You are quite right that the reasons for departure will as cynical as those for invading in the first place. The 'Mission Accomplished' spin is being polished for release right now with the usual miserable scraps of 'success' being highlighted in a vain attempt to obscure the full scale of this catastrophe. The full picture will only be completely exposed in the next few years but the willing dupes of the rose tinted spin are surely never to be forgiven. The daily atrocities by the Coalition as much as the so called terrorists will continue right up to the tail between the legs exit. The human kite trailers streaming behind the last helicopters(Vietnam style) will be on the screens in 2006.
Here's another example of a 'successful' episode:
Posted by Oakroyd at November 27, 2005 01:02 PM
I happened to watch both Face The Nation and Mete The Cess. In both cases, discussion on Iraq started out somewhat friendly to Bu$h, but degenerated into 'It's time to get out - somehow!' Even David Broder didn't stay on the GOP reservation!
Posted by pessimist at November 27, 2005 01:18 PMI watched the same programs and someone, I forgot whom, declared that removal of troops beginning in '06 was Bush's plan all along. WTF! So, everytime someone asked this WH the timetable for troop withdrawal, or when the Iraqis would be able to defend themselves, Bush knew, but just wasn't going to tell the American people. Just more bullshit! Give it up George. You are beginning to look even more like an lying a**hole, if that is possible.
Posted by Judith at November 27, 2005 02:03 PM"As we said a week ago, the administration will run for the door for purely political reasons next year, because losing either the House or Senate in 2006 would permanently blot the Bush legacy."
You mean like CLINTON did in his FIRST TERM!!!!
If PRESIDENT CLINTON was as concerned for this country rather than commiting IMPEACHABLE offenses then BUSH wouldn't have to deal with the mess he left when he left.
AGAIN, I AM THANKFUL WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WITH COURAGE DESPITE THE COWARDS, like this BLOG, who undermine the United States with every breath!!!
Posted by at November 27, 2005 02:25 PMI knew it. It was that bj that got us in this mess. I need a Stoli on the rocks.
Posted by Judith at November 27, 2005 02:44 PM"AGAIN, I AM THANKFUL WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WITH COURAGE DESPITE THE COWARDS, like this BLOG, who undermine the United States with every breath!!!"
Tell me one brave thing your Dear Leader has done in his entire pathetic existence. Moron.
Posted by ran at November 27, 2005 02:53 PMYeah! to bad Clinton could only BOMB IRAQ and distroy any WMD's Saddam had so Bush could get us into this mess. God I long for the days of a President who compitent instead of the one we have now.
Posted by Goose1 at November 27, 2005 02:58 PMYeah! the chimp is talking to reduce the troops next year to what it was before the elections. What a great move! Cutting 3 brigades from the 18 we have now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1010
U.S. plans to reduce the troops in Iraq by early 2006? ( November 23, 2005 )
I tend to be a skeptic about all this. Bush seems willing to avoid reality and Cheney wants to wage war, period. If there's talk of some withdrawal, it's probably from Rove, who may be back in action these days. He seems like the one person who may want to do this as a way to salvage the GOP coalition. It may be too late for that. The Nixonian playbook used by this administration can only go so far.
Posted by Rich at November 27, 2005 03:59 PMThere is so much here about the 180 degree turnaround of "We have a Plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq and since we are republicans spouting this we aren't traitors or cowards".
Since it was stolen and plagiarized it just for political points as noted...but I say don't listen to what they say, watch what they do...seeing is believing. They have lied about sooooo many things.....numbers... money, troops trained and needed, what makes you think this isn't just another Big Lie...to cover the failed Big Lie?
The other amazing thing is even if they came up with the Biden withdrawal plan before Senator Biden did....why would anyone trust the plan that was brought to us by the same incompetent group of Iraq War invasion/ post war "planners" of this whole catatrophic mistake in the first place? IF there was something they could miscalculate, screw up, and expert advice to disregard...they did it already. Why would I want a(nother) "plan" from the same makers who created the colossal mistake?
