Bush has an exit strategy after all, and it's Murtha's - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

raveneye · 11-24-2005, 10:31 AM

Here's a question: am I a cynic for thinking that the "exit strategy" is just: wait until enough people complain, and then start pulling out?

This has got to be the mother of all flip flops.

Quote:

HEADLINE: U.S. plans to begin troop withdrawal: Bulk of troops expected home in time for November 2006 elections

BYLINE: Sheldon Alberts, CanWest News Service

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:

WASHINGTON - U.S. military officials are eyeing plans to withdraw more than 60,000 troops from Iraq by the end of 2006 amid growing pressure from Americans for an end to the war and rising anxiety among Republican lawmakers seeking re-election.

After spending weeks accusing war critics of advocating a "cut and run" policy in Iraq, senior Bush administration officials are setting the stage publicly for a sharp pullout of U.S. forces beginning early next year.

"I do not think that American forces need to be there in the numbers that they are now for very much longer because Iraqis are stepping up," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Fox News Channel.

In separate remarks to CNN, Rice rejected an "arbitrary timetable" for bringing troops home, but said "the number of coalition forces is clearly going to come down because Iraqis are making it possible to do those functions themselves."

Rice's comments signal an ab

rupt shift in tone by the Bush administration, which was upbraided by the U.S. Senate last week for not moving fast enough on an exit strategy for Iraq.

In a bipartisan measure, senators voted to require quarterly updates from the Bush administration on the war's progress. The Senate also pressed for Iraqis to assume the lead military role in the country in 2006, "thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States from Iraq."

With political tensions over the war and the strain of U.S. combat forces growing, senior U.S. military officials quietly leaked details of preliminary troop withdrawal plans over the past week.

Gen. George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, has submitted a plan to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that would see the number of U.S. forces drop by one-third, from the current 155,000 to between 90,000 and 100,000 by late 2006. One senior officer has described the plan as "moderately optimistic."

The plan hinges on the success of elections for a permanent Iraqi parliament on Dec. 15 and continuing improvement in the training and combat readiness of Iraqi security forces.

In a report Wednesday quoting senior Pentagon officials, the Washington Post said the initial phase of troop redeployment would see the withdrawal of three combat brigades, down from 18, early next year. The proposal would see one of those brigades redeployed to neighbouring Kuwait, where it could be easily sent back to Iraq if the situation deteriorates.

The U.S. has operated with a baseline of 138,000 troops for much of 2005, but the number of soldiers was increased to 155,000 to provide added security for the October referendum on a new constitution and the upcoming parliamentary vote.

There is growing speculation in Washington that President George W. Bush could announce the first withdrawals, of perhaps a handful of army battalions, each of about 2,000 soldiers, in his state of the union address in late January.

The plan for a troop withdrawal, which has to be approved by Rumsfeld, carries significant risk for both U.S. forces and Iraq's stability. Although Casey and other U.S. generals say Iraq's security forces are rapidly increasing their capabilities, only one of 96 battalions has been deemed ready to operate without help from American or other coalition forces.

There is also growing pressure from Iraqi politicians for a U.S. pullout. Iraqi Shiites, Sunni and Kurdish politicians ended a reconciliation summit this week by calling for the "withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable."

Domestic politics in the U.S. may also play a significant role in dictating the pace of any American military withdrawal from Iraq. All members of the House of Representatives, and one-third of U.S. senators, will be up for re-election in November 2006.

GRAPHIC:
Colour Photo: Reuters; Antiwar protester Juan Torres holds a photo of his son during a demonstration near U.S. President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, on Wednesday.

LOAD-DATE: November 24, 2005

Seaver · 11-24-2005, 10:49 AM

No one is against the basic premise of Murtha's plan. We ALL want to leave. What the huge reaction was that he called for an immidiate withdrawl.

filtherton · 11-24-2005, 11:26 AM

Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal consistent with the safety of the troops. Sounds like that's what bush is doing. I though only cowards cut and ran.

Marvelous Marv · 11-24-2005, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal consistent with the safety of the troops. Sounds like that's what bush is doing. I though only cowards cut and ran.

So Bush is planning an "immediate withdrawal" by the end of 2006?

Please post an "immediate" reply.

filtherton · 11-24-2005, 12:16 PM

How do you define immediate? Like as in instantaneous? That's not what murtha called for. Murtha said he thought everyone could be home in six months. So bush's plan calls for six months longer than what murtha called for to drastically reduce troop levels. The difference being that murtha wanted to get all the troops home save for a quick response force. People flipped out at murtha's plan because that's like "cutting and running" because we wouldn't be fulfilling our responsibility to clean up our own mess. According to the article, bush's plan quite possibly will also fail to fulfill our responsibility to clean up our own mess.

