Mar 09 2007

Undercutting the troops…

The Democrats have decided to impose a timetable on the troops, never mind that the surge has shown signs of success. In a very real sense, they have decided to take the coward’s way out. When Multi-National Force-Iraq held briefings for Congressional leadership, the Dems didn’t even show.

The President is right to call it a non-starter, but he is being kind. What the Democrats are doing is much worse.

The Democrats are placing a knife in the back of General David Petraeus and every solider, sailor, airman, and Marine trying to help the democracy in Iraq get on its feet and recover from the tyranny that Saddam’s regime held over the Iraqi people. It is, in essence, telling al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorists that they want to quit. There is no other way to describe it.

Am I being hypocritical given my earlier criticism of Ann Coulter? I submit that I am not. First of all, I’m telling the truth. This is a stab in the back. Should the Democratic legislation pass, our troops will not have been defeated by al-Qaeda, they were defeated because Congressional Democrats decided to cut and run, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, which has waged its own war against the war on terror.

Second of all, I am opposing something that is utterly indefensible – to wit, undercutting the mission of our troops. One cannot support the troops and oppose the mission they are on.

Our troops can win this war if they are allowed to do what it takes. We’re about to find out who in the Beltway is willing to do so, and whose “support the troops” talk is just insincere talk for a soundbite on the news.

69 responses so far

69 Responses to “Undercutting the troops…”

  1. gil says:

    Answer to DC

    “We are all in this war ”

    Wrong my friend. Again here you show your natural tendency to just look skin deep. Who is “we”? Not you, not me, not any one on this blog, in fact….. the “we” here is The U.S. Army period.

    The U.S. Army is at war while Bush ask Americans to “sacrifice ” by spending more money!!!

    I don’t know why Right Wingers are so incredibly blind to this facts!!! What is it with you ? You don’t know what a real war looks like? You actually believe that we can go to war, but we are in a war from the confort of our homes, with not even our taxes going up (in fact the opposite) while “we” all act as heroes?

    What kind of delusion is this??

  2. gil says:

    ANswer to DC

    NO one is suggesting a pull out DC. Or at least no one that counts in the Democratic side. What you are doing is simply repeating talking points by the Right.

    If again you care to go futher than skin deep you will find out that from the many plans out there Democrats talk about A) Partision, B) Partial and GRADUAL re-deploymnent while keeping ready bases in Iraq, C) A combination of dead lines with political negociations, with diplomatic negociations with military Iraqi lead confrontation, etc, etc.

    One can’t have a serious debate if you people simply keep on inventing or missrepresnting ideas. Stop it!!!! If you value your ideas give others the right to express theirs, but most of all give others the respect to at least consider their ideas for what they are, not for what you people LIE THEM OUT TO BE.

  3. gil says:

    Republican Right.

    Here is a sample of what you consider “dialogue and honest debate” on the issues in Iraq.

    1) Democrats don’t agree with our (Bush’s) policy in Iraq therefore that are cowards.

    2) al Malaki was elected by Iraqi vote and Iraqi negociations therefore he is independent.

    3) Democrat’s plans are to get us out of Iraq in defeat.

    4) Our plan is to stay in Iraq until victory.

    5) We support the troops because we send them to Iraq, and the Democrats don’t because they want them out of Iraq.

    6) We can’t deal diplomatically with any of our enemies in the Middle East.

    7) We don’t need the rest of the nation (70%) authorization, or approval to continue with this war.

    What a nice little world you guys have created for your convenience!!! Are you guys going back to your childhood by any chance? Are you guys the Cowboys, and you decide who the Indians are, and when you are supposed to kill us ??? And then you wonder (maibe) why you are loosing what used to be a total control of power!!

    Unfortunately for you people the real world is more complicated than black and white …. But then again we all tought that you learned that in grade school.

  4. Dc says:

    In response to GIL:

    1) al Maliki is a product of our invasion ……”marlarky”. You are are simply spinning your wheels on this one. By the same logic..Maliki is the product of the Ottoman empire…and WWI. If your point is..that there would have never been free elections or gov in Iraq had Saddam still been in power…it’s a point well noted by everyone.

    2)Sistani: I think you need to actually look into a little more depth on the subject as your information is clearly askew. Yes, he’s “iranian” by birth. He’s also a religious figure for all shiahs (that transcends nationality or ethnicity). His religious doctrine runs counter to Khomeni…and the revolutionary gov of Iran. In fact, they keep an eye on him.