But like I said initially...watch what they do don't listen to what they say.
Posted by emal at November 27, 2005 04:05 PMAir Force to replace ground troops in Iraq
WOLF BLITZER
Interview With Seymour Hersh
HERSH: Well, you know, what I was writing about in The New Yorker this week is our plan is to pull out American troops if we start to do that. And I think the president probably will next year. But the war is not going to slow down. We're going to increase the pace of air operations. There's going to be more bombing in direct support of Iraqi units now.
BLITZER: Let me read to you what you write in The New Yorker magazine, the article entitled "Up in the Air." "A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the President's public statements, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower. Quick, deadly strikes by U.S. warplanes are seen as a way to improve dramatically the combat capability of even the weakest Iraqi combat units."
Explain what you're hearing from your sources. HERSH: Oh. It's very simple. That we have a lot of units in Iraq that are not very good. And if we're going to put...
BLITZER: Iraqi units.
HERSH: Yes. Right. American -- not American.
BLITZER: Ground troops.
HERSH: Absolutely. Not very competent. Very weak. And if we must -- many of them Shiite, many of them controlled by militias. I mean, they're not necessarily loyal to any particular regime. And if we pull away the American ground support and the American air support, they're in trouble.
But if we -- we can take out troops if we increase air. In other words, the temple of air bombing, bombing's sort of the unknown story right now. We don't know how many bombs are dropped, where. Nobody reports publicly as they did, Wolf, in Vietnam.
During the Vietnam war, we got a daily total of how many missions, sorties per day, how much tonnage. We have no idea here how many bombs are actually dropping every day and where. But the idea is, you increase the pace of the bombing. And that will make an inadequate Iraqi unit be able to stand up a little bit, certainly against the insurgency. That's the thinking.
BLITZER: And then you go on to write this: "The prospect of using air power as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused great unease. For one thing, Air Force commanders, in particular, have deep-seated objections to the possibility that Iraqis eventually will be responsible for target selection. 'Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame someone else?' another senior military planner now on assignment in the Pentagon asked."
About Bush:
BLITZER: Here's what you write. You write, "Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the president remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding."
Those are incredibly strong words, that the president basically doesn't want to hear alternative analysis of what is going on.
HERSH: You know, Wolf, there is people I've been talking to -- I've been a critic of the war very early in the New Yorker, and there were people talking to me in the last few months that have talked to me for four years that are suddenly saying something much more alarming.
They're beginning to talk about some of the things the president said to him about his feelings about manifest destiny, about a higher calling that he was talking about three, four years ago.
I don't want to sound like I'm off the wall here. But the issue is, is this president going to be capable of responding to reality?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/27/le.01.html
Posted by Nik at November 27, 2005 04:32 PMNbdy hs ptnt n th d f wthdrwng. Th dffrnc s th dmnstrtn wnts t fnsh th jb frst whl dms sk dshnr thrgh cptltn.
[Editor: ignore=off]Nobody has a patent on the idea of withdrawing. The difference is the administration wants to finish the job first ...Posted by BenditoDon't you just love it when there is a 180-degree shift in the party line and the little Bushistas follow without a pause. What is this job that Bush wants to finish, the privatization of Iraq's oil? Posted by Mike at November 27, 2005 04:54 PM
The Iraq issue is one of national importance, however, how you Liberals treat it as a political toy, that can somehow insure your take over of the House and Senate is deplorable.
1. Regardless of your obessive and complusive cries that the War was illegitimate because Bush Lied, we are there now. The question as to how to resolve the conflict should be the question, not how to demoralize the men and women fighting and dying over there. (Mind you, I am proud we went there, I just wish we could find a way to save the millions starving in North Korea and offer them some type of freedom as well, but you Liberals would never agree to stop any dictator.)