My question is: is there anyone who honestly thinks that the american military has the cure for whats wrong with iraq?

host · 11-24-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

No one is against the basic premise of Murtha's plan. We ALL want to leave. What the huge reaction was that he called for an immidiate withdrawl.

You are misinformed, Seaver. The republican spin is what you are posting here,
not the more reliable details that would lead to a more accurate conclusion.

If Murtha's resolution and statements are as you posted, why was it necessary for the republican ruled house of rep. to rush a vote on a substitute reolution that was written by republican Duncan Hunter?

If Media Matters is in error in the details of the following report, or if the LA Times misreported, or if the NY Times transcript or the house of rep. citations of the language in Murtha's and in Hunter's resolutions are flawed, please cite examples. We won't make progress here if you fall silent, as I experienced in my latest exchanges with powerclown on the "Bitch" thread.

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511220010
Fox's Gibson and Hannity, NY Post falsely claimed that House voted on Murtha's resolution

On November 21, Fox News host John Gibson falsely claimed that the House of Representatives voted down a measure offered by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) calling for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq; the New York Post made the same claim in a November 22 editorial. In fact, the House voted on a counter-resolution sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) in response to Murtha's that bore little resemblance to the original. Murtha's resolution asked that U.S. forces be redeployed "at the earliest practicable date," while Hunter's resolution asked that "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." Fox News host Sean Hannity also repeated the claim during the November 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, the third time he has done so.

Hannity made the claim twice on November 18 -- once during his radio show and once on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. He was joined by Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto, who made the same claim in his November 21 "Best of the Web" column, as Media Matters for America previously noted.

On the November 21 broadcast of The Big Story with John Gibson, Gibson interviewed New York Post columnist and retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, author of New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy (Sentinel, August 2005), and asked, "Why, then, do you think Murtha's suggestion last week, voted down by the House, is causing so much trouble?" Peters responded that by "calling for an immediate withdrawal," Murtha was encouraging terrorists "to think their strategy is working."

But the House never voted on Murtha's suggestion (House Joint Resolution 73), which he announced in a press conference on November 17. Instead, the House voted on a substitute (House Resolution 571) that was introduced the following day by Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The vote occurred after a contentious floor debate, during which Murtha described the resolution as "not what I envisioned, not what I introduced."

Murtha's resolution, which cited polling data, the cost of the war, and the rising American death toll, called for the redeployment of U.S. forces "at the earliest practicable date," the maintaining of strategic military presence in the region, and continued diplomatic efforts in Iraq. Hunter's resolution contained a single line: "Resolved, [t]hat it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

In a November 22 editorial, the New York Post editorial board wrote, "Murtha's service doesn't automatically make him right on military strategy. House Republicans made that plain Friday, forcing a vote to show just how little on-the-record support exists, even among Dems, for his idea." On the November 21 broadcast of his radio show, Hannity said that Murtha "didn't vote for his own pullout plan."

But as the Los Angeles Times reported, Republicans forced a vote not on Murtha's idea but, rather, on a different proposal "intended to fail and aimed at embarrassing war critics." The Washington Post also reported that "[r]ecognizing a political trap, most Democrats -- including Murtha -- said from the start they would vote no."....

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...itics-national November 19, 2005
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
House Erupts in War Debate
# Lawmakers launch personal attacks as Republicans force a vote on whether to pull out of Iraq immediately. The measure is rejected.

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — House Republicans forced a vote Friday over a proposal to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, sparking a raw and raucous debate during which lawmakers hurled insults and jeered each other.

The GOP-sponsored proposal, intended to fail and aimed at embarrassing war critics, was overwhelmingly defeated shortly before midnight, 403 to 3.

....Murtha's resolution Thursday called for a rapid "reaction force" to remain in the region and for diplomacy to be accelerated to achieve stability in Iraq. He also said the withdrawal should begin only when it could be accomplished safely.

The measure Hunter introduced said simply that "the sense of the House" was that troop deployment in Iraq should be "terminated immediately."

Murtha was among the vast majority of Democrats joining Republicans in voting against the resolution.

"This resolution is not what I envisioned, not what I introduced," he said.....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/po...pagewanted=all
Transcript

Published: November 17, 2005
The following is the transcript of the news conference Thursday by Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, as provided by Federal News Service.

I believe that and I have concluded the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists and the foreign jihadists. And let me tell you, they haven't captured any in this latest activity, so this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only 7 percent.

I believe with the U.S. troop redeployment the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted -- this is a British poll reported in The Washington Times -- over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces, and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice. The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free -- free from a United States occupation, and I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process. My experience in a guerrilla war says that until you find out where they are, until the public is willing to tell you where the insurgent is, you're not going to win this war, and Vietnam was the same way. If you have an operation -- a military operation and you tell the Sunnis because the families are in jeopardy, they -- or you tell the Iraqis, then they are going to tell the insurgents, because they're worried about their families.

