« Kofi Annan thinks live Jews are a problem | Main | Jihadist Appeaser Watch: Shorter Peter Preston »

November 12, 2006

11.6.06 Democrats 'We aren't cut-n-run! How dare you say that!'

Democrats 11.12.06 - Nevermind!

Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Congress, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months, but the White House cautioned against fixing timetables.




Hmmm ... Time to start an official "Yellow Ass Watch".



Technorati: , ,,

Posted by Darleen at November 12, 2006 02:49 PM

Comments

What's the alternative to withdrawal? There isn't any.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 13, 2006 08:30 AM

What's the alternative to withdrawal? There isn't any.

That's not what these six generals are saying:

...Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.

"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.

"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.

"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.

You remember these Generals, don't you? They were the experts brought into a hearing held by the Dems to criticize Rumsfeld's handling of the war. After Bastiste made his statements criticizing Rumsfeld's decisions and performance:

"Your statement, I believe, defines the word 'courage,' " Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.) gushed. Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) pumped his fist and gave Batiste and his colleagues pats on the biceps. And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) proclaimed, giddily: "This hearing today could change our country."

So will the Dems follow these suggestions? Not likely. From the same article:

"Six of the seven Democrats at the hearing supported legislation calling for the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq this year."

Posted by: VRWC drone at November 13, 2006 10:35 AM

At the height of Vietnam we had 500,000 troops and that wasn't enough. Bringing in more troops is the wrong tactic -- it just prolongs the occupation and sends a message that we are never going to leave.

And where are the troops going to come from? Have these military honchos figured that out? Do we bring back the draft?

Posted by: Brad at November 13, 2006 03:07 PM

Brad,

I suspect those six Generals are more knowledgeable about tactics and in a better position to judge the possible military options than either you or I.

Posted by: VRWC drone at November 13, 2006 10:19 PM

The bottom line is that the bottom has dropped out in terms of public support for the war. It doesn't matter what any general thinks, the American people don't support the Iraq war.

How can you fight a war with no public support?

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 15, 2006 07:41 AM

It doesn't matter what any general thinks, the American people don't support the Iraq war.

Support for the war may have dropped, but it doesn't mean the American people want a fast withdrawal:

...even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Posted by: VRWC drone at November 15, 2006 09:14 AM

It's real hard to fight a successful war when the commander-in-chief is an ignorant, stubborn dry drunk with a false sense of entitlement, too. Let's not forget that.

Posted by: Ed Aspect at November 15, 2006 07:24 PM