2. Now, if we can agree, we are there, so the next step is what....
a.) Today on FoxNews Senator Levin said that he was told by the rank and file troops that they needed more troops on the ground. Wallace said, hey you can't have it both ways, either more troops should be put in, or you should withdrawal them. Levin back pedaled and said, oh, that was not made in the present time. So yes, we should begin withdrawals.
b.) On Meet the Press, Biden said just this past week he talked to Flag officers who said we need more troops on the ground immediately. He said he spoke to the other Democrat leaders and they heard that come through loud and clear. Of course, the panty wipe, Democrat Russert, didn't call him on why he would want to withdrawal if these "silent" voices are begging for more help.
3. We have one of three decisions to make.
a.) Immediate withdrawal-thats the Michaeal Moore, Striesand, Sheehan, Kerry, Carter method, Murtha plan.
b.) Continue to train and move toward the December elections when we hope that we can begin slowly moving troops out. After WWII, we were having soldiers killed by opposition NAZI's 3-4 years AFTER the war was over. Hells bells we are still in Germany, Japan, and even Clinton's feel good war, Bosnia. (Why isn't Cindy Sheehan protesting the soldiers in Bosnia? Talk about being a hypocrit.)
c.) We can just bitch and complain at whatever happens, because we are such miserable people.
Actually, I'm proud of the men and women that fought to give democracy a root in the middle east. I'm glad that terrorists are flocking to that region, so that our armed forces can kill them over there and not over here. I'm sorry that the socialist in Spain were deterred by the train bombings that happened there last year, because I know liberals all of this world will drop and run like the French at the first sign of any danger.
History will someday look back on this war and perhaps truthfully show it to be either a success or a failure. But one thing it will certainly show, and that when it comes to the defense of American's fighting overseas, that you can not count on Liberals to hold their criticism and hatred until the battle is over.
Shame on you for your American hating, self loathing guilt. America is the bastian of freedom for this world to see. And I'm proud that 25 million Iraqis, are now free because of what we did.
Freedom isn't Free, except of course for you Liberals who will never pay any price for it. You might cost more lives with your incessant whinning, but you will never pay the price.
Posted by Carpe Diem at November 27, 2005 05:00 PMSealing the borders will not stabilize the country when only about 10% of the insurgents are foreigners. The only thing that will stabilize the country is getting out ASAP.
Bush will put out the blather that while they have had a plan for troop withdrawal, they weren't announcing it for the concern that it would negatively impact the situation in Iraq, and chose to announce it only because they concluded the American people had the need to know (totally believable to those who want to believe).
And Bush has been given the perfect excuse for what could be seen as abandoning our responsibility to stabilize the country - 82% of Iraqis think they will be worse off if we stay, and want us out. Only bullies with ulterior motives would stay.
Unfortunately, pulling out may save him from impeachment.
Of course, we should probably be concerned about another possibility. He can stage another 9/11 type event and move our troops into Syria. A cornered skunk is dangerous.
Cut and Run! I thought of it first!
Posted by dubya at November 27, 2005 05:15 PMAllow me to frame this for y'all:
The GOP is playing politics with the lives of the military and with national security.
Hey Crapy Diem, go fuck yourself, you traitor-coddling satanic piece of rat shit. You fucking scum will never be able to wash the blood off of your hands, and we'll remember exactly who you are. That goes for you too, Bendito. The complicit will be punished.
Posted by God Of War at November 27, 2005 05:15 PMJust as some of us predicted, the "stab in the back" campaign has already begun. By next August the trolls and their talking point issuing handlers will be calling the occupation of Iraq "another example of failed liberalism". Just wait and see.
Posted by rlp at November 27, 2005 05:28 PMExcuse me Carpe Diem, why did we go into Iraq? Wasn't it WMD's? Why don't hawks and Republicans ever apologize for misleading us into an unnecessary war that killed more than 2000 of our sons and daughters and over 100,000 Iraqis and bankrupted our government, before they move on to what we should do now? Get that piece of red meat (the Bush Administration) out of our faces first.
