"When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down"

[Stinky The Clown]

Sometimes the truth is so obvious it evades us.

For all this time we've been there, the Iraqis have been waging an increasingly successful assymatrical war against us - the occupiers. It is arguable that they've kicked the shit out of us. While that may be arguable - we are, after all, the greatest military the world has ever endured - what is NOT arguable is that the Iraquis are more than able to stand up for themselves.

They've sure been standing up to us.

Its time. Its long past time, actually. In fact, it never was the time.

They've sure been standing up to us ..........

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

1. SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN

Sound bytes. "Mission Accomplished!"

Do you really think they believe the SHIT they're spewing? Whatever works.

Do you truly believe they want to leave Iraq? Have you been paying ANY attention?

[Stinky The Clown]

2. "Have you been paying ANY attention?"

what?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. Just Saying Their Pattern Is Obvious

I know you've been paying attention. Do you really expect them to stand by ANYTHING they say? When have they done that yet?

The stand up, stand down garbage is just TALK. Nothing more. It's completely vague. Completely unachievable. And complete BS. They have someone on staff who comes up with witty slogans.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. And for all those perfectly correct reasons ......

..... our side should be saying this.

[elehhhhna]

5. 'standup' in bush backwards talk means 'bow down'

[OwnedByFerrets]

6. Although I agree with the sentiment behind your post....

I cant agree that they are winning the war against us. We have probably killed over 100,000 Iraqi's while losing 2,553 american soldiers. I cant see that as winning :shrug: There are NO winners in this occupation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. By that measure, we positively kicked the crap out of the Vietnamese

And the Germans really handed the Russians a beatdown in World War II.

:shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

7. once, just once ...

we get all the '08 crowd and their supporters with all kinds of variations on a theme ...

some of them even have their very own amendments with their actual names on them ...

once, just once, it would be nice to hear someone defend any position other than immediate withdrawal ... recognizing that the daily cost of remaining in Iraq is often life itself, not to mention the staggering financial commitment, clearly someone pushing for 6 more months or 12 or no date certain but we should try to leave eventually or whatever must believe that it is better to remain than to leave ...

so, what is the basis for such a belief ... the costs of remaining are obvious ... we see them everyday ... but what are the benefits and the anticipated benefits ... are we helping solidify Shiite fundamentalism in Iraq? are we helping Iran? have we created or at least prevented civil war? have we made America safer? have we reduced the number of terrorists? have we protected Iraqi lives? have we installed an effective democracy? have we held the "coalition of the willing" together? have we earned the respect of our allies? have we strengthened US prestige in the world? have we helped stabilize the wider Middle East? have we brought hope to oppressed people everywhere? have we assured a stable supply to the US of OPEC oil? have we made Israel safer?

it's hard to find any good answers to any of these questions ... but some argue for remaining a bit longer to do what? what can or will happen to change the all-too-clear US track record in Iraq? does anyone believe that the list above really will take a turn for the better? i just can't see what would change the direction ... and that's true, at this point, even if Democrats controlled all branches of government ... at some point toast is toast ...

but this week we're all just Liebermaning away ... and that child murder case ... i guess that's normal to talk about ... tens of thousands of cute little girls have had limbs blown off in Iraq ... we don't talk about that too much ... we just need to stop this damned war NOW ... we can't let our leaders keep doing this anymore ... and it sure looks like we're off to Iran next, doesn't it? Son of IWR ... just when you thought it was safe to come out of the voting booth (insert scary Jaws music here) ... it's Son of IWR ... i better not catch one of our guys giving bush authorization to do anything beyond sitting on a damned motorcycle ... they'll be none of this "politics ends at the water's edge" crap ... and they'll be none of this "i was just giving the president leverage so he could negotiate from strength" either ... learn your lessons ... you screwed up big time the last time ... don't let it happen again ...

[Sparkly]

8. Good points

There was an argument that keeping troops there -- in order to provide security, to enable a POLITICAL solution to take hold -- would minimize deaths in the long run. The idea was that exiting would cause worse violence, particularly affecting the weakest of the Iraqi citizens, and possibly lead to a regional war that would create yet more deaths....

Kerry, Clark, and others offered specific proposals (while we heard "Democrats complain, but have no plans!"), warning that "the curtain is closing" and "we have one last chance" and "before it's too late..."

But now, the security situation is FUBAR, the political situation is going downhill, and BushCo is doing NOTHING about it. "Adapt?" What are they adapting?!?

It no longer makes sense, to me, for us to debate what could or should be done about Iraq on DU -- because BushCo won't do ANY of it. It's all rose-colored rhetoric about training Iraqi troops, and "winning," and "resolve," blah blah blah...

All we can do is fight this regime. We can do that by voting this year, and by speaking out wherever and whenever possible.