    He is, as I said..the most powerful man in Iraq for any number of reasons. Muqtada couldn’t shine his boots. The fact that Mookie has a vicious militia and believes in wanton violence, doesn’t change his numbers. Sadr has, as you said, tried to usurp power via force and intimidation. He’s a wanna-be with alot of guns. That makes him a danger to everyone (including Sistani himself). Mookie also has the support of the Iranian Khomeni gov. Sistani has the support of most “shiahs”. There’s a BIG difference. I suggest you read more on given what you have written here.

    3) yes..Iraq is a mess. In seeking a solution going propose withdrawing from IRaq as the solution to the problems in IRaq? Unilateral disengagement of military forces and withdrawal are tactics in the larger picture of some kind of plan with strategic goals at the end of it. The withdrawal itself is a tactic..not a policy. I’ve heard no one explain or debate or even express what the “policy” behind the tactic of withdrawal is. NOr has anybody else. That’s not a secret. There IS no policy behind it. There is no strategy to debate…because neither you, nor the DNC has one to put forward. Where is your long range alternative plan to address the issues and dangers we face in the ME? Where are your assessments of what will happen in Iraq as the result of the withdrawal and how that will impact our national security and other interests in the region? The way forward to fix things in Iraq and get them on the right track means a commitment to a strategy that will do that and a long term policy that is takes US interests and security into consideration. That’s given that the enemies of Iraq are going to be trying just as hard to undo whatever you try to do. (’s hard, difficult).

    I’ll be happy to debate you on the merits of any such policy alternative. The problem is neither you, or the DNC, has one or has offered one. And you fail to see that “withdrawal” is not a policy or a strategy or even tactical if its not put in the context of a larger strategy and plan.

  5. gil says:

    Answer to DC

    You know DC by your same logic al Malaki is wherever you want him to be OK. By the same logic al Malaki is the product of WWI, and the Ottoman Empire!!! Is that your logic DC? Can you please debate in a serous way if you don’t mind?

    If we don’t have influence in him how do you call 150,000 troops in his country? What do you think we are doing in Iraq with our surge. How come you ignore all the evidence I gave you in my response to the lack of independence that al Malaki has???…. Our troops, the Shiite Militias, the Kurd Peshmerga, the Sunni Bathist Insurgents.

    Saddam would still be in power. Yes so what DC? What is so good about al Malaki replacing Saddam? Last I checked Saddam was not killing Americans in his country, or spending our money by the hundreds of millions . You consider an imprevement to have Saddam out and replace him with an Iranian proxy??? Like I said you look at the world from a different perspective.

    In your al Sistani “lesson” (I don’t need one thank you very much) you forgot to adress my main point. That is to say that al Sistani is our enemy because of the simple fact that he is a Shiite. al Sistani wants an Iranian style Theocracy in Iraq with him as the absolute leader running things, and a representative Government (al Malaki or any other Shiite) as figure heads in Government. So please go back and research again because your “lesson” is only adressing generalities, and points that I did not dispute at all.

    Or please tell me how is it that al Sistani is supposed to help us make Iraq a Democracy? And please don’t invent OK. A Grand Ayatollah with all the power in Iraq, all of the sudden accepts a Western style Democracy …. Yeah Right!!! Only in the Right Wing world this is believable. The same man that will not even talk to us is now our allie… Yeah Right!!.

    If that’s the way you reason then I can’t help you. I have no doubt that you are knowlegable on the subject, I have my reservations as to how you interpret what you “know”. al Malaki independent with 150,000 of our troops and hudreds of billions of our money , and al Sistani our friend in Iraq but can’t even talk to us ….. Is a bit too much to take you know.

    As for my proposal or the Democrat’s proposal in Iraq . It is not cutting and running DC It never was. Let’s be clear here…. Do you not want to pull out of Iraq DC? The answer is yes right? When DC? ant that’s the problem…. Your side give us some generality of “victory”, or “Democracy”…. that never becomes true… talk is all your side has given us for almost five years DC that’s reality. And because of it your side has lost all credibility. So is hardly surprising that people want a way out. The perseption by the entire world DC is that your side has no idea of what you are doing…. and simply use time and insults as an excuse to confront reality. This by the way is a perception backed by five years of incompetence .

    So in answerin to your question the Democrats simply want accountability if you are the ones taking the inciative (and you are) in our policy in Iraq. That is to say if you are to surge we want clear results or that’s it…. No more time, more empty promises, no more insults to hide from your ineptitude’s side. ACCOUNTABILITY DC. If you can’t win in five years, wht makes you think you will in six or then DC ?….. Is that a plan, or the avoidance of taking responsibility DC??? We can go on till the cows come home with this little game your side is trying to play here….Time, and more time and then still give you more time….. But time is running out for your side. Is time your side pulls up DC.