Without tax increases, we can't afford to increase the manpower to stabilize Iraq, and Bush won't increase taxes. So he stands in the way of your only solution. And we don't have the troops necessary to do so anyway without a draft, and the American people are not about to tolerate forcing their sons and daughter into an illegal and immoral war. So the people stand in your way as well.
Besides, it is immoral to stay when 82% of the Iraqi population wants us to leave. They believe their lives will only get worse if we stay. We have lost their hearts and minds, and thus cannot succeed in this occupation. It’s like having finally gotten your sexy dream partner in bed, and in the heat of the moment, you blurt out the name of a pass lover. Piqued, the one for which you've lusted demands you get off them. Do you obey, or do you continue to abuse them?
Back when the Iraqi invasion first happened how many times did we hear statements like "You gotta root out the problem, you can't just drop a few bombs like Clinton did and hope Saddam leaves us alone."
No fly zones, targeted bombing and no problems from Iraq for 8 years. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but it turns out that strategic bombing worked pretty good. But, that can't be, for the GOP is supposed to be so smart about national security matters.
Posted by rlp at November 27, 2005 05:46 PMShorter Carpe Koolaid:
Bush is great, Bush is good, Let us thank him for this War amen! Especially since I am sitting at home safe and sound while others in this country and elsewhere are doing all the fighting and sacrificing. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, liberals are baaaad.....blah blah blah.
"the president remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding."
"They're beginning to talk about some of the things the president said to him about his feelings about manifest destiny, about a higher calling that he was talking about three, four years ago."
"I don't want to sound like I'm off the wall here. But the issue is, is this president going to be capable of responding to reality?"
Nik, those words turned by blood cold. The man who sits in our White House is insane.
This particular liberal, a resident of New Orleans, is paying the price for Bush's Folly: while we're spending a billion dollars a day destroying Iraq, there's no money left for rebuilding New Orleans -- and everyone in this country who uses gas and oil or who ships wheat and corn down the Mississippi (or consumes them) will also pay the price.
Posted by Brian Boru at November 27, 2005 06:51 PMBrian - you get the No Bullshit award for this week.
However, even without Fiasco in office and his little war, I question wether or not this nation could muster the attention span and future-planning to rebuild New Orleans. Even if we weren't hemorraging a billion dollars a day in the desert.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 27, 2005 07:12 PMNonsense,
we're winning over their freedom every day. The Iraqis love us. Those polls showing that they want us out are bullshit.
They love us.
They really, really love us:
A "trophy" video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis.
They really, really love us, right guys?
Oh, and Mr. Diem, Murtha's plan didn't ask for an immediate withdrawal. You really should read what his plan was all about. Rather, it was the bullshit Republican plan that pretended rather badly to be Murtha's plan that was shot down in the House. It was a bad ploy that once again, blew up in the Republican's faces.
And let's take some issues further with your asinine comments:
but you Liberals would never agree to stop any dictator
Alright, dipshit, take a wild, wild guess who turned a blind eye while Saddam was gassing his own people. Take a big fat wild guess as to who handwaved it away, gave him a slap on the wrist because they wanted to do some pipeline business with him.
(hint, it was a Republican President in the 80's).
And speaking of the 80's, you wanna discuss just how far Reagan was willing to go to endorse dictatorships all in the name of fighting Communism? You really wanna try and act sanctimonious on this one, twit?
And how 'bout that fucker in Uzbekistan, the guy who boils his dissenters 'till their brains pop out of their heads. That guy who just kicked us out of his country, despite the hundreds of millions we gave him to support our fight on terrorism?
And how 'bout N. Korea? We seemingly haven't done jack squat about the most evil of dictators on the planet, despite all your idiotic chest-thumpin' drive to rid the world of "evildoers".
