Reply With Quote
Just trying to get a jump on the inevitable. It's a valid question. This administration continues to move the goal post. They need the space. We have to put more dead americans somewhere. Everyone knows the ending. Why not start preparing for it?
Pentagon rebukes Sen. Clinton on Iraq
Some of the article:
The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.
He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
Just trying to get a jump on the inevitable. It's a valid question. This administration continues to move the goal post. They need the space. We have to put more dead americans somewhere. Everyone knows the ending. Why not start preparing for it?
It may be true, but I dont remember people voting to invade Iraq. Whats the latest polls on "Should we leave Iraq?" again?
Really?
The AUMF in Iraq passed overwhelmingly.
That's not a vote.
The Pentagon is a big loser in Iraq, the Repug-run/politicized Pentagon didn't plan for an occupation. Now they are paying and will pay the consequences for years, just like the Pentagon licked its wounds for year after the VN fiasco.
The Pentagon's activities in Iraq PROMOTE the enemy's objectives, increase terrorist recruiting.
Hillary knows that the Pentagon is planning for withdrawal, with much more seriousness than the Pentagon had when NOT planning the occupation. 40K troops max remaing Rummy said by Sep 03.
Gee that's weird..There have been more and more republicans that are saying he same thing that Clinton said and they haven't been attacked by the pentegon.. interesting...
The same thing?
And, who are they? Please link to the quotes.
Any of them potential future Commanders-in-Chief? You know, as in presidential candidates getting a lot of face time and sound bytes broadcast around the world?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/wa...gewanted=print
July 13, 2007
News Analysis
Fending Off a Deadline: Bush Seeks Time on Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, July 12 — President Bush’s Iraq strategy now boils down to this: He is trying to buy time for a surge that is living on borrowed time.
At Thursday’s news conference, Mr. Bush insisted — as he has for much of the four-year-long war — that drawing down troops was his ultimate goal, one he wants to accomplish while still in office.
( but he's building 5 huge miltary bases and a huge embassy compound for long-term occupation )
But Mr. Bush steadfastly rejected the advice of those who have urged him to hint at a timeline for a withdrawal, concluding that even the whiff of a deadline would embolden Republican rebels to join Democrats in setting a concrete schedule for moving troops out of the worst parts of Baghdad and other cities.
Mr. Bush appears all but certain now to succeed in getting Congress to stand down until Sept. 15, when a fuller report on political and security progress in Iraq is due. Two weeks ago, it was unclear whether he could succeed even in getting that time. But in the past few weeks, many Republicans have also said publicly and privately that after that date, their patience with the president’s strategy will expire.
Anticipating that moment, even some of Mr. Bush’s aides acknowledge that the increase in American forces that the president so ardently defended Thursday was already in its final phases. From the White House to the Pentagon to the military headquarters in Iraq, the focus of behind-the-scenes planning is already on what follows — a “post-surge” mission for the American military that Mr. Bush only alluded to on Thursday.
( can we assume the post-surge, narrower mission will be with fewer troops ?)
That narrower mission would focus the Americans on training Iraqi forces, assuring Iraq’s territorial integrity, deterring Iran from seeking to extend its influence in Iraq and preventing Iraq from becoming, as a result of a botched American occupation and all that followed, a terrorist haven. To a significant extent, it would pull American troops off the streets and out of harm’s way.
White House officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the president, say that it is now clear that Mr. Bush is headed in that direction — and that the Iraqis want Washington to go there, too. But the White House officials refuse to say how fast, perpetuating the fears of Mr. Bush’s critics that he is just stalling for time, trying to get every extra moment on the clock he can for the current strategy, in hopes that the Iraqi government will somehow come together.
( that's like hoping that dubya will grow a brain )
A pivotal player in the discussion about how long to wait is Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates — with an assist from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. If Mr. Gates and Ms. Rice hold any skepticism on the troop-increase plan, they have kept it private. Instead, they have tried to frame the discussion beyond this week’s review of benchmarks in Iraq to one of long-term American national security interests there.
( aka, defending the oilfields owned by US/UK oilcos (if that ever happens), while getting mortared and shot at by the Sunnis and AQ )
That mission would last for years and would require a sustained presence, but at levels far below those on the ground today. Mr. Gates has hinted at a desire to at least announce plans this year for reducing the troop commitment in Iraq, which would have a significant benefit for morale among the troops and their families.
