Democrats are able to agree with each other on the issue of the Presidents new plan on Iraq, they do not like it...in fact they did not like it before it was even announced or shown to them, so this is no big surprise. They are not in accord with the question of what to do about it though.
With the conflict raging on here in the United States about our position on Iraq, it is generally agreed by the majority of Democrats and Republians that an immediate withdrawl is not an option.
In multiple statements, Hillary Clinton has made it clear that her view is that an immediate withdrawal would be, in her words, "a big mistake".
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake."
"I think that would cause more problems for us in America," the NY senator says about a premature pullout of Iraq.
More from Hillary Clinton:
The former first lady said an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a "big mistake."
"It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us," she said.
Barack Obama also has shown an understanding of what a premature withdrawal would mean to Iraq, the Middle East and to the United Staes of America.
But I believe that, having waged a war that has unleashed daily carnage and uncertainty in Iraq, we have to manage our exit in a responsible way - with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.
In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinquish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home.
I believe we all know where Joe Lieberman stands on this issue, but for the sake of this post and anybody who does NOT know:
I fear it would also send another message to our terrorist enemies and to the sectarian militias in Iraq that America is not prepared to see this fight through until the Iraqis themselves can take over. That will naturally encourage the terrorists to accelerate their cruel and inhuman attacks and it will signal the sectarian groups to hunker down and rearm their militias to strengthen themselves for the civil war that they fear will follow a premature American retreat, and that might well create conditions that none of us want, which is to say chaos, and civil war, in Iraq, and even regional war in the Middle East. And the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 being able to claim victory in Iraq, and going on emboldened to attack us again here at home and to bring their terrorism to more Arab countries in the Middle East. That is why I said the war in Iraq, whatever anyone thinks of how we got there, is now a war of necessity, a war we must help the people of Iraq win, or the security of we, the people of America, our children, and grandchildren will be gravely endangered.
I could go on and on in quoting Democratic pundits and political players in stating the ramifications of an immediate withdrawal would be devastating, yet I do not see any fresh, new ideas on exactly what to do.... we see Congress and the Senate state that it is the Presidents responsibility to come up with a new direction in Iraq, yet every time he does, they criticize and try to block the plan from implementation.
Yes, thats VERY helpful.
The Iraq Study Group's recommendations were pretty much waved off by all because the ideas and the implementation of those ideas were unrealistic, but as I said at the time, their analysis of Iraq, although grim, was a well thought out analysis.
If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the world. Continuing violence could lead toward greater chaos, and inflict greater suffering upon the Iraqi people.... Iraq's security forces could split along sectarian lines. A humanitarian catastrophe could follow as more refugees are forced to relocate across the country and the region. Ethnic cleansing could escalate. The Iraqi people could be subjected to another strongman who flexes the political and military muscle required to impose order amid anarchy....
"Other countries in the region fear significant violence crossing their borders. Chaos in Iraq could lead those countries to intervene to protect their own interests, thereby perhaps sparking a broader regional war. Turkey could send troops into northern Iraq to prevent Kurdistan from declaring independence. Iran could send in troops to restore stability in southern Iraq and perhaps gain control of oil fields. The regional influence of Iran could rise at a time when that country is on a path to producing nuclear weapons.
"Ambassadors from neighboring countries told us that they fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world. Many expressed a fear of Shia insurrections -- perhaps fomented by Iran -- in Sunni-ruled states. Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems -- including the radicalization of populations, mass movements of populations, and regime changes -- that might take decades to play out.
"If the instability in Iraq spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop in oil production and exports could lead to a sharp increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy.
"Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, `Al-Qaida is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald's.' Left unchecked, al-Qaida in Iraq could continue to incite violence between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally.
In fact, about the only politicians that recommend an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of our troops in Iraq are John Murtha and a few others that wish to choke the funding as well as Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda leaders that are in full agreement with Murtha, Reid, Edwards and Kennedy.
Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the best way for him to end the ongoing violence and ensure stability and security was to begin the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. Khamenei was explicit in his desire to see the rapid departure of American soldiers, but the consequences of a premature U.S. withdrawal would prove to be nothing short of catastrophic.
There are three basic parties, excluding American Democrats, which are actively pushing for the removal of U.S. and coalition troops from Iraq: Iran, the Shiite faction led by radical Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the foreign jihadists who have flocked to Iraq to confront the United States in the Global War on Terror.
Iran has been making a concerted effort to establish itself as the leading state in the Middle East. In pursuit of this strategic goal, Khamenei and Iranian President Ahmadinejad have been actively antagonizing the United States over their nuclear program in order to portray Iran as a nation that must be reckoned with. Simultaneously, the Iranians have used Hezbollah to wage a proxy war against Israel, and the Shiites in southern Iraq to foment unrest that threatens the fragile government in Baghdad.
The conflict in Lebanon and the increasing Shiite-Sunni violence are meant to further demonstrate to the west that Iran has the ability, and the will, to destabilize the entire region for political gain. With the United States out of Iraq, there would be little to stop the Iranians from turning Iraq into a satellite state that could help cement Iran's hegemony in the Middle East.
Muqtada al-Sadr has been a thorn in the side of the United States since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. His Mehdi Army has confronted U.S. and coalition troops in battle and his followers are largely responsible for the Shiite death squads attacking the Sunni minority and pushing Iraq closer to all-out civil war. Al-Sadr is closely aligned with the Shiite leadership in Iran and he has consistently called for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq. The absence of U.S. troops would allow Al-Sadr's militia to conduct a genocide campaign against the Sunnis while providing Iran with additional leverage over the government in Baghdad.
Finally, Islamic extremists from all over the world have traveled to Iraq to join the battle against the United States and the west. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and various other fundamentalist groups, while constituting a minority of the Iraqi insurgency, are determined to take advantage of the current chaos to wage war on anyone, Iraqis included, who opposes the formation of an Islamic state. The withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would embolden the jihadists, who would then take advantage of the power vacuum to promote Islamic rule similar to that of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Finish reading page two here to see those that are opposed to an immediate troop withdrawal, excluding those in the repubican party and their reasons why.
Now before addressing the ramifications of an immediate withdrawal, let us take a look at what history should have taught us.... Somalia, 1993.
Murtha has failed to heed the Somalia lesson. In 1993, he urged President Clinton to withdraw troops from Somalia, using arguments very similