haven't called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and none have called for a total withdrawal from the region. Not that this matters.

A combination of an introduction of an arab-centric international peacekeeping force and a redeployment to a nearby allied country of a large enough troop force to provide rapid response to large insurgent attacks would be a reasonable solution to the situation and would mean most of our soldiers could come home.

All of the above requires a grown-up response to the situation as it stands. Unfortunately we don't have grown-ups in charge.

We have Republicans.

I swear I didn't see this coming 4 years ago.

is anyone else surprised by how adept matt lauer is at exposing people for morons?

Interesting thoughts on the Democratic positions on Iraq:

The only place in the American government where there is an honest and spirited debate over Iraq is within the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are not on the same page - and that's a good thing. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry disagree. Hooray for that.

If anyone tells you the solution to Iraq is easy or obvious, they're a liar or a fool (a false choice in the case of our president). So why not feature the debate? At least someone is debating what to do.

flavor of the month: is anyone else surprised by how adept matt lauer is at exposing people for morons?

Well, not to engage in tautologies with you, but if they truly are morons, how hard could this be?

Scooby's'pawn: Pulling out of Iraq before the Iraqi government is able to maintain stability or suppress the insurgency is not only admitting defeat, it is performing a grave disservice to the people of Iraq. We screwed it up, now we have to make it right before we leave.

I really want to know what the hell people who say things like this are thinking.

Does it look like the Iraqi government is ever going to maintain stability at this rate? The US Forces, the finest, best trained and most expensive army in the world cannot keep Iraq stable, so somehow I doubt the Iraq forces will be able to anytime soon (ie this decade). And by what benchmark is "stable" stable enough anyway? After all it isn't as though there is a limmited supply of insurgents and its just a matter of killing them all.

The fact is that as long as the US forces are in Iraq they will be attacked by insurgents. If they try and wait until the violence has stopped it will they will never leave. This, a perpetual war, may be what the Administration secretly hopes for, however.

The US forces will have to pull out eventually, and it will be while Iraq is still a violent place. If this is defeat for the Bush Administration then so be it. Maybe they should have thought up a postwar plan instead waving their dicks around shouting "Shock and Awe" and landing on aircraft carriers and so on.

Skleenar

you're matt lauer

I haven't done my homework, so this is a legitimate question. Has anyone on the left proposed setting up a system of benchmarks and achievable goals by which we withdraw? Here is an uninformed example that should convey what I am thinking about.

1) Scale back troops to 1/2 current level when the Iraq army reaches X numbers

2) Scale back troops to 1/4 current level when Iraq army reaches Y numbers

Set contingent goals, and make the goals in such a way that the terrorists/insurgents can't wait for one day to say goodbye?

I mean, on the one side you have people saying that theres nothing wrong, stay the course, and everything will be a shining beacon of democracy. We will all get ponies too. On the other side you have people throwing up thier arms and saying we have to leave no matter what the condition of the place.

Compromise people! Its what our founding fathers had in mind when they created our nation, and its a great way to do things.

From the same article Skleenar posted.


Democrats should seize this moment to attack the rubber-stamp Republicans for their lemming-like devotion to a failed strategy and a set of incompetent and dishonest leaders.

Sadly they won't. They'll bicker amongs themselves and they won't take the republicans head on. Rove will make them appear weak and it will be two more years of a Republican majority.

It makes me sick, but until the Democratic leadership can find a way to fight the Rove strategy there is nothing that can be done.

kmill25: Today's Senate bill, voted for by only *18* Democrats, certainly seems to back up your point.

Grrrr, 13 Democrats.

Look, this is simple:

Republican position: stay in Iraq forever, build permanent bases, say "cut in run" every two years during election time so that you can milk the issue

Democratic position: stay in Iraq for a little while, then pull back troops and let Iraqis defend their own country.

I'd like my friends home soon, please.

Jon Snow: I'd like my friends home soon, please.


seconded.

fighting a war we know it was a mistake to start. . . is this 2006 or 1966?

The 'more cash for education' party seems ignorant of colorful language.

They intend to build permanent bases. There is no doubt in my mind. They will not be able to admit this as policy so the "cut and run" shiat gets pushed until after the election, then they have 2 years to find the next marketing slogan or distraction / wedge issue.

Jon Snow:

I'd like my friends home soon, please.

My friends want to be home desperately. They see no end in site to what is going on over there. One buddy (in our military) was being used to transport liquor and other luxury goods into the green zone for the new Iraqi leadership.

I blame Bush! No blood for oil! etc.....

Muthra.

Although I'm suprised by this,
seeing how he was able to give Godzilla a good fight
on several occassions..........

/Hmmm....
/Giant Moth -
/Good thing he hangs with Democrats,
/less chance of being injured by giant lightbulbs
/appearing over someone's head.......

I wonder if Lauer is still on coke; cus he's getting edgier these days. Earning the big bucks without the "Pet Psychic" lady there must be liberating.

They know that it would mean that Syria and Iran would have immense influence over the country.

I dunno about Syria, but as for Iran, that horse has already left the barn long, long ago. Lo and behold, some Shi'ite Iraqis want to live on friendly terms with the Shi'ites next door, perhaps even as allies.