You really want to match wits on history, twit?
And let's be real here - Biden and Levin have their good points, but quite honestly I don't give a rat's ass what they say at times, especially Biden. Those Washington blowhards who don't have a pulse on what the rest of the country feels do not speak for me (mostly pertaining to Biden).
But they have a point, and it's one you're obfuscating quite easily.
You see - you're the anti-American, douchebag.
You're the one who hates our men and women over there fighting bravely.
You're the one who doesn't support their lives and families.
Because if you did, you would support the notion of adding more troops over there at any cost. You would NOT support the current numbers there which clearly demonstrate they are undermanned. They have the most difficult times securing any given area because of their low troop numbers.
Why is that? Why did your furor go to war with such low numbers? Why did Rummy handwave away those generals who pleaded to fight with more troops in the first place? Or what's worse, force one of them into retirement?
Furthermore - why did your furor fail to fully equip our brave men and women? Why is it that to this day, not every soldier and vehicle are fully armored and protected to the best of our ability?
There's no explanation for this oversight. So why do you hate our troops? Why do you not want them protected with full troop numbers and armor?
But let's ask another question here - have you enlisted? If you're too old, have you demanded that your friends and relatives of age enlist?
Why is it that your Republican blowhard mouthpieces have not said ONE FUCKING WORD about encouraging their listeners to enlist? Do they not read and hear what the men on the ground are saying about troop numbers? Are they actually that deaf, dumb, and blind to believe we're just fine and dandy on troop numbers? Surely they know better, so why not show your American support and encourage all of the supporters of your mess of a war to enlist, including yourself?
And moving even further back - why do you feel it was necessary to take the eye off the fucker that attacked us, bin Laden, and move our troops and resources to a place that had nothing whatsoever to do with the war on terrorism and 9/11?
Why did you allow your furor to take his eye off the man who killed our people on our soil to go fight a war that had nothing to do with the attack on our soil, you fucking asshole?
And finally, evidence continues to point toward the fact that Bush knew full well ahead of time that:
1. There was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam, but he stated as such anyway to the public
2. The intelligence on Saddam's WMD arsenal and capability was weak at best, but Bush ignored such evidence and propped it up as strong regardless
Oh yes, I know we're there now, and I know we're fighting our way to install an Islamic fundamentalist regime that has the approval of none other than Iran, has given very little if any rights to women, and has even been set up to be sentimental to those who attack our troops and fail to call them terrorists:
The question is, do you know any of this? Do you know that whatever little thought in your head of installing a so-called "democracy" has fallen by the wayside to the installation of an Islamic fundamentalist government?
Put simply, you are the epitomy of unAmerican. You're the sad little fool, and it disgusts me that people like you exist who essentially spit on our troops in your own subtle ways while they fight for their country. You care not a wit for them or their families.
The flag you're wrapping yourself around is not the American one. You haven't a fucking clue as to what it's like to be a true Patriot. You are shameless and revolting.
Will we actually be hearing a direct reply from you, rather than your idiotic sweeping fallacious generalizations?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at November 27, 2005 08:16 PMrlp you are right, we have been calling it for the past couple of weeks.
How I wish we weren't.
he flag you're wrapping yourself around is not the American one. You haven't a fucking clue as to what it's like to be a true Patriot.
Don't waste your time Opus. Trying to explain patriotism to someone blinded by nationalism will simply be met by frothing of the mouth.
Carpe:
was told by the rank and file troops that they needed more troops on the ground. Wallace said, hey you can't have it both ways, either more troops should be put in, or you should withdrawal them.
If, for once, you could see past your own bile, you may want to read actual statements by most Dems, whom have been saying for quite some time. Put more troops in and do it right or get the hell out. Since the former is so very politically and logistically untenable, the latter is the only option. But hey, you only hear what you want to hear so guess it is all moot anyway.