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.........

.........Let me tell you something. We're charged -- Congress is charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, and it's our responsibility, our obligation to speak out for them. That's why I'm speaking out.

Our military's done everything that has been asked of them. U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily; it's time to bring the troops home.

Yes, sir?

Q Mr. Murtha, you say -- your first point about bringing them home consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. You know about these matters; what is your sense as to how long that would be?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I think they can get them out of there in six months. I think that we could do it -- you know, you have to do it in a very consistent way. But I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there.

........Q My other question. What do you mean exactly by a Quick Reaction Force in the region?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah. Well, the Marines in Okinawa -- you remember in Somalia, we came back from Somalia and then we went back in. It only took us a couple of days to take care of the Iraqi army, and now we're not talking about an army. What I'm talking about is a terrorist camp that may affect our national security or the security in the region, we could go back in. But not a civil war or something like that, I mean, you know, that's up to the Iraqis to settle that. So I think the Marine force could be in there momentarily, within a couple of days, within 48 hours they could be in there. And if the Kuwaitis would agree and they wanted to put a force in Kuwait, that would be a good place to have them. They could go right down the road.

........Q Sir, so you're effectively saying that this war should end, beginning as soon as possible, and that all these troops can be brought home within six months. So that's your hope.

REP. MURTHA: It's what -- I say they could be brought back. I'm saying within the safety of the troops -- but I project it could be six months.

Q Six months to start or six months to have them all back?

REP. MURTHA: I think in six months you could have them all back.

......Q Do you have a political strategy now moving forward to try to get more support on this?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I'm just -- I'm just starting to think about that.

Q Will you introduce your bill today?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

Murtha's resolution:

Quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.73:
..Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Hunter's Resolution (There was no language in the resolution. A vote was made on the title.):

Quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...9:h.res.00571:
H.RES.571
Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

And....for some reason...when you try to retrieve the text of the resolution actually voted on...you get:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.571:

The text of H.RES.571 has not yet been received from GPO
Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

Charlatan · 11-24-2005, 12:26 PM

I know everyone likes to score points but who really cares so long as the troops are coming home?

raveneye · 11-24-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I know everyone likes to score points but who really cares so long as the troops are coming home?

It's a welcome Thanksgiving message.

Thank you, John Murtha

ratbastid · 11-24-2005, 02:02 PM

Thank God the administration is finally caving to public pressure.

My prediction is that once the US presence is basically out, it'll be a total free-for-all in Iraq, and we'll hear very little about it.

There IS no solution to the mess we've caused there. Getting our forces out will probably help, but the fact is, we've significantly destablized the country and installed a government that doesn't have anything like a mandate from its people. Iraq have to go through years, possibly decades of war to get its feet under it again. And America won't give a damn once we've got our people out of harms way.

pan6467 · 11-24-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Thank God the administration is finally caving to public pressure.

My prediction is that once the US presence is basically out, it'll be a total free-for-all in Iraq, and we'll hear very little about it.

There IS no solution to the mess we've caused there. Getting our forces out will probably help, but the fact is, we've significantly destablized the country and installed a government that doesn't have anything like a mandate from its people. Iraq have to go through years, possibly decades of war to get its feet under it again. And America won't give a damn once we've got our people out of harms way.

Not true, there is still a lot of oil there..... and I can guarantee if it is threatened, between now and '08 Bush will move the troops back in.

Plus, if there is a free for all, Bush's arrogance will want to capitalize on it and show everyone "how bad things are because we left". Which is bs because it doesn't matter when we leave the result will be the same ....... civil war and instability. Unless Iran just moves in and takes over our spot.

pan6467 · 11-24-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I know everyone likes to score points but who really cares so long as the troops are coming home?

Amen to that Charlatan...... let's just hope as many as possible make it back in one piece without any true psychological problems, like the Vietnam vets had and still have.

host · 11-24-2005, 06:57 PM

It distresses me that someone can post an inaccurate point that is intended to counter the core point of the title and starter post of this thread, thus rendering it irrelevant, if the inaccurate point was reliable. It isn't.

Neither is the air of confidence that is intended by the poster and unavoidedly perceived by the reader who is not informed enough to know that Murtha had
not "called for an immediate withdrawal".

It further distresses me that objections are posted concerning my challenge to what amounted to an inaccurate "talking point", that was intended to kill the very valid premise that spurred the creation of the thread.

It is a holiday, I know, but is that an excuse to observe a hiatus of the everyday chore here of keeping discussion on a course where truth is at least in shouting distance? If not, what are we doing here?