Actually here's Today's Senate Bill.

You might have to scroll down to where it says " SA 4442. Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. LEAHY) submitted an amendment..."

Notice that it doesn't call for a complete withdrawal of troops but says we should retain "...the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel."

Even THAT wasn't good enough for the five year olds that make up the majority party.

That our representatives can't even friggin' debate withdrawal, in any form, is insane.

Blathering Idjut:

That our representatives can't even friggin' debate withdrawal, in any form, is insane.

Because this is a permanent occupation. It is not a war, it is not temporary. In two years we will be back here talking about the same things. This is not a plan for success in Iraq it is a plan to begin to project permanent and devistating power in the middle east so that all the oil is our oil. It locks out China, Russia and India from getting a foothold in the region.

AgeOfReason

Are you serious? First of all, the amount of troops we have there is barely enough to contain an insurgency, let alone "project permanent and devistating power". Further, doing so would involve taking down several regimes that are already closely allied to us (Saudi Arabia heads the list), and flies in the face of 50 years of middle east diplomacy.

I repeat. What?!?!

"They know that pulling out is abandoning Iraq to the Muslim extremists."

Yes, and the liberals don't care.

"How long does it take to train Iraqis to be their own security force?"

Well, if my history is correct, it took us almost 10 years in Germany after WWII. But, liberals want everything NOW since we live in a fast food world. Reality doesn't work like that though.

glassa: But, liberals want everything NOW since we live in a fast food world.

You know you could have just answered the question without adding that bullsh*t.

Are you the one submitting these ridiculous articles?

"They know that pulling out is abandoning Iraq to the Muslim extremists."

Yes, and the liberals don't care.

Oh, sure we do. We just realized before-hand that INVADING Iraq meant it could wind up in the hands of Muslim extremists.

Don't blame us for your mistake. If Iraq is truly lost then it's Bush and conservatives that lost it.

dedekind_cut:

Are you serious? First of all, the amount of troops we have there is barely enough to contain an insurgency, let alone "project permanent and devistating power". Further, doing so would involve taking down several regimes that are already closely allied to us (Saudi Arabia heads the list), and flies in the face of 50 years of middle east diplomacy.

I repeat. What?!?!

We are there permanently and I have no doubt about it. I have friends in deployment and others ready to return for their second tours. They have recently been told to be ready for six months in six months out indefinitely.

The admin had the text pulled from the last spending bill stating we were not there permanently because it would have been binding.

They don't give a shiat about Iraq, in fact a low level civil war will be fine for them. The next phase will be to mass troops around specific zones. Baghdad being one, and areas of the oil industry being the next. They will allow a low level civil war to percolate for years while they get some oil production back online. Meanwhile they have a threat to Iran (or any Arab nation) if they wish to cozy up with China or mess with the oil market.

The think tanks where the people who thought this war up presented the evidence that we had a window 10 - 15 years when the USSR broke up to establish bases in the world without competition. The window ended up a longer time than they initially predicted but we are nearing the end of the window and have picked our spot in the Middle East.

Look at what we are building over there. We are there for the long haul, 20 years or more.

AOR-

Yes, it looks that the plan is to keep us in Iraq ad infinitum.

The funny thing is I don't remember that being discussed in the last presidential campaign nor in the current mid-terms.

You'd think that be something Americans would want to have a say on...

Blathering Idjut:

Yes, it looks that the plan is to keep us in Iraq ad infinitum.

The funny thing is I don't remember that being discussed in the last presidential campaign nor in the current mid-terms.

You'd think that be something Americans would want to have a say on...

That is the plan. I have a number of buddies over there and they have predicted a few things that have come true. They are now predicting we are in there for 10 - 20 years.

dekind cut

AgeOfReason

Are you serious? First of all, the amount of troops we have there is barely enough to contain an insurgency, let alone "project permanent and devistating power". Further, doing so would involve taking down several regimes that are already closely allied to us (Saudi Arabia heads the list), and flies in the face of 50 years of middle east diplomacy.

I repeat. What?!?!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060609/pl_nm/security_congress_funding_dc

(sorry...no html skills)

It would clearly seem as though the Republicans in Congress would like to keep the option of establishing permanent bases in Iraq for the forseeable future.

Gulper Eel: ... now comes a GOP guy who can't even remember the names of the French wing of the Democratic party...

The technical name is "those people who were right about the war" wing of the Democratic party.

vernonFL: Well, 13 people voted to completely get out of Iraq within 1 year. To me that is quitting.

We shouldn't just quit, we got into this mess, we need to finish it. This administration can't, maybe the next one can.


Good idea. Maybe if you ever set your house on fire, you should stay there too.

Hey, didn't we "cut and run" from Lebanon back in the 1980's?

Who the hell let that happen?

Good for Lauer. The more these twerps are called on their hate and lies the better.

bugman26: Korea? Vietnam? Gulf War 1? Heh.

Remember when everything the US touched didn't turn to shiat? Those were good days. Good times.

Tourney3p0: That was before some of us discovered how much more money could be made by selling out.