    The Democrats, and Republicans I might add do have other many chices to go into them is too much on this blog. We can change subject if you want and look at the options if you want. Tell me which plan you want to talk about: Partision, partial pull out, combiation of negociations and military engagement, etc, etc….. But let’s not pretend here that there are only two options…. Stay until victory… Or cut and run.

    That is a debate for idiots.

  6. gil says:

    Answer to DC.

    My plan for Iraq DC and that’s a very personal and humble opinion is as follows;

    I am in favor of partision. Partision is going on as we speak anyway so we would not be doing anithing extraordinary. If one reads the history of Iraq you can see that it is a country put together artificially by the British, and that’s the genesys of their current problems. There is no such think as an Iraq DC. Saddam and the Bathist party was Iraq. With them gone what we have is a fools dream, and compounded with a Western style fantasy that Bush and the Neo Cons decided to install in the middle of a Region that is not ready for Democracy.

    Your side had good intentions DC , there is no denaying it. Unfortunatelly there is a time and a place for everithing. And you decided to try your ideas at the wrong time, and in the wrong country. Time will not be kind with you if you stay in Iraq, and that’s sad for there is merit to what you people wanted to do. Iraq I am afraid will be the dead of your movement because just like the proverbial shoe that does not fit, you continue to try to force us all into using the darn shoe… And IT DOES NOT FIT DC….. Just because your side tell us that eventually it will , does not make it so DC…. And it never will.

    In Iraq the Kurds live by now for the most part in a country of their own and have been doing it for more than 12 years now. As for the Shiite and the Sunni …. I guess you noticed they don’t like each other right??? So what Democracy DC ??? what “Victory” DC????

    So the plan is to work with the Kurds, Shiite and Sunni to separate Iraq and give every one a portion of the oil revenues. The Kurds would love this plan, and so will the Shiite…. So we already have two out of three in our corner……….. Or your side can continue to dream the imposible dream DC …. In the end your dream will, and has become your nightmere and all the name calling, and all the King’s horseman will not make Iraq a Democracy.

    Sad your side had to spend the power of a good idea this way.

  7. Dc says:

    Partition will be something the Iraqi’s would decide for themselves. The sunni’s are deathly opposed to such a partition plan because they would be the one’s shafted in such a deal. Beyond that, as such a partition was discussed early on prior to the ratification of their constitution, their are certain logistical issues even under such divisions where a central gov would still be needed. The Iraqi’s are way ahead of you on that regard. That’s something for the Iraqi’s to work out for themselves..(not something for us to decide for them). The very reason to establish central gov with representatives from all areas is to try and have a political avenue to work such things out WITHOUT violence, while at the same time, provide services and security for the people. The US doens’t want to decide “for them”…and never did. That’s propaganda LIE from those opposed to us. IRaq..even if partitioned..will still require some sort of national/central gov and gov national services…even if it’s just to manage and distribute resources from the oil. And no, it would not be good for Iraq to turn back 1,000 years to tribal existence. That’s while recognizing that tribal differences and influences will play a role in the future of IRaq.

    They have already discussed partition that you suggest and rejected it as a common solution that would be accepted by all. They then proposed federal “states” as partition between Shiah/Sunni and Kurdish area with a central gov area around Bagdhad as the capital. The sunni’s rejected “any” partition plan, even if it’s just symbolic. So, that question was put the present constitution they are working under to be continued later. So, your “plan” is something the Iraqi’s themselves have already considered, rejected for the time being, and agreed to talk more about it later. The sunnis’ here are the main hold out on “any” solution. But, we’ve gotten a majority of them to the negotiating table. But, just like Sadr, what the insurgents lack in numbers, they make up for in spades with their propensity for violence. And they have been successful in provoking others as well. Ultimately, it’s up to the Iraqi’s themselves to reach an agreement that is acceptable to them. I believe they will never reach any agreement with some who will simply continue to kill and fight until they are all dead. I think we should all do what we can to oblige them and send them speedily on their way.

    Iraq..was Iraq..long before Saddam seized power. I’m sure you must know that, even though your writing suggests you do not. As part of the former Ottoman empire what was later known as Iraq was well versed in western concepts such as “nationalism”, central gov. and “democratic reforms”. You suggest you need no lesson on such things…but then write and speak as if you do. As I dont’ know you, I have no way to know which is your problem.

  8. gil says:

    Answer to DC.

    Partision is something that the Iraqi’s have to decide by themselves indeed. Just like the Iraqi’s “decided” that they wanted Democracy. Try to be realistic here DC. After hundreds of billions of Dollars, Thousands of our best lost, and horribly wounded I would say that we do have some influence in the Iraqi people , and in the outcome of things.

    To say that we are there like some rich uncle willing to sacrifice limb and money for nothing in return is rather naive. We do have enormous influence in Iraq’s future. The reason they are were they are today is 100 % of our making. It was Bush’s “Democracy” from the start. Too bad Bush forgot to check on Iraq’s history before commiting to a pipe dream.