Do we agree that the surest way to keep inaccurate and unsubstantiated points here to a minimum, is to vigorously challenge every one that is presented?

djtestudo · 11-24-2005, 08:48 PM

Raveneye,

You forgot to highlight what might be the most important statement in the story:

Quote:

The plan hinges on the success of elections for a permanent Iraqi parliament on Dec. 15 and continuing improvement in the training and combat readiness of Iraqi security forces.

Sounds to me like the plan is to start bringing troops home if things continue to move forward in Iraq.

In other words, basically what the plan should have been, and likely was, all along.

Mantus · 11-24-2005, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Sounds to me like the plan is to start bringing troops home if things continue to move forward in Iraq.

In other words, basically what the plan should have been, and likely was, all along.

Not really true. The past rhetoric was: we stay as long as needed. Which was interpreted as: we stay as long as we like - by the Arab world. This obviously caused much agitation and reinforced the false idea that we are occupying Iraq.

I hope that reframing the mission statement would encurage Iraqi's and their allies to support the comming election and the stabilization of Iraq. Of course, in my opinion, it's far too late, Iraq has gone to the dogs and nothing short of deploying three times as many troops as we have now will save it.

trickyy · 11-24-2005, 11:17 PM

they have had a detailed series of progress benchmarks for quite a while.

i haven't dug into the details enough to see if these benchmarks have been altered in any way. troop removal outside these established benchmarks would certainly be a policy shift. but right now i can't say they've changed course.

Seaver · 11-24-2005, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Not really true. The past rhetoric was: we stay as long as needed. Which was interpreted as: we stay as long as we like - by the Arab world. This obviously caused much agitation and reinforced the false idea that we are occupying Iraq.

Not really true. While that was how the past rhetoric was, the later was an interpretation.

As long as it takes still applies, as long as it takes to develope the Iraqi Police to control the country and fight counter-insurgency warfare.

Dyze · 11-25-2005, 04:09 AM

All hail to Murtha, f* that Jean b* she does not even know how to spell war.

raveneye · 11-25-2005, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djstestudo

Sounds to me like the plan is to start bringing troops home if things continue to move forward in Iraq.

In other words, basically what the plan should have been, and likely was, all along.

And of course the administration can claim anything they want, because there is no external objective standard to indicate whether "Iraqi security forces are ready" etc.

So they are free to do whatever they think is required by domestic politics, while all the while claiming that it is not a change in policy.

If you are comfortable with trusting the bush administration, then you are comfortable in believing that politics had nothing to do with this completely unexpected announcement.

My personal view is that John Murtha galvanized public opinion in a way that forced the administration into this position.

maximusveritas · 11-25-2005, 08:59 AM

I think the key thing in the article is this part: "in time for November 2006 elections". Maybe this makes me just as cynical, but I'm just waiting for Rumsfeld to come out and say ""Peace is at hand".

Paq · 11-25-2005, 11:50 AM

Yeah, i think bush is really starting to sweat over losing congress and the senate next year over this.

so yeah, i'm going to be cynical.

djtestudo · 11-25-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

And of course the administration can claim anything they want, because there is no external objective standard to indicate whether "Iraqi security forces are ready" etc.

So they are free to do whatever they think is required by domestic politics, while all the while claiming that it is not a change in policy.

If you are comfortable with trusting the bush administration, then you are comfortable in believing that politics had nothing to do with this completely unexpected announcement.

My personal view is that John Murtha galvanized public opinion in a way that forced the administration into this position.

Oh, I didn't say politics had NOTHING to do with it

Just that this is the exact same plan we had all along. Stay until we're finished. However, now what "finished" means is becoming clearer.

raveneye · 11-26-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Oh, I didn't say politics had NOTHING to do with it

Just that this is the exact same plan we had all along. Stay until we're finished. However, now what "finished" means is becoming clearer.

Well maybe I'm not up to speed on all the latest shifting rhetoric, but it seems to me pre-Murtha the argument was: we are establishing a stable democracy in the Middle East, that is our goal, and we're not leaving until that task is finished. If it takes another decade, so be it.

So "finished" meant a stable, functioning government, a stable, functioning infrastructure, and a stable, functioning economy. Currently none of these are "stable and functioning". In fact, all of them barely even exist. Therefore, pre-Murtha, the line was: if we leave now, this barely functioning country is going to collapse into a civil war. The wolves will invade and take over. Zarqawi will assume the reins, and the whole place will devolve into a permanent terrorist/training/camp/war/zone. It doesn't matter how well-trained the security forces are. They'll just be another participant in the civil war; the better equipped they are the more people they will kill.