The efforts by his national security team to get Mr. Bush to embrace a narrow mission and lower troops levels sooner rather than later appear to have been carried out quietly, in hopes that by shifting the president a few degrees at a time, they can get the White House out ahead of the Congress, and try to defuse the issue before the presidential election. Whether that strategy will succeed is far from clear.
But it was clear from Mr. Bush’s statements on Thursday that there is no appe e to preview publicly the thinking about any eventual troop reductions and a narrowing of the mission, even if those reductions are inevitable. And they are inevitable: come April, say top military officials, Mr. Bush will either have to pull one brigade a month out of Iraq, or again extend the tours of soldiers on the ground — in the middle of a presidential election.
Administration officials say that if Mr. Bush talked now about pulling back forces at the end of this year or next spring, he would only provide new ammunition to those Democrats and a growing number of Republicans who are pushing for legislation now to set timelines for the withdrawal of some of the 150,000 American troops. The argument inside the White House last week, one official said, was over “how much leg to show” of that strategy. Karl Rove, the president’s political adviser, was among those arguing for showing very little, and judging by Mr. Bush’s performance on Thursday, Mr. Rove won the day.
Apparently with that advice in mind on Thursday, Mr. Bush described the follow-up mission in Iraq only in the broadest of terms. Perhaps one reason is that a scaled-back approach would bear tremendous resemblance to the narrow mission recommended by the Iraq Study Group in December and rejected as premature by Mr. Bush in his January announcement of a significant troop increase.
Mr. Bush said again on Thursday that he wanted to give the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki the chance “to open space for Iraq political leaders to advance the difficult process of national reconciliation” among Shiites and Sunnis.
Mr. Bush’s problem is that the Iraqis have shown little to no progress in using that time and space, as the National Intelligence Council told Congress on Wednesday. Few in the White House are betting that the situation will look much different in September. And that will raise anew the hardest questions facing the administration: What has the surge in American troops bought? And at what cost?
( what has the US military paid in lives while the Iraqi parliament goes on vacation the month of August? They are probably going to use time to squirrel away $$$ in foreign bank account and go shopping for homes in exicle. )
To be sure, Mr. Bush and his commanders in Iraq would argue that an effort to begin scaling back the American mission earlier would not have worked as recently as late last year, when it was advanced by the Iraq Study Group and supported by some officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon. But in the end, White House officials say, everything will come down to whether Mr. Maliki’s government can come together on the fundamental issues that divide Sunnis and Shiites before the American clock runs out. On that, there is far more skepticism in Washington than optimism — except from Mr. Bush himself.
Hey Yonivore, didn't the last elections kind of send a message that the majority of Americans really don't care too much what republicans think or say nowadays?
Yoni still can't figure out how all the blogs he gets his opinions from got it so wrong when they assured him the Republicans would retain control.
Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for president, had asked the Pentagon to detail how it is planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. She first raised the issue in May, pointing out that whenever troops leave, it will be no simple task to transport the people, equipment, and vehicles out of Iraq, possibly through hostile territory.
The gall of wanting to know if they have a plan...
I guess no one's accountable anymore in this administration...She repeated her request for a briefing - classified if necessary - on the issue of end-of-war planning.
The senator's spokesman Philippe Reines said: "We sent a serious letter to the Secretary of Defense, and unacceptably got a political response back."
pretty soon nobody will be allowed to ask questions or even speak in any voice louder than a whisper for fear that the terrorists will hear it.
[QUOTE]His tough language in a letter obtained Thursday by The Associated Press was surprising in part because it came in correspondence with a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Pentagon[/QUOTE].
I woulnd't be surprised if head nullfies Congressional oversight of DoD by claiming DoD falls under Executive privilege.
....so does terrorist suspects, terrorist plots and terror management.
All hail, King Bush! 2008, anybody please...anybody else....please....
So I guess you want the terrorists to win?
Sincerely,
Yoni and X-Ray
Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins, Ron Paul, Gordon Smith, just to name a few.
so it's ok for the pentagon to release their plans of military ops to the congress... sheesh that place is full of leaks and leakers... you'd think the pentagon would like to keep some element of surprise in their military ops planning... why would anyone in their right mind give a place like congress plans on a draw down... why they'd be in the NYT the next day... I side with the military on this...
