From CNN: In a highly anticipated report being released Wednesday, the Iraq Study Group will call for a dramatic shift in war policy by urging the Bush administration to set a target of moving most U.S. troops out of their combat roles by early 2008, according to two sources who have seen the executive summary of the report.
***
Can't wait to see how the Right is going to spin this one. Is it possible to top the catchiness of "cut and run" politics?
With two Dems leading the report, the call for a 2008 withdrawl from Iraq is also a call for bipartisan cooperation. In the end, it's not just the U.S. that stands to suffer from an Iraq in chaos.
"Sources said a major theme in the report by the group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, is a blunt assessment that the mission in Iraq will fail unless the Bush administration and the newly elected Democratic Congress come together on a bipartisan basis to deal with the declining support for the war within the United States."
First, I can't believe we're still tossing the word war around anyway. After all, W landed on a bomber dressed up in his Top Gun ensemble nearly four years ago to tell us we won. The time since then has just been, well, hmm...
That aside, I don't think we'll pull out of Iraq anytime soon. This war was designed to last. Now that America is slowly waking up from the Republican fog it's been in for the past six years, though, maybe an exit strategy will become more clearly defined. Still, you have to make sense of all the American lives lost in this operation -- and that means more fighting, more terror alerts, more fear mongering and propaganda to come.
5 comments:
will call for a dramatic shift in war policy
That's odd since, in their own words, they weren't going to call for anything dramatic. Could this be al-CNN telling you what they want you to think?
Can't wait to see how the Right is going to spin this one.
As opposed to every single thing the liberal left has spun into a lie?
is also a call for bipartisan cooperation.
What you don't seem to notice is that means that the libs have to participate now and have to get in on the responsibility of it. They can't sit on their asses on the sidelines anymore casting stones.
In the end, it's not just the U.S. that stands to suffer from an Iraq in chaos.
Which leads one to wonder why anybody would support giving the Iraqi people the finger, splitting a la the Mog and letting the real bloodbath begin.
After all, W landed on a bomber dressed up in his Top Gun ensemble nearly four years ago to tell us we won.
First of all, it was an aircraft carrier. Second of all, what sort of attire would you wear in a fighter jet, a chicken suit? Third, the USS Abraham Lincoln was returning from duty in the Persian Gulf following the invasion. Their mission, in fact, had been accomplished. However, when you hate the military except when they serve as Meals On Wheels missions, I can see how you'd be confused.
First, I can't believe we're still tossing the word war around anyway.
You're right. It's the Iraq Theater.
Now that America is slowly waking up from the Republican fog it's been in for the past six years, though, maybe an exit strategy will become more clearly defined.
Conservatism won. Liberalism lost. Why, do you suppose, they had "democrats" pretending to love guns, love Jesus and oppose abortion? They had to pretend to be what they weren't. Also, why did Pelosi and Reid hide out for the last two weeks? Because they didn't want to say anything stupid like John F.You Kerry did and show people who they really are.
Still, you have to make sense of all the American lives lost in this operation -- and that means more fighting, more terror alerts, more fear mongering and propaganda to come.
It means more fabricated stories by al-AP, more national security leaks by al-NYT, more pulitzers for liberals who fabricate stories about torture and secret prisons, more orgasms by liberals who love to keep score of the number of US soldiers killed (meanwhile they don't give a DAMN about any progress made), more liberal support for our enemies, more outrageous lies from the liberals in their War on Truth, more of the liberals undermining the country, our soldiers and our will to defend ourselves etc. etc. etc. and hoping like hell that the American people are too damned stupid to know any better. All the while they'll DARE anybody to call them unpatriotic for it. I, sir, will be the first to do so.
You were right about the fearmongering though. The liberal champions of the art will continue to perfect it.
BTW, Where on Earth are those 500,000 Kosovar Albanians? Talk about lying us into a war. And where's the "exit strategy" in that little adventure of deflecting attention?
Ok, I'll bite (but I usually simply nip)...what is meant by 500,000 Kosovar Albanians?
That, Gene, is the reason we bypassed the U.N. and attacked Kosovo. BJ believed that 500,000 Albanians had been murdered and we had to do somehting about it. Problem was, they didn't exist, at least not the numbers we were promissed. I think it wound up being like 1,300 or something like that.
The point is, their sweet and precious lord BJ, as usual, looked us right in the eye and lied to us. But do the liberals give a shit? No. He was a "democrat" after all.
Thank you. The following is provided FYI. I know you're interested in being as accurate as possible; there seems to be a conflict about numbers.
A Google search for 500,000 Kosovar Albanians leads to this website: http://www.answers.com/topic/albanians , and contains this information:
"Due to the high rate of migration of various ethnic groups throughout the Balkans in the last two decades, exact figures are difficult to obtain. A tenuous breakdown of Albanians by location is as follows:
3,385,000 in Albania according to CIA World Factbook
2,179,000 in Serbia, of which 2,112,000 in the province of Kosovo (the OSCE estimates) "
There is, of course, more. It would seem the 500,000 figure actually went to "509,000 in the Republic of Macedonia (from the 2002 census)."
Post a Comment