« Why VOTE | Main | Another stoopid US military thug stuk in Irak »

November 08, 2006

The children's table is now in charge of the House

and with the heady talk of "timetables" for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the annoyed voters had better take notice what their emotional vote yesterday may spell for the US military.

The Americans will gather their belongings and leave this region - the entire region. They have no future whatsoever in our region. They will leave the Middle East, and the Arab and Islamic worlds, like they left Vietnam. I advise all those who place their trust in the Americans to learn the lesson of Vietnam, and to learn the lesson of the South Lebanese Army with the Israelis, and to know that when the Americans lose this war – and lose it they will, Allah willing - they will abandon them to their fate, just like they did to all those who placed their trust in them throughout history. ~~ Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah
Can Americans be trusted?

Pelosi, Murtha and each and everyone of the Leftists and extreme rightwingers that advocate American cut-n-run agree with the Islamists.

Posted by Darleen at November 8, 2006 06:25 AM

Comments

The US will not withdraw from the Middle East; just Iraq. US policies there are not working.

We can't make the Iraqis stop killing each other, but we can withdraw to peripheral areas
around Iraq with perhaps a small force necessary to protect the Oil infrastructure.

This idea of remaking the Middle East into a series of Jeffersonian democracies just isn't realistic. Politicians who think otherwise are apt to be voted out of office.

Even the Neocons are cutting and running from THAT proposition.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 8, 2006 08:48 AM

hey,
Whoever took that photo of the troops with their "Halp Us Jon Carry" sign -- can that person please turn their cam corder on as the announcement of Rumsfeld's resignation plays out in the mess tents of our troops?

My bet is that you will see a lot of cheering.

Posted by: Brad at November 8, 2006 10:36 AM

Carl Goss:

Which country in the area do you think is going to be willing to accept our troops?

Posted by: gahrie at November 8, 2006 11:27 AM

Well, gahrie, we could get military concessions from the existing government, near the border areas and the oil facilities.

Something similar to what the British did in Egypt prior to World War II. Stay out of Iraqi conflicts. Stop attempting to occupy the country as a whole.

There are no easy answers, we have to stay in the Middle East, but we've got to soft play our presence.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 8, 2006 12:51 PM

How about Afghanistan? They could use more help. And that's where the 9/11 hijackers trained -- not Iraq as the neocons and Dick Cheney insisted.

Posted by: Brad at November 8, 2006 01:04 PM

Brad claimed:
How about Afghanistan? They could use more help. And that's where the 9/11 hijackers trained -- not Iraq as the neocons and Dick Cheney insisted.

Quote.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 8, 2006 05:34 PM

- People I talk to inside the beltway, tell me that the Dem core political advisors are warning Pelosi, and Reid, to move the party to the center as quickly as possible and get some specific plans together as talking points, sideline the hard left dribble, forget all the carping and vengence crap, and try ernestly to get things done, or kiss ‘08 goodbye.

- Wonder if they’ll be smart enough to heed their own peoples advice. We’ll see. It’s put up, or shut up time for the Dems on the real issues, and they don’t have a lot of time to look like they have a plan.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at November 9, 2006 10:46 AM

the annoyed voters had better take notice what their emotional vote yesterday may spell for the US military.

Exactly backwards. The votes of the previous six years stemmed from an emotional response to 9/11 with some anti-gay emotionalism thrown in for spice. The electorate is coming back to making rational decisions.

Posted by: Josh at November 9, 2006 12:58 PM

- Because the Dems have such a small majority in both the House and the Senate, and a little thing called “clouture”, requiring 60 yes votes on any major legislature, the last thing they can afford to do, if they hope to get anything accomplished, is get caught up in a lot of partisan hackery from this point on.

- At the same time, many of the incoming Junior Senators are a great deal more moderate than the hard left group they’ll be joining, which isn’t going to be easy to manage. Pelosi has her work cut out for her, without even thinking about distractions.

- So their path is clear. Either they really join the Reps in true non-partisan fashion, or squander their chances for a real run in ‘08. Anyone that continues to yammer for petty vengence is doing his or her party a great disservice, and blocking the wheels of future Democratic progress.

- Of course I fully expect the SecProgg hard left to try to burn down the barn, when they see they’re not going along on the hayride. Remember, with the Proggs, it’s all about ideology. America, it’s safety and future, is of no real concern. It’s not the America they want anyway, so its just another means to thier ends. But the core moderates have the real power, and no excuse now, if they fail.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at November 9, 2006 01:07 PM

Yet "partisan hackery" (as BBH calls it) is exactly what the Republican majority Congress has been engaged in for the past several years. Extremists from their ranks dominated the dialogue and the airwaves and yet Big Bang Hunter has the audacity to insist that the Democrats had better watch themselves.

I for one am all for moderation and compromise. But first, let's call a spade a spade. We're in the mess we're in because of 6 years of a divisive, not inclusive Rovian strategy. And the Cowboy In Chief now has no choice but to sit down with Pelosi, someone he wouldn't give the time of day to previously. Go ahead and demonize her Big Bang, while you lecture us on what the Left can and cannot do. You're so wise in the ways of the world.

