Has the Bush cut and run begun...

[headscratcher4]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

In the above story, Rumsfeld says that troop reduction can likely begin in 2006 (just in time, of course, for the Congressional elections).

Will this be because the situation in Iraq will have stabilized or because the Administration -- while talking tough and belittling all who disagree --have come to the very political conclusion that the war is unsustainable politically as well as victory militarilly unobtainable?

Are they preparing to problaim vicotry (or "Mission Accomplished II" as the case might be) and go home?

Just ruminating here...

[Mark]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

In the above story, Rumsfeld says that troop reduction can likely begin in 2006 (just in time, of course, for the Congressional elections).

Will this be because the situation in Iraq will have stabilized or because the Administration -- while talking tough and belittling all who disagree --have come to the very political conclusion that the war is unsustainable politically as well as victory militarilly unobtainable?

Are they preparing to problaim vicotry (or "Mission Accomplished II" as the case might be) and go home?

Just ruminating here...

Well, whatever happens, you know they aren't going to admit any mistakes. They will, without question put some sort of positive spin on it. "Iraqiazation," maybe?

[Mephisto]

Interesting how Murtha was hurting troop morale by suggesting the troops start coming home, but when Rummy says it, they try to make us believe it's a great idea because it was their idea.

[rikzilla]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

In the above story, Rumsfeld says that troop reduction can likely begin in 2006 (just in time, of course, for the Congressional elections).

Will this be because the situation in Iraq will have stabilized or because the Administration -- while talking tough and belittling all who disagree --have come to the very political conclusion that the war is unsustainable politically as well as victory militarilly unobtainable?

Are they preparing to problaim vicotry (or "Mission Accomplished II" as the case might be) and go home?

Just ruminating here...

Sounds to me Grady that Bush et al are "damned if they do,...damned if they don't".... in your opinion. But you can't have your political cake and eat it too. If Bush et al are bad for bending to political realities...then are not people such as yourself to blame for applying those political pressures in the first place?

It's illogical for the lumberjack to find fault with the tree for falling to his axe.

-z

[Mark]

Sounds to me Grady that Bush et al are "damned if they do,...damned if they don't".... in your opinion. But you can't have your political cake and eat it too. If Bush et al are bad for bending to political realities...then are not people such as yourself to blame for applying those political pressures in the first place?

It's illogical for the lumberjack to find fault with the tree for falling to his axe.

-z

But what about Mephisto's comment? Why can Rummy call for troop withdrawal and be OK, while Murtha is hurting morale?

Double standard?

(Trick question: of course it's a double standard.)

[headscratcher4]

I'm still waiting for the Iraq version of the strategic village initative...

[headscratcher4]

Sounds to me Grady that Bush et al are "damned if they do,...damned if they don't".... in your opinion. But you can't have your political cake and eat it too. If Bush et al are bad for bending to political realities...then are not people such as yourself to blame for applying those political pressures in the first place?

It's illogical for the lumberjack to find fault with the tree for falling to his axe.

-z


I actually have no problem when anyone bends to political, economic, military relaties, etc.

It's when they can't bend -- as has been demonstrated by the conduct of the war thus far -- to reality that should concern us all. IMO.

Of course, anti-war advocates -- whether made by the conduct of the war, the fact that the basis of the war was so badly mis-represented or those who have always protested the necessity of the war -- will be blamed for any failures by Bush and his political allies. No one has yet taken real responsiblity -- save for the awarding of Medals of Freedom -- for the failures of intelligence, the failures of planning, the equipment failures, the failures of propoganda and allience building...in short whatever the Bush strategy for victory now is, it certainly seems to have lacked all of the elements that one usually thinks go along with obtaining "victory."

[rikzilla]

But what about Mephisto's comment? Why can Rummy call for troop withdrawal and be OK, while Murtha is hurting morale?

Double standard?

(Trick question: of course it's a double standard.)

Because Mr. Rumsfeld happens to be the SecDef. Deployment numbers are properly arrived at by military commanders on the ground who know their mission requirements. This information would properly move up the chain to the SecDef; not the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

As for Mr. Rumsfeld being behind a possible 2006 drawdown; I'm hoping that it's a militarily informed decision not a politically expedient one. The one sure way to turn Iraq into another Vietnam is to allow politicians to play general.

-z

[Mark]

Because Mr. Rumsfeld happens to be the SecDef. Deployment numbers are properly arrived at by military commanders on the ground who know their mission requirements. This information would properly move up the chain to the SecDef; not the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

As for Mr. Rumsfeld being behind a possible 2006 drawdown; I'm hoping that it's a militarily informed decision not a politically expedient one. The one sure way to turn Iraq into another Vietnam is to allow politicians to play general.

