How's The Liberals' Plan Of Surrendering In Iraq Coming Along?

Question

"Pelosi last week endorsed a plan by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq within six months"
"Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks" www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707.html

"Boxer is introducing a resolution to start bringing troops home in six months"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5744837

Murtha:"It's time to bring the troops home," he said, noting that a withdrawal would take about six months to complete
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/

Ex-president Carter calls for US troops to leave Iraq next year
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061027/pl_afp/indiausiraqconflict_061027141911

Those links are 6 months old.

Answer 1

Not very well, thank goodness.

First we had the non binding resolution - a total waste of time and political grandstanding at its best.

Now, as I type this, we have Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Joe Biden and, with the blessing of the Senate Democratic leadership of Harry Reed, drafting a proposal of "prompt" U.S. troop withdrawal. Much like the non binding resolution, this proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing - and they know this - and still they insist on their agenda of non-support for anything Bush proposes.
It seems that they feel the White House is their birth right - and anything they can do to discredit Bush is fair game - irregardless of America's security or the morale of the troops involved in the conflict.
Any set date for withdrawal is simply a date the enemy will hold out for and a date they will celebrate their victory - simple as that.

Answer 2

Any talk of withdrawal, redeployment or a change in course is characterized by the neo-cons as "cutting and running." This word-play is so disingenuous that it hardly merits a rebuttal, but the best response to the notion that a war hero like John Kerry or John Murtha wants to "cut and run" is Murtha's response to Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

A phased withdrawal is just that, a phased withdrawal. And a timetable is just that, a timetable. Using politically-charged buzzwords won't change the fact that the present course of action is untenable. It is the height of folly to continue on a tragic and deadly path just to save face. And enough has been done to "embolden the enemy" that leaving Iraq will have little effect in that regard.

For those who think continuing with the current policy in Iraq is a mark of courage and changing direction the mark of cowardice, they should bear in mind that courage tempered by wisdom is noble, courage in defiance of wisdom is foolhardy.

Answer 3

Agreed. If they are so interested in cutting and running, they should stop the funding.

They want to "support" the troops but not the effort. They want to pander to both sides showing they are unprincipaled and without a vision or leadership.

Answer 4

I don't know why anybody would want to be president now. Unless they have some magic plan. They are going to inherit the mess that W. and his ilk have created. That includes a draft.

Answer 5

Appears to be doing much better than the current implosion of the White House.

Answer 6

First, it's not surrendering unless there is some other side to surrender to. The US is engaged in a police action, attempting to suppress a civil war. There is no single other side.

Second, the US has no direct objectives in Iraq. There's no specific goal we can point to that we can accomplish to say we're done. So, we're there forever until we declare victory and choose to leave.

Finally, if you've read the Constitution, it's the job of Congress to make rules regarding the military, to authorize long-term overseas military action, and to allocate military funding. So, their doing their job -- even if you don't like the decisions they're making.

Then again, the vast majority of the population (about 70% by most polls) approve of them setting specific limits on the Iraq deployment. In fact, that was the major issue in the election a few months ago that lead to the change of leadership in both the House and Senate.

Congress is doing their job. If you don't like how they're doing it, vote for someone else in 2008. Until then, get over the fact that your guys lost the election.

Answer 7

Since the general in charge in Iraq says that the war cannot be won militarily, what do YOU propose?

Continue the same unarguably disastrous policies that the failed Bush administration has followed ever since they lied us into an illegal war?

Answer 8

The Traitors Club was out in force again today with another "Let's do all we can to destroy even the faintest glimmer of hope for any kind of positive result in Iraq" plan.
The surrendercrats should all wear their "I love Osama" Tee Shirts to these photo ops so everyone could see who their hero and idol really is.

Answer 9

I'm a conservative, and with that in mind...This Iraq thing is a quagmire, and neo-cons are coming up with excuses like "liberals are emboldening the terrorists" to explain why things are such a mess over there.

Face it--we should NEVER have invaded. Iraq was no threat to us. Nation-building is unconstitutional--or do you neo-cons view the Constitution as just a cursed piece of paper like your boy Bush?

Answer 10

The plan is coming along quite well according to your links.

The problem in Iraq is that their is no final victory plan, and most Americans know that.