Posted by: Brad at November 9, 2006 02:41 PM

- Brad....I cited the words of the Dem core advisory committee, I have nothing to do with it, but nice try. Please do ignore any sound advice. We need that sort of consistant stuborness from the Left, right up through '08.

- Incidently for all you SecProggs, just to make your day, Conyers just released a press statement that “impeachment” is OFF the table. He aggrees totally with Pelosi.

- I can tick that off with a check mark on my list of predictions. The hard Left is toast.

- Now that WalMart has put the “Chris” back in Christmas, along with Macy’s, the whole world must be going crazy….What next… Men dancing with thier wives?

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at November 9, 2006 02:49 PM

Whoever took that photo of the troops with their "Halp Us Jon Carry" sign -- can that person please turn their cam corder on as the announcement of Rumsfeld's resignation plays out in the mess tents of our troops? My bet is that you will see a lot of cheering.

Sorry, you lose the bet:

Half of America and the upper echelons of the US military may be cheering Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation from the post of Defence Secretary, but there was no rejoicing yesterday among those most directly affected by his decisions: the frontline soldiers in Iraq.

Troops expressed little pleasure at the departure of the man responsible for their protracted deployment to a hostile country where 2,839 of their comrades have died.

Posted by: VRWC drone at November 10, 2006 07:08 AM

Well, in any event we are on our way out of Iraq. Light at the end of the tunnel, you might say.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 10, 2006 10:33 AM

Hey drone

You skipped the part about how the commanders and officers seem to pay a little more attention to the big picture. For example, while Staff Sargeant Notaro insists that "Iraq was better off now than before the war,"

But one US army colonel, who did not want to be named, said that such positive views were uncommon in the higher ranks of the US military. "We are the ones closer to the problem. We are the ones who have the broader picture," he said.

Meanwhile, some of the GIs over there don't even know who Rumsfeld is.


Posted by: Brad at November 10, 2006 10:34 AM

Great, thanks for the words of wisdom from an anonymous colonel, and from the NYT, which may have missed the sarcasm in such a statement from a soldier in the field.

Posted by: Chris at November 10, 2006 10:41 AM

Read the article, Chris. It wasn't sarcasm. he really didn't know. or care.

Posted by: Brad at November 10, 2006 10:47 AM

Hey Brad,

You made a statement that there would be "a lot of cheering... in the mess tents of our troops".

I just linked a story that showed you were wrong, that there was no rejoicing by the frontline troops over Rumsfeld's resignation.

How did I skip anything? If you wanted to discuss how "commanders and officers seem to pay a little more attention to the big picture", you should have said so.

How does your NYT link make your point in any way? If some troops don't know who Rumsfeld is, why would you expect them to be cheering his resignation?

Regarding the anonymous colonel and his "We are the ones closer to the problem. We are the ones who have the broader picture" statement, while agree that he might have a broader picture than the guys in the field, the troops are a hell of a lot "closer to the problem" than he is, don't you think? How often do you think the good colonel goes on patrol? And I'm shocked, SHOCKED that the NYT was able to find a dissenting voice among the troops in Iraq, when it's common knowledge that every single person in the military shares identical views on everything. Good catch on the part of you and the NYT!

Posted by: VRWC drone at November 10, 2006 12:37 PM

Drone,

You make a valid point, and my guess about the troop reaction was apparently way off.

I was thinking about that episode in Kuwait in Dec. '04 when a National Guardsman asked Rummy the question about lack of effective body armor. It was that daring question from a "frontline" troop that elicited Rummy's infamous quote about "You go to war with the army you have." I have to wonder where that troop is now.

The NYT piece clearly refutes my argument. And it's disappointing, don't you think, that too many troops don't recognize what an increasing number of their commanders do about the poor decision making at the top. I guess if they were more aware they wouldn't be frontline troops.

Of course, the opinions among our troops are varying and we don't have a complete picture -- we just have anonymous colonels who obviously fear retribution and we have retired generals who criticized Rumsfeld months ago but who, by being retired, are insulated from retribution (if not hostile demonization from the Right Wing media).


Posted by: Brad at November 11, 2006 10:55 AM

Brad - the ememy in ALL wars depends on breaking the will of America, and you on the Left, along with the lap dog press, are playing the perfect dupes, reacting in just the way the Jihadist's stated intentions hoped you would. Either you're too frightened to stand up against this sort of manipulation, or dumber than dirt.

Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at November 12, 2006 10:24 AM

it's disappointing, don't you think, that too many troops don't recognize what an increasing number of their commanders do about the poor decision making at the top.

Where are the statistics that support your claim about the increasing number of commanders criticizing the decision making? And are these legitimate complaints, or are they just griping that they could do a better job?

I guess if they were more aware they wouldn't be frontline troops.

That's a Kerry-worthy insult of our frontline troops, Brad. If they were smarter, they wouldn't be on the front lines, is that what you're saying?

And funny thing about those retired generals that the Dems trotted out as expert witnesses to criticize Rumsfeld's handling of the war... now that Dems are in the drivers seat, do you think they'll be turning to these same wise generals for guidance? Well let's look at what the generals are actually suggesting:

...Democrats, while celebrating Batiste's criticism of the administration, exercised some selective listening at the hearing when 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.

Will the Dems take their suggestion? Doubtful, since "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 06:46 AM