If the Bush administration was only keeping the war up for political reasons, then it would behoove them to to withdraw immediately, thus taking away that talking point from the Democratic presidential hopefuls? Imagine if we weren't in Iraq, what would the Dems talk about in their debates?
So then, if Bush wanted to save face, and General Petraeus was really his puppet, wouldn't Bush have had Petraeus give a military reason as to why we should leave Iraq immediately so that it didn't look like it was the Dems pushing for the withdrawal and Bush looked like the one who put an end to it?
Libs find this hard to comprehend, but Iraq isn't some political football here. There are issues of national security importance going on, and it's high time we stop the political grandstanding and get on the same page to succeed in Iraq.
The Z Platform
1 day ago
7 comments:
For Iraqi's it is about politics: various groups violently expressing their agenda and vying for political power through violent acts.
Just as those of us who have always noted we won't be able to impose democracy at gunpoint, we are now not going to be able to change people's minds about whether they're willing to be at war with one another to get their way.
Per your talk of domestic politics, Bush seems content passing the war on to the next president and there aren't enough votes in congress to force his had to change the mission.
I really do believe Bush thinks all we need to do is hang tough and it will turn out as he planned all along. Minus the part about WMD, of course, if he ever believed that in the first place.
I think the president believes a stable Iraq is better than an unstable one. Pulling out would leave an unstable one, don't you think?
Why are you asking me this question? You know my position isn't to pull out, but to pull back. For years I've said we should keep some troops on the borders and provide air support to the central government. Since ethnic cleansing began last Fall, we should also be prepared to intervene if it turns into genocide.
You seem to believe we can still achieve stability through military means. During Bush's 2004 presidential campaign, he began saying. approximately, "We're turning the corner - the next few months will be hard but crucial to our success. Pulling back now while we're making good progress would be turning victory into defeat.".
He's been saying it ever since and I guarantee he will express some iteration of the thought tonight, although I wouldn't be surprised if he redefines victory as "something that's not complete chaos and anarchy".
A question - a year or two ago, you liked to talk about how you were "pro-all-life" and for that reason, you had decided invading Iraq did not fit into your moral framework and it had been wrong.
You now seem to be arguing in support of these continued military campaigns with ridiculous names like Operation Iron Eggbeater. Are you no longer "pro-all-life"?
Liberals, sadly, seem to think that Bush has some secret reason for being in Iraq, that reason usually (but not always) being oil.
Erik, I can't really say what Beth is and was thinking, since I have only been reading her blog a few months, but I would say that staying in Iraq is compatible with being pro-all-life. If we pull out, thousands (at best) Iraqis will be killed- and it will be the US's fault. I believe that we should stay in Iraq and prevent that from happening.
The issue of whether we should have gone into Iraq can be debated till the cows come home, but that really doesn't matter since we are there. And I agree that a complete pull-out would be very bad for the people of Iraq, so the problem isn't you or me Erik, it's the Democratic leadership that is trying to have a complete pull-out.
If not through military means, how can you see stability happening?
The RNC and the White House tells you to believe Democrats are urging complete evacuation of Iraq. When are you going to learn that they lie to you all the time? You've embarrassed yourself twice in as many days by believing things Republicans said about Democrats without spending a minute and a half googling news. How abuse are you going to take before you quit letting lying Republicans tell you what Democrat's policy positions are?
“We have to start thinking about what is in our nation’s best interest. We need to continue hunting down terrorists operating in Iraq. But we do not need to put American soldiers in harm’s way to buy Iraqi politicians another six months of political breathing room. We need to change course."
- Harry Reid 11/12/2007
"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to call that a new direction. It is a status quo plan that tells the Iraqi government that they do not need to change."
- Nancy Pelosi 11/7/2007
The problem indeed isn't me and the clear majority Americans who want Bush to deescalate our involvement in Iraq. The biggest problem is Bush followed by his enablers such as you who support his calls for a few more months of patience every time he asks for it, which is every few months.
In answer to your question about stability, I meant by my first comment that stability is not possible until enough Iraqis want stability.
As I previously stated, I'm concerned with avoiding genocide and thwarting invasions by Iraq's neighbors. I hope those are realistic goals. Any semblance of actual "stability" is too far off to worry about now aside from making sure we don't inflame tensions - which is what we do each time we launch another Operation Iron Eaggbeater. Ask me in couple more years if I have any ideas for stability in Iraq.
Right now, it's just good news when a week goes by without a massive bombing that kills hundreds!
DR -
It seems you've been infected with GOP propaganda that there are two options in Iraq: Trudge bravely forward or completely pull out.
I've not suggested pulling out but instead recognize what you do: that nobody is there but us to prevent genocide. We need to keep enough troops there to prevent that, as well as an invasion by Iraq's neighbors.
That's an entirely different mission than what the President announced tonight: no change in mission: we will continue to try to patrol Iraq's streets and neighborhoods.
We've been doing that for four years now, and there is no indication that it's really going to start working if we just give it some more time.
Post a Comment