(Btw, Murtha's opponent on Hardball today actually talked about how wonderful it is that our troops are talking to Iraqi children, and the children love them, and we'll come out with an enhanced reputation there... :puke: Nothing about the children wounded and killed as a result of this fiasco. :mad:)

[welshTerrier2]

10. "BushCo won't do ANY of it"

Hi Sparkly ... :hi:

well, that's for sure ... bush probably wouldn't listen to anyone in his own party let alone DU'ers ...

the frustration i've had all along has been that it doesn't seem like we've had much clout with our own reps ... there really is a very large segment of registered Democrats who want to end the war NOW ... i've seen surveys that range from around 25% up to almost 50% ... this group, which i believe is passionate about their position, remains largely unrepresented ...

i had hoped that someone in the Senate would have given voice to our position ... better yet, i had hoped the Democratic Party, even with no control of any branch, would have put our position before the voters this November ... much to my dismay, it's pretty clear that most voters will not see much difference between the positions of either party ...

as a party, Democrats have basically refused to put any date certain on the record ... that insulates them very well from cut and run allegations but it doesn't put any political leverage behind getting out ... my point isn't that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the parties; my point is that most voters will see bush making a mess in Iraq and the Democrats being "somehow a little better" ... the bottom line, though, is that there are basically no prominent Dems arguing to get out now ... most people see the war as the most critical issue facing the country and the policy choices we're offered are subtle at best ... it just doesn't seem right to me ...

and again, i agree that bush would probably not change course no matter what happens ... but i did think that if Democrats "upped the ante" with a clearly different position, there might have been far more pressure (and panic) in the republican party to lean on him more than i think they are now ... we'll probably never know ...

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I think Jack Murtha's pretty clear on his view .....

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy 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.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

<snip>

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

I can't make a list of even one name, but I am pretty sure more than a few dems have endorsed this. True enough, he's not saying 'bring them all the way home today', but he seems pretty damned clear he wants them out of Iraq .... pretty much *today*.

[welshTerrier2]

13. but then Murtha signed the Levin-Reid letter

source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/01/democrats.iraq/

"In the interests of American national security, our troops and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained," said the Democratic letter, which CNN obtained.

Democratic senators and aides said the letter was intended to illustrate a unified position on the war after June debates in the House and Senate exposed differences inside the party, which Republicans tried to exploit.

In the letter, House Democrats joined with their counterparts in the Senate to back a proposal put forward in June by Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Carl Levin of Michigan to begin a phased troop withdrawal this year. The proposal failed in the Senate but garnered 38 Democratic votes. <skip>

In addition to Durbin, Levin, Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, the letter was signed by Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, along with Reps. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Ike Skelton of Missouri, Tom Lantos and Jane Harman of California and John Murtha of Pennsylvania.

Levin noted that even Murtha, a Democrat with strong military ties who first called for an immediate troop withdrawal last year, had backed the phased pullout.

the Levin-Reid "letter", based on the Levin-Reid amendment, came after most Democrats in the Senate refused to put forward any "date certain" at all and couldn't even go along with the Kerry-Feingold amendment that called for more than another year of war when it was proposed ... another year of war and they couldn't even go along with that!!!!!!!!

if this is unity, keep it ... i am not going to go quietly into that good night if this is what's being offered ...

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Okay .... now I'm going on surmises and assumptions .....

.... Murtha, just tonight, was on Hairballz. While I didn't parse out what he said, he still sounded pretty much as in the statement I excerpted. i.e.: "Out Now"

Now to that letter ..... I could say it was politics and I would probably be right. But if you read it, it isn't inconsistent.

Murtha's formal statement: "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

From the Levin-Reid letter: "In the letter, House Democrats joined with their counterparts in the Senate to back a proposal put forward in June by Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Carl Levin of Michigan to begin a phased troop withdrawal this year. The proposal failed in the Senate but garnered 38 Democratic votes." (emphasis is mine)

Both cite a more or less open-ended schedule for a sooner rather than later troop withdrawal.

As I said, Murtha, as recently as today, is sticking to his "Out Now" mantra. I suspect he either signed the letter for political unity or actually read what it said, and could technically support it as being consistent with his earlier position.

(Wouldn't it be great if we were debating something that might actually be in the works rather than parsing two statements that are generally in line with our thinking, but have virtually no chance to move anywhere unless we retake one house of our government??)

[welshTerrier2]

15. that would be great ...

OK ... maybe Murtha has not caved in ... i'm glad to hear he's sticking to his "Out Now" argument ...

regarding the Levin letter though, that was a box of milk duds ... yes it calls for a "phased troop withdrawal" BUT you can't ignore the context ... the letter was written after they refused to endorse Kerry-Feingold 7/1/07 date and they refused to mention a date certain at all ... they're probably thinking about a 12/31/07 date ...

i'm worried that even if we do take back the House, the Dems MAY not force a near-term exit from Iraq ... they seem to still believe the US can be effective with a change in tactics ... i don't believe that at all ...

[Stinky The Clown]

16. I vacillate on my view on their determnation ......

.... I think there are still too many wet fingers in the wind.

But I'll tell ya what ...... if we squeak into control, there'll be no big change. There'll be more certainty that we'll get out and there'll be more talk of getting out, but in the end, there'll not be too much actually done.

If we win big, that'll be taken as a mandate and it'll be more overt about the out now strategy.

In the end, though, it all comes down to the Senate, doesn't it?

[kineneb]

12. Vietnamization...thought we tried that, and it failed. -nt