These people are not advocating timetables the same way the demonrats are with the exception of Smith.
Lugar, is he running for president? Didn't see anything on that. Where do you liberals get your information from?
Lugar urges Bush to change course soon in Iraq
Lugar: Plans To End The War Are ‘Very Partisan,’ ‘Will Not Work’
I couldn't find anything showing Hagel supported a timetable, but did find this:
Lott says Senate won't pass Iraq timetable; Hagel says impeachment an option
Notice, Hagel is not voicing support for impeachment, just that others are. He has also not accounced a run for presidency.
Susan Collins is considered a RINO by many conservatives, but I couldn't find your allegations of her, and is not a presidential candidate. Did find this:
Allen, Collins take different tacks on Iraq
Susan Collins that opposes a surge of troops but does not set a timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq.Tell Susan Collins: Vote to end the war in Iraq (You Tube)"My goal all along has been to craft a resolution that would be able to garner bipartisan support and send the strongest possible message to the president," said Collins. "Our leadership, obviously, has been aggressive in urging members to not sign on."
Susan Collins on War & Peace
Voted no on this amendment:
Ron Paul; it wouldn't surprise me if he advocates a timetable. He is the exception, and doesn't have a snowballs chance in of being the presidential noiminee. Looked this one up anyway where he supports placing an expiration date on the 2002 authorization. That is toothless however, and doesn't mean he would vote against funding the troops or an actual timetable.# Opponents of the Resolution say: This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
# The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
# Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.
Ron Paul: End Iraq War Authorization
Gordon Smith is a dissapointment to me. He represents my state and is a RINO. He does advocate a timetable, but isn't a presidential candidate. He is too liberal to ever get the republican nomination if he tried anyway.
Senate Approves Timetable for Iraq Pullout
Curious, why did 'her thighness' change her mind:
Hillary on an Iraq war timetable in 2006
All of this is posturing. The Democrats can force withdrawal by not funding the war. In the last go-around on Iraq funding, BushCo and the Democrats had a staring contest, and the Democrats blinked. We will have to wait until the next one for a real decision to be made.
The democrats know if they do not fund the war, they are history. They will still have their tried and true left support them, but they will lose the middle.
Can you say political suicide?
The GOP lost the middle 2 years ago.
Actually, the Democrats know that the GOP continue to own the war, and it's simply safer to keep giving the GOP more rope with which to continue to hang themselves...not very courageous or admirable, but it will work (and you can thank Karl Rove for setting the table for it to work).
The rightwing pundits deluding themselves into thinking the Democrats will have to share in the blame are the same pundits that refused to believe the Democrats would regain Congress in '06. All of these "meaningless" congressional motions serve to remind everyone that Bush, and Bush alone has control of this nightmare, and the GOP will continue to be punished for holding Bush's water - not just in '08, but for many years to come.
Oh, no doubt that the current GOP is being held hostage by the lunatic fringe 25-30% of the party that still supports Dubya's misadventure into Iraq and actually thinks that the majority of people backed them in wanting to kick 2.5 million Mexicans out of the U.S....The rightwing pundits deluding themselves into thinking the Democrats will have to share in the blame are the same pundits that refused to believe the Democrats would regain Congress in '06. All of these "meaningless" congressional motions serve to remind everyone that Bush, and Bush alone has control of this nightmare, and the GOP will continue to be punished for holding Bush's water - not just in '08, but for many years to come.
I am not in the lunatic fringe, but I support the war. I served for 11 years. Have you served?
Now in my opinion, most who support the war support real border control too. I cannot speak for the others for their thoughts on expelling the illegals, but I really don't care. I just want the border secured. Most who I have met that I believe are illegals are actually very good people.
That said, I think it is irresponsible for anyone in the position to alter policy to say what I just said. To indicate that we will not kick those out once a secure system is in place will only make the rush to get to the USA greater. I have a feeling most conservatives are thinking like me on this.
Just secure the border and let those who made it here stay. That sound the opposite of how things have been in conservatives voiced opposition of comprehensive immigration reform, but think about it. The vocal statement has always been secure the border first!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