-z

And...all that makes a difference to the soldiers, does it? Not to mention that we have been told over and over again even mentioing withdrawal gives encouragement to the enemy.

Squirm all you want, it's just the usual double standard from this administration.

[rikzilla]

And...all that makes a difference to the soldiers, does it? Not to mention that we have been told over and over again even mentioing withdrawal gives encouragement to the enemy.

Squirm all you want, it's just the usual double standard from this administration.

I didn't say that it makes a difference to anyone. You asked:
"Why can Rummy call for troop withdrawal and be OK, while Murtha is hurting morale?"

I merely clarified that it is the SecDef who is in a more proper position to make informed pronouncements on troop deployments than the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

You asked an ignorant and emotionally charged rhetorical question. I took the logical root of that to be: Why is it proper for Mr. Rumsfeld to offer a proposal for troop strength reduction and improper for Mr. Murtha to propose the same?

I then answered the question in a factual and logical way...(since that's kind of what we're supposed to be doing here...) Besides, the second implied premise of your argument is that Murtha and Rumsfeld are making equivalent proposals. They are not. Murtha called for troops to be brought home right away:
On November 17, 2005, he created a firestorm when he called for the immediate redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq,[2] saying, "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

Rumsfeld is quoted by WaPo as saying the following:
Rumsfeld told reporters that if next week's elections in Iraq go well he expects U.S. troops levels, which were boosted to nearly 160,000 in advance of the election, to return to the 137,000 level.

"If conditions permit, we could go below that," he said.

Later he stressed that a decision to go below 137,000 would depend on conditions after the election and the recommendation of senior U.S. commanders.

So we see that the facts and your emotional rhetoric are once again at odds. Please forgive me for my adherence to the former and disdain for the latter, but you see I'm a skeptic. It's what I do.

-z

[GroundStrength]

[Best headscratcher4 impersonation]
I hate America! I hate America! America Sucks![/Best headscratcher4 impersonation]

Then Leave.

[Mark]

You asked an ignorant and emotionally charged rhetorical question.

Up yours, Rik. I asked a logical question...for months I have been hearing the Right say that we cannot give any clue as to when we might leave; to do so would endanger our troops and our mission. Now all of a sudden it is OK because Rumsfeld said it.

Could you be any more hypocritical?

No.

[headscratcher4]

[Best headscratcher4 impersonation]
I hate America! I hate America! America Sucks![/Best headscratcher4 impersonation]

Then Leave.

You nailed it...even the accent. You are very talented.

[fishbob]

[Best headscratcher4 impersonation]
I hate America! I hate America! America Sucks![/Best headscratcher4 impersonation]

Then Leave.

Oh, another spectacularly insightful 'ifn you aint with us, then yur agin us' poster.

[Regnad Kcin]

Read in the Daily News today that Sec. Rumsfeld is eyeing resignation next year. And the top name to step in? Dem. Sen. Joe Lieberman.

[rikzilla]

Up yours, Rik. I asked a logical question...for months I have been hearing the Right say that we cannot give any clue as to when we might leave; to do so would endanger our troops and our mission. Now all of a sudden it is OK because Rumsfeld said it.

Could you be any more hypocritical?

No.

I don't understand why you bother posting here Mark. You ask irrational questions in a hysterical manner and then answer them yourself. Since masturbation is an act best performed in private; it would be more appropriate for you to find a quite corner in your home and do your mental version of onanism without making involuntary voyeurs of the rest of us.

-z

[rikzilla]

[Best headscratcher4 impersonation]
I hate America! I hate America! America Sucks![/Best headscratcher4 impersonation]

Then Leave.

Love it when a real right-wing whackjob shows up! (Being as Mark thinks I r one) See Mark? There's a live one...go git 'im!!
-z

Note to GroundStrength; HS4 is not one of those people. We have them here...but he is not one of them. Pick your targets more carefully and make your point without resorting to mindless demonization and there will be hope for you to become something other than a "right-wing whackjob".

[Mark]

I don't understand why you bother posting here Mark. You ask irrational questions in a hysterical manner and then answer them yourself. Since masturbation is an act best performed in private; it would be more appropriate for you to find a quite corner in your home and do your mental version of onanism without making involuntary voyeurs of the rest of us.

-z

Evasion noted, Sparky.

[Manny]

But what about Mephisto's comment? Why can Rummy call for troop withdrawal and be OK, while Murtha is hurting morale?Do you really not understand the difference between "immediately" and 'perhaps, if conditions improve, maybe later'?