    Another thing I most point out to you… In your comments I get the feeling that you think I am short on information on Iraq. Please don’t think that way. The Ottoman Empire altough relevant in Iraq’s history is not the source of the present problems in Iraq. Sectarian in fighting is. And for that you have to go to a different chapter in Iraq’s history. The chapter of the Shiite sect and its birth Vs. the Sunni in the Muslim Religion.

    That’s key to understand why Democracy will not work in Iraq. First of all it’s no accident that no Shiite country has a real Democracy …. Theocracy yes, but not Democracy. The reason is simply because the Shiite do not believe in separation of church and state as we have come to accept in the Western World. For them Religion is first and Religion has the ultimate word period. That alone should have give the likes of Bush PAUSE to reflect.

    But back to my partision…. I of course knew that the Iraqi have talked about partision. Again stop making the assumption that I don’t know what I am talking about. Correct me if I am wrong…. In these talks is it not true that the Shiite and the Kurds are for partision??? As I mentioned in my previous post? So if that’s the case the question becomes: What is easier A) To convince the Sunni by giving them their land plus an equal share of oil revenues…. OR B) Continue to convince every one that they have to live together in a Democracy because we say so (or Bush). We have tried B for 4+ years now…. And we all see the result. So let me ask you again; When you say that the Iraqi have already considered partision, and rejected it because of the Sunni would not agree to it .. Does it look to you like the Sunni are agreeing to your Democracy either? Or what do you think all the bloodshed is about agreeing with our idea of Democracy?

    A “Democracy ” for the Sunni my friend in case you forgot is the absolute assurance for the Sunni that they will be the poor bastard son in the Iraqi tri-fecta. As we speak over two million Sunni have left the country. As we speak no real agreement has ever been made to a Constitution, or real oil revenue exchange between sects. It’s all words, just like here in america. Empty promises of agreements that never come..And as politicians at the two ends of the Atlantic continue to “talk” good people continue to die…. For a Democracy that never was. For the Sunni this is a strugle to the death, it’s that simple. They see a majority Shiite simply destroying them and they will rather die that to let it happen… That will assure you dead and chaos in Iraq for as long as you want to stay…. For the Neo Cons it’s an ego trip to prove their idea was right, but for the Sunni is their lives, and the lives of their families… I don’t have to tell you who has the most motivation to stay and fight. You want to try the Sunni in their desperation at your own peril, because on this battle of wills you will loose.

    By the way, Partision, that same partision that you say was rejected by the Iraqi is a fact today. The Kurds (second time) live separate lives, have their own language, their own religion, their own alliances, their own comercial interchanges, their own Army, their own schools that no longer teach in Arabic, etc. But the Iraqi rejected partision!!! You continue with your same problem my friend….. You only look skin deep to make your conclusions.

    As for the Shiite. They live in the South for the most part in peace, that’s why the Brits are now living Iraq…. Or at least that’s what they say. The reason they live in peace is because THEY ARE ALL SHIITE.

    It is only in the mixed center that Iraq burns…… That’s the problem that requires the solution… And the solution is not going to be to put Kurds in Shiite land, or Sunni in Kurdistan becaue we have a Democracy is it? The solution at least to me is rather ovbious….Just make the partision official and get the hell out.

    The reason the Kurds in the North and the Shiite in the South are in relative peace is because THEY ARE IN A DE FACTO PARTISION. If the Iraqi people as you say does not accept the partision, the fact is that they have accepted partision in ther daily lives!!!!!!!!!

    Because reality is that in the Democracy that we gave them the Shiite voted for Shiite, the Sunni for the Sunni and the Kurds for the Kurds…. Get the picture? That’s a defacto partision right there. The man in power is not a Liberal or a Conservative or a Scial Democrat or a Musslim Follower of Mohamed Party…… HE IS A SHIITE as if that was a political party. The name of his “party” is irrelevant. al Malaki is in power because he is a Shiite pure and simple.

    SO now you and the Right try to tell me that because we want a Democracy in Iraq they will have one come hell or high water!!! That’s where the shoe does not fit my friend.

    Don’t get me wrong Democracy is great in the middle East…. Problem is Democracy in the Middle East will give you a bunch on lunatics in power. If you don’t believe me look at Lebanon. You are asking for Democracy at the wrong time, and in the wrong part of the world. That’s the second time I say it.

  9. Dc says:

    You often basically repeat the information I give you in response in then act as if you are somehow adding something new to the conversation. Then you make up arguments with yourself about things I “didn’t” say. I think you need to read more carefully (and that’s the 3rd time I say that)