Now, post-Murtha, we're saying, sorry Iraqis, that all that doesn't matter anymore. We're coming home as soon as you elect a parliament and the security forces are better trained. Which, in any practical terms, translates into: as soon as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I think a speedy withdrawal is great. But I also think we should see this for what it is.

Rekna · 11-26-2005, 03:11 PM

I love how we pick our dates in terms of elections... this decision isn't politically motivated at all....

Seaver · 11-26-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Now, post-Murtha, we're saying, sorry Iraqis, that all that doesn't matter anymore. We're coming home as soon as you elect a parliament and the security forces are better trained. Which, in any practical terms, translates into: as soon as possible.

I dont see much difference. Elected parliament means a democracy. Properly trained Security Forces means a stable government (at least as stable as is possible in the M.E. atm).

Charlatan · 11-26-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I dont see much difference. Elected parliament means a democracy. Properly trained Security Forces means a stable government (at least as stable as is possible in the M.E. atm).

Seaver... I think that is the point trying to be made. As soon as possible in BOTH Murtha's case and Bushes case *are* the same thing.

What people are slapping their foreheads about is that Bush wasn't making any motion that he was getting ready to leave until Murtha made his speech and at the same time Bush's approval ratings are falling...

Some might think that Bush is reacting to Murtha's speech and either a) deciding he needs a new tune about Iraq - get the troops home as soon as possible (if Murtha will just hum a few bars I think Bush might be able to sing a long) or b) this is exactly what he was planning all along and while he was going to surprise us all with a Thanksgiving announcement Murtha stole his thunder (and he is just trying to ignore that by having talking points made that say, well what Murtha said was A and what we are doing is B... you see the thing is A = B).

scout · 11-27-2005, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

Yeah, i think bush is really starting to sweat over losing congress and the senate next year over this.

so yeah, i'm going to be cynical.

If the Republicans lose control of both Houses next year it won't be over the war. It will be because they have done nothing for two years but bicker. They have passed no substanstial legislation to help middle America, instead choosing to reward their big contributors. Instead of passing the mandates middle America sent them to Washington to do, they expended their political capital on helping the upper 5% of Americans. If they Dems really want to win huge next year they need to not only distance themselves as far as they can from the gun control issue but forget about it altogether. Gun control has probably cost the Democrats more than any other political issue but they just can't seem to figure that out.

The troops coming home will do little to help either side in the next election.

ajpresto · 11-27-2005, 04:56 PM

The Republicans have been doing the same thing for the past 5 years... fighting for things that are stupid. Terri Schivo, anti-stem-cell research, pro-life, etc. Stupid fights over stupid issues that nobody really cares about... Either it's dumb stuff or issues that have been resolved.

djtestudo · 11-27-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajpresto

The Republicans have been doing the same thing for the past 5 years... fighting for things that are stupid. Terri Schivo, anti-stem-cell research, pro-life, etc. Stupid fights over stupid issues that nobody really cares about... Either it's dumb stuff or issues that have been resolved.

1) I didn't realize stances you oppose were "stupid".

2) If no one cared or they had been resolved, there wouldn't have been a fight from EITHER side.

raveneye · 11-28-2005, 06:21 PM

In case anybody needs to be reminded of the rhetoric on the supreme importance of the war in Iraq for the security of the United States, here’s a little tiptoe through the Lexis wire transcript database:

Quote:

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
D Cheney, November 21, 2005
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051121-2.html

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush, November 14, 2005, Ellendorf Air Force Base
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5924

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush, October 25, 2005, Bolling Air Force Base

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush, October 6, 2005, Ronald Reagan Bldg.

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush, June 28, 2005

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush December 1, 2004, Halifax CN

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
Paul Bremer, October 10, 2004

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush, June 1, 2004, Rose Garden

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
D Cheney, May 19, 2004, Salem NC

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
D. Cheney, May 17, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040517-14.html

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush, March 18, 2004, Ft Campbell KY
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040318-3.html

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
D Cheney, Feb 27, 2004, Hagerstown, MD

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush Feb 21, 2004, Washington

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush Feb 17, 2004, Fort Polk LA

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
Condoleeza Rice, Oct 31, 2003, Washington

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush Oct 9, 2003, New Hampshire

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
Coalition Provisional Authority, October 15, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20031015.html

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush Sep 23, 2003, UN General Assembly Address

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush Sep 12, 2003, Radio address

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush Sep 9, 2003,

“Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.”
GW Bush Sep 7, 2003, Washington

“Now they set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated the whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.”
GW Bush, October 6, 2005, Ronald Reagan Bldg.