[jay gw]

Wasn't there some governors elections a month back or so and the Republicans all lost? They were saying it was an omen of 2006 if something in Iraq didn't change radically.

[Mark]

Do you really not understand the difference between "immediately" and 'perhaps, if conditions improve, maybe later'?

That wasn't my question. I have been told over and over again that any discussion of when we might leave is bad. Now it is OK because Rumsfeld said it.

[Manny]

Who said that? Everyone agrees that we'll leave eventually, except a few far-left idiots who think this is an imperialist mission. Certainly no one in the administration has said that "any discussion of when we might leave is bad."

[headscratcher4]

Wasn't there some governors elections a month back or so and the Republicans all lost? They were saying it was an omen of 2006 if something in Iraq didn't change radically.

Not really much of a bell-whether. There was no change of party in these elections...Decocrats retained seats held be Democrats. Clearly, Bush was more of a factor in NJ, where the Rep. tried to distance himself from the President but the Corzine tried to tie Forrester to the President. In Virginia, however, it would seem to be more a reflection of the current gov. Mark Warner, populatiry and the weakenss of the Rep. candidate...keeping in mind that the Reps. won the other statewide offices up that day.

Now, if by chance, a Dem (very unlikely) wins Cunningham's seat in S. California, than you will see real panic about the President's policy. More likely, another GOP candidate will hold the slot and run by focusing on his own moral rectituden while holding true to conservative values.

[Dr Adequate]

Do you really not understand the difference between "immediately" and 'perhaps, if conditions improve, maybe later'? Did the word "immediately" appear in Murtha's resolution?

No.

Where did it appear?

Oh yes... that was in the resolution drafted by the Republican leadership.

I thought that was a particularly pathetic bit of political chicanery, but it seems that you were duped.

[rikzilla]

That wasn't my question. I have been told over and over again that any discussion of when we might leave is bad. Now it is OK because Rumsfeld said it.

Now you're just repeating yourself after you were shown to be wrong.
-z

[rikzilla]

Did the word "immediately" appear in Murtha's resolution?

No.

*ahem*

Where did it appear?

It came out of Murtha's mouth.

Oh yes... that was in the resolution drafted by the Republican leadership.
Yes, they created that resolution to mirror Murtha's own expressed opinion....

I thought that was a particularly pathetic bit of political chicanery, but it seems that you were duped.

Washington Post:
On November 17, 2005, he created a firestorm when he called for the immediate redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq,[2] saying, "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

The Repubs merely put that sentiment into a resolution so that Murtha could be seen voting against his own expressed opinion. So how is it "Political Chicanery" to craft a "immediate withdrawal" resolution when Murtha voiced his approval of such an act??? Why on earth did Murtha then vote against it? It's not political chicanery...it was instructive to see this man say one then then do another all in the same day. Seemed more like a bit of political unmasking if you ask me....

-z

[Zep]

[Best headscratcher4 impersonation]
I hate America! I hate America! America Sucks![/Best headscratcher4 impersonation]

Then Leave.Umm, I don't, it doesn't, and I'm not even there, matey!

And yet I, too, find it ironic that Rummy's ideas are somehow always the "best" ideas simply because they are Rummy's ideas... But such are the minds of absolute dictators! ;)

[Mark]

Now you're just repeating yourself after you were shown to be wrong.
-z

At least you are now responding more or less like an adult, rather than a dyspeptic 2 year old.

How was I shown to be wrong? All you did was claim Rumsfeld is right to talk about when we will leave Iraq, and anyone else (or at least non-Republicans) is wrong. If giving the enemy any idea when we might leave is bad for Democrats, then it is bad for Republicans. Either it is good strategy to keep that knowledge from the enemy or it is not, no matter which party is doing the talking.

[Manny]

Did the word "immediately" appear in Murtha's resolution?

No.

Where did it appear?

Oh yes... that was in the resolution drafted by the Republican leadership.

I thought that was a particularly pathetic bit of political chicanery, but it seems that you were duped.The resolution said "at the earliest practicable date." In his speech introducing it, Rep. Murtha said, ""My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces." (cite) (http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/003914.html) There is essentially no similarity between Rep. Murtha's resolution and comments about it and Sec. Cheney's remarks.

[Mephisto]

[Best headscratcher4 impersonation]
I hate America! I hate America! America Sucks![/Best headscratcher4 impersonation]

Then Leave.

Hey? You left me out!

What perfect timing, just when Rik looked like the most Conservative thing around you show up to prove to us he's a little more moderate than some. I thank you for proving my case that wackos (no matter where they stand on the political rule) are easy to spot.

Your "argument" doesn't really lend credence to the notion that the inarticulate idiots in Washington know what they're doing - they use the same rhetorical tactics (if I can call them that) that you do.