'm proud that 25 million Iraqis, are now free
Obviously I'm not clear on your meaning of the word "free". Mind taking a moment to define it for us?
a.) Immediate withdrawal-thats the Michaeal Moore, Striesand, Sheehan, Kerry, Carter method, Murtha plan.
Try reading Murtha's actual resolution instead of parroting the party line that you espouse... then get back to us. Thanks.
I'm proud of the men and women that fought to give democracy a root in the middle east. I'm glad that terrorists are flocking to that region, so that our armed forces can kill them over there and not over here. I'm sorry that the socialist in Spain were deterred by the train bombings that happened there last year, because I know liberals all of this world will drop and run like the French at the first sign of any danger.
Really, you don't have any idea how much this makes us laugh every time we read it, do you? As you were, Soldier!
Bendito:
Nobody has a patent on the idea of withdrawing. The difference is the administration wants to finish the job first while dems seek dishonor through capitulation.
and all this time I had the impression that Republicans hated yoga.
Jeebus, thanks for the entertainment guys.
How would you like to be in the last divisional-sized (say about 20K troops) left in Iraq, depending on Iraqi forces to help with security? Do you think that our last forces will be conducting a fighting withdrawal out of Iraq, as they retrace their steps on the roads from Baghdad to Basra and Kuwait? By the time that rear guard heads for the Gulf the Iraqi expertise with IEDs and shaped charges should be pretty fearsome, making the trip up country look like a picnic. Annabasis anyone?
Posted by PrahaPartizan at November 28, 2005 04:18 AMYou were right Carpe, freedom isn't free. We are just billing the cost of the war onto our kids. Our glorious "fiscal conservatives" are leaving my kids a horrible legacy of debt. How people can justify that is beyond my comprehension.
Posted by monica at November 28, 2005 05:45 AMAnnabasis anyone?
I'm probably the only other person on this thread to have read that work. I have said since the invasion that the only way out of Iraq will be a fighting retreat. Every kid who can lay hands on an AK-47 will want to put a notch in the stock before the opportunity disappears.
When Xenophon returned to Greece with the survivors of the Ten Thousand, you will recall that they were not welcome because they were now too dangerous.
I suspect that the majority of three-tour Iraq veterans will not be welcomed into the Republican party, especially if the retreat turns messy.
Posted by Repack Rider at November 28, 2005 07:49 AMIf removing Sadaam from power and allowing the Iraqi's to choose their own form of government were any true motive, there would have been no reason for the U.S. to remain after the formal war was over (almost two years ago). The fact is, the U.S. doesn't really want an Iraq that resembles the desires of the Iraqis. They want a pliant client state that ensures U.S. economic interests long term, regardless of how that client state's puppet government represents/doesn't represent it's people.
The question whether or not an Iraqi government that is representative of the wishes of the Iraqi people is good for the world and/or America is irrelevant to the excuses given to justify this war. But of course, the Neocons never intended this all along. Anyone who knew anything about Iraq before Sadaam Hussein would have understood the risk of setting off a civil war if U.S. troops withdrew..which is why they never intended to withdraw after spending $200 Billion to secure their interests -- not until a pliant regime was established -- and once again armed and indebted to protect both their's and the U.S. corporate interests longterm. Sadaam was once a pliant despot with U.S. arms. The U.S. wants another one to fill his shoes.
I would say that it is that very idea that is Un-American; unfortunately, this is very representative of those who walk the Corporate halls of American power.
...and there are a lot of ignorant hateful SOB's that tote the line for them, while they wallow in their own laziness and decadence, shun education, and live everyday only to further inflate their own meritless sense of self-important smug superiority over people who aren't like themselves.
The sad part is that the real obscured economic reasons may no longer matter once ancient hatreds and biases are ignited into a full scale war exacerbated by propaganda and the failure of the Neocon Corporatists to control the variables they set into motion should the oil run out before anyone gets around to doing their job (instead of the gluttonous profit taking that is today's norm).