“Now they set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated the whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.”
D Cheney, August 18, 2005, Washington

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War ... is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated..
GW Bush, June 28, 2005, Fort Bragg

In Iraq, we are helping the long-suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly -- yet worthy of our country and critical to our security.
GW Bush Sept 7, 2003, Washington

The terrorists want to use the vacuum that would be created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, to build a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against America and non-radical Muslim governments. That's what they tell us. That's their stated goal. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. And for a time, they achieved their goal in Afghanistan -- until they came face to face with the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. (Applause.)

In Afghanistan, we put the terrorists on the run, we routed them, and now they've set their sights on another country. They're trying to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban -- a terrorist sanctuary from which they can plan and launch attacks against our people. The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity.
GW Bush, Nov. 14 2005, Elmendorf AFB.

In Afghanistan, we put the terrorists on the run, and now they've set their sights on another country -- they're trying to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a terrorist sanctuary from which they can plan and launch attacks against our people. The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity.
GW Bush, Nov 19, 2005

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country -- a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. And now they've set their sights on Iraq. In his recent letter, Zawahiri writes that al Qaeda views Iraq as, "the place for the greatest battle." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity.
GW Bush, Nov 11, 2005

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country -- a base from which to launch attacks and to conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. And now they have set their sights on Iraq. In his recent letter, Zawahiri writes that al Qaeda views Iraq as, "the place for the greatest battle." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity.
GW Bush, Oct 28, 2005

In light of the commitments our country has made, and given the stated intentions of the enemy, those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions: Would the United States and other free nations be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe, with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?
It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with murder and blackmail. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.
D Cheney, November 21, 2005, Washington

“We will never back down, and we will never give in, and we'll never accept anything less than complete victory.”
GW Bush, Nov 19 2005

“We will never back down, and we will never give in, and we'll never accept anything less than complete victory.”
GW Bush, Nov 14 2005, Ellendorf AFB

“We will never back down, and we will never give in, and we'll never accept anything less than complete victory.”
GW Bush, Nov 11 2005, PA Veterans’ day speech

“We will never back down, and we will never give in, and we'll never accept anything less than complete victory.”
GW Bush, Oct 28 2005, Norfolk VA

“We will never back down, and we will never give in, and we'll never accept anything less than complete victory.”
GW Bush, Oct 25 2005, Republican’s Convention Dinner

“We will never back down, and we will never give in, and we'll never accept anything less than complete victory.”
GW Bush, Oct 6 2005, Washington

So given the announcement of withdrawal of our troops from Iraq by the Pentagon starting in January, I guess that leaves us with two choices. Either (a) we have won the war on terror, or (b) all this rhetoric is, shall we say, a tad inaccurate, and Iraq is not the central do-or-die front of this war, in which we will either be glorious in complete victory or we will die in misery and humiliation, and America will not have surrendered its freedom, security, or way of life.

Gee, I wonder what the right option is?

Paq · 11-29-2005, 11:53 PM

just a question:
where did the original piece come from? I just read on yahoo that bush said a premature pullout would be disastrous for the area. i just couldn't find who was advocating what and where.

Thanks

raveneye · 11-30-2005, 05:36 AM

Paq, in apparent response to the current political opposition to the war and distrust of the Administration (Murtha, the polls, the approval ratings, the Republican request for an exit strategy), Bush's office released a long document today on their "strategy for victory" in the Iraq war. You can read it here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...y_nov2005.html

Here's an excerpt of the definition of victory in a nutshell:

Quote:

VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

* In the short term:

o An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.

* In the medium term:

o An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.

* In the longer term:

o An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
o An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
o An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

Note that in order to be victorious, we must be victorious in the long term:

Quote:

* In the longer term:
o An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
o An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
o An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

So according to the rhetoric, if you add two and two together, the war in Iraq will continue until the terrorists have been defeated, the insurgency has been neutralized, and a fully functioning, secure, stable, united Iraq exists as a beacon of freedom and democracy to the Middle East and the world.

Since these goals are not going to be achieved any time in the forseeable future (perhaps in our lifetime), they are a complete contradiction of the Pentagon announcement in the OP. So we're left with a few possible interpretations: (1) There is a serious rift between the WH and the Pentagon on the subject of what constitutes valid grounds for withdrawing from Iraq; (2) the Pentagon announcement is meaningless but intended to placate those demanding a serious withdrawal over the short term (incl. many Republicans in Congress); (3) the WH current rhetoric is largely meaningless but designed to placate the war supporters.

I think the only way to make sense of the contradictions here is as follows: if it were up to Cheney and Rumsfeld, they would keep the military in Iraq in full force until those victory goals above were literally and completely achieved, which could mean decades if necessary. However, there is a political reality here, in that the American people, Republicans and Democrats, no longer seem to agree with the WH that these goals can be achieved with continued U.S. occupation. So we sit at a crossroads: will that political reality have any influence on the situation, and how much influence will it have?