[Kerberos]

Because Mr. Rumsfeld happens to be the SecDef. Deployment numbers are properly arrived at by military commanders on the ground who know their mission requirements.
You don't really believe that do you? I'm sure that Rumsfeld gets advice from the military brass and he might even listen to it, but deployment numbers both are and should be political decisions.

[Manny]

Hey? You left me out!
For the record, though, he's right. That "Horse With No Name" song? It sucked. And it wasn't even really about heroin. Stupid America.

[Kerberos]

For the record, though, he's right. That "Horse With No Name" song? It sucked. And it wasn't even really about heroin. Stupid America.
Does that mean that you agree Europe is better than America?

[fishbob]

Yes, they created that resolution to mirror Murtha's own expressed opinion....

The Repubs merely put that sentiment into a resolution so that Murtha could be seen voting against his own expressed opinion. So how is it "Political Chicanery" to craft a "immediate withdrawal" resolution when Murtha voiced his approval of such an act??? Why on earth did Murtha then vote against it? It's not political chicanery...it was instructive to see this man say one then then do another all in the same day. Seemed more like a bit of political unmasking if you ask me....

-z

From Manny's cite:

Murtha: "My plan calls: To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. . . . "

Resolution: " The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."

----------------------------

In the resolution, 'safety of US forces' is removed and replaced with 'practicable', but practicable is not defined. With practicable undefined, timing is also undefined. 'Hereby terminated' is inconsistent with 'earliest practicable date'. Just a few words can make a big difference. Just a few words can turn an idea that should be considered and debated into political chicanery.

[Ed]

As for Mr. Rumsfeld being behind a possible 2006 drawdown; I'm hoping that it's a militarily informed decision not a politically expedient one. The one sure way to turn Iraq into another Vietnam is to allow politicians to play general.

-z

Eeeeeeesssssshhhhhhh....Rik.....

The Dems smell blood in 2006 and the republicans know it. As I have said, these guys, left and right, will sell out their country for power.

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, they created that resolution to mirror Murtha's own expressed opinion.... No, they created that resolution as what we call a "straw man".Why on earth did Murtha then vote against it? Because it was a pathetic Republican travesty of the resolution he actually put forward.

If someone took one of your ideas and mangled it beyond recognition for political ends, it would be an act of folly, not integrity, for you to maintain that it was still a good idea.

[a_unique_person]

Sounds to me Grady that Bush et al are "damned if they do,...damned if they don't".... in your opinion.
-z

Yes, they they have created a lose/lose situation for themselves. But that's their fault.

[a_unique_person]

Who said that? Everyone agrees that we'll leave eventually, except a few far-left idiots who think this is an imperialist mission. Certainly no one in the administration has said that "any discussion of when we might leave is bad."

There have been people pointing out that Iraq is a nice place to build a base.

[hgc]

Because Mr. Rumsfeld happens to be the SecDef. Deployment numbers are properly arrived at by military commanders on the ground who know their mission requirements. This information would properly move up the chain to the SecDef; not the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.Oh, that was the main problem, since Rummy didn't put in nearly the number of troops the military commanders said were needed.

As for Mr. Rumsfeld being behind a possible 2006 drawdown; I'm hoping that it's a militarily informed decision not a politically expedient one. The one sure way to turn Iraq into another Vietnam is to allow politicians to play general.

-zHope springs eternal. At least when Vietnam fell to the commies, it didn't do severe damage to our own national security, as the Iraq debacle might.

[peptoabysmal]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051208/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

In the above story, Rumsfeld says that troop reduction can likely begin in 2006 (just in time, of course, for the Congressional elections).

Will this be because the situation in Iraq will have stabilized or because the Administration -- while talking tough and belittling all who disagree --have come to the very political conclusion that the war is unsustainable politically as well as victory militarilly unobtainable?

Are they preparing to problaim vicotry (or "Mission Accomplished II" as the case might be) and go home?

Just ruminating here...

Yay. Welcome to bizarro world where losing is winning.
I still think it is a bad idea to telegraph your moves. Bad Rummy, Bad.

[Mark]

Yay. Welcome to bizarro world where losing is winning.
I still think it is a bad idea to telegraph your moves. Bad Rummy, Bad.

At least you are consistent. Actually, the truth is, I suspect that position is probably correct...sorry to agree with you. ;) It's the idea that Democrats saying it is bad, while Republicans saying it is good that makes me scratch my head in disbelief.

On the other hand, since we live in a Democracy (nominal, anyway), how can something like that be discussed without the enemy finding out? But, again, whatever the right choice, it should hold for both Democrats and Republicans.