That question is still unanswered. At least we now now as the OP shows, that there are people in the Pentagon, who perhaps quietly and anonymously, agree with Murtha.

stevo · 11-30-2005, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

So given the announcement of withdrawal of our troops from Iraq by the Pentagon starting in January, I guess that leaves us with two choices. Either (a) we have won the war on terror, or (b) all this rhetoric is, shall we say, a tad inaccurate, and Iraq is not the central do-or-die front of this war, in which we will either be glorious in complete victory or we will die in misery and humiliation, and America will not have surrendered its freedom, security, or way of life.

Gee, I wonder what the right option is?

Gee, I wonder where you read that all the US troops are leaving. 1/3 of the force, approximately 65,000 troops to leave iraq in one year's time is not the same as declaring full victory and total withdrawl of all troops. Think about what bush has said in the past: That as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. Don't you think by Nov 2006 enough iraqi troops could be ready to replace the US forces planned for withdrawl? I agree that the date set around the 2006 elections is political, but it is also not set in stone. It is still based on Iraq electing a permanent parlimentary body and having their own forces ready. And if those goals are met, about 25% of the troops will come home, while 10% will be moved to kuwait.

Its almost pointless in arguing with liberals. You whine and cry for years for bush to get an exit plan together and withdrawl the troops. He comes out and says a fraction of the troops will leave iraq dependent on certain factors and you run to the message boards to declare that bush lied some more, that troops leaving either means we won in iraq (which must be a lie) or iraq was never that critical (so bush lied all along).

The reason this country is so divided is not because of bush and the lumpen conservatives. Its because of the jealous, rabid democrats, still bitter after 2 presidential defeats looking for anything to bring down this presidency. You say bush hasn't done anything to bring this country together, but when he does do something remotely similar to what the left asks, are they grateful or even respectful? Clearly, No. There is no point in bush trying to appease the left, when he does he gets more hell from them then he does when he sticks to his guns.

Back to the topic...Where you get this

Quote:

Since these goals are not going to be achieved any time in the forseeable future (perhaps in our lifetime), they are a complete contradiction of the Pentagon announcement in the OP.

I don't know. But bringing home a fraction of the troops as the iraqis stand up for themselves is not changing course, but exactly what has been said all along.

Rekna · 11-30-2005, 06:53 AM

stevo the country is divided because of Bush's policies of you are with us or against us, his my way or the highway additude, not because of the left. Good thing Bush claimed he was a uniter not a divider and then immediatly drew a line in the sand dividing everyone.....

raveneye · 11-30-2005, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I don't know. But bringing home a fraction of the troops as the iraqis stand up for themselves is not changing course, but exactly what has been said all along.

Sure it's what's been said all along. And my point is that it contradicts 99% of the rhetoric from the WH on the strategic importance of the Iraq war. Or another way to put it: the "stand up/stand down" rhetoric in all of Bush's speeches contradicts all the other rhetoric in Bush's speeches.

Here's why: we are in Iraq not just to provide security for the Iraqi people, but to "fight the war on terror." This is because "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror." And winning this war is crucial/vital/imperative for the American way of life, and the future stability of the world.

So here's a question: can the Iraqi security forces fight and win American's war on terror? Are we going to rely on them to protect the security and freedom of the American people, of the "future of democracy", of the world? And the answer can only be, clearly, No. Clearly, Americans have to fight and win America's war on terror. We can't rely on Iraq to fight our war on terror.

So it makes no sense that, as Iraqis "stand up", American soldiers will "stand down". All that the Iraqis are capable of standing up for (and even then they barely can do it), is to provide a little security here and there where it doesn't conflict with their own ethnic interests. So who's left then to fight our war on terror, to protect the future of freedom on our planet, there at the "central front of the war on terror"?

So we're left with a question: was Iraq really the central front in the war on terror when we invaded, or wasn't it? Was Iraq really "connected" to 911, or wasn't it? Because if it isn't and wasn't, then that's completely consistent with bringing the bulk of the troops home by the next election, and letting the Iraqis take over.

So no, I don't think there's any inconsistency in being happy that the bulk of the troops will be home by the next election, while at the same time pointing out that this fact contradicts the hyper-inflated rhetoric from the WH about why we needed to invade that country.

If you want to know whether the WH believes what they're saying, actions speak louder than words.

stevo · 11-30-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

So no, I don't think there's any inconsistency in being happy that the bulk of the troops will be home by the next election, while at the same time pointing out that this fact contradicts the hyper-inflated rhetoric from the WH about why we needed to invade that country.

I didn't know 1/3 = bulk. I thought bulk = majority...you learn something new every day I suppose.

raveneye · 11-30-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I didn't know 1/3 = bulk. I thought bulk = majority...you learn something new every day I suppose.

That's the title of the news article in the OP. The numbers are "fluid" for obvious reasons. One-third is the minimum estimate considered in that "moderately optimistic" scenario.

11-24-2005, 12:26 PM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I know everyone likes to score points but who really cares so long as the troops are coming home? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-24-2005, 06:57 PM	#12 (permalink)
host Banned	It distresses me that someone can post an inaccurate point that is intended to counter the core point of the title and starter post of this thread, thus rendering it irrelevant, if the inaccurate point was reliable. It isn't. Neither is the air of confidence that is intended by the poster and unavoidedly perceived by the reader who is not informed enough to know that Murtha had not <b>"called for an immediate withdrawal".</b> It further distresses me that objections are posted concerning my challenge to what amounted to an inaccurate "talking point", that was intended to kill the very valid premise that spurred the creation of the thread. It is a holiday, I know, but is that an excuse to observe a hiatus of the everyday chore here of keeping discussion on a course where truth is at least in shouting distance? If not, what are we doing here? Do we agree that the surest way to keep inaccurate and unsubstantiated points here to a minimum, is to vigorously challenge every one that is presented?

11-24-2005, 11:17 PM	#15 (permalink)
trickyy ►	they have had a detailed series of progress benchmarks for quite a while. i haven't dug into the details enough to see if these benchmarks have been altered in any way. troop removal outside these established benchmarks would certainly be a policy shift. but right now i can't say they've changed course. Last edited by trickyy; 11-25-2005 at 08:47 AM..

11-25-2005, 04:09 AM	#17 (permalink)
Dyze Crazy	All hail to Murtha, f* that Jean b* she does not even know how to spell war. __________________ Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do.

11-25-2005, 11:50 AM	#20 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	Yeah, i think bush is really starting to sweat over losing congress and the senate next year over this. so yeah, i'm going to be cynical. __________________ Live. Chris

11-24-2005, 10:49 AM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	No one is against the basic premise of Murtha's plan. We ALL want to leave. What the huge reaction was that he called for an immidiate withdrawl.

11-24-2005, 11:26 AM	#3 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Murtha called for an immediate withdrawal consistent with the safety of the troops. Sounds like that's what bush is doing. I though only cowards cut and ran.

11-24-2005, 12:16 PM	#5 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	How do you define immediate? Like as in instantaneous? That's not what murtha called for. Murtha said he thought everyone could be home in six months. So bush's plan calls for six months longer than what murtha called for to drastically reduce troop levels. The difference being that murtha wanted to get all the troops home save for a quick response force. People flipped out at murtha's plan because that's like "cutting and running" because we wouldn't be fulfilling our responsibility to clean up our own mess. According to the article, bush's plan quite possibly will also fail to fulfill our responsibility to clean up our own mess. My question is: is there anyone who honestly thinks that the american military has the cure for whats wrong with iraq?

11-24-2005, 02:02 PM	#9 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Thank God the administration is finally caving to public pressure. My prediction is that once the US presence is basically out, it'll be a total free-for-all in Iraq, and we'll hear very little about it. There IS no solution to the mess we've caused there. Getting our forces out will probably help, but the fact is, we've significantly destablized the country and installed a government that doesn't have anything like a mandate from its people. Iraq have to go through years, possibly decades of war to get its feet under it again. And America won't give a damn once we've got our people out of harms way.

11-25-2005, 08:59 AM	#19 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I think the key thing in the article is this part: "in time for November 2006 elections". Maybe this makes me just as cynical, but I'm just waiting for Rumsfeld to come out and say ""Peace is at hand".

11-26-2005, 03:11 PM	#23 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I love how we pick our dates in terms of elections... this decision isn't politically motivated at all....

11-27-2005, 04:56 PM	#27 (permalink)
ajpresto Tilted	The Republicans have been doing the same thing for the past 5 years... fighting for things that are stupid. Terri Schivo, anti-stem-cell research, pro-life, etc. Stupid fights over stupid issues that nobody really cares about... Either it's dumb stuff or issues that have been resolved.

11-29-2005, 11:53 PM	#30 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	just a question: where did the original piece come from? I just read on yahoo that bush said a premature pullout would be disastrous for the area. i just couldn't find who was advocating what and where. Thanks __________________ Live. Chris

11-30-2005, 06:53 AM	#33 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	stevo the country is divided because of Bush's policies of you are with us or against us, his my way or the highway additude, not because of the left. Good thing Bush claimed he was a uniter not a divider and then immediatly drew a line in the sand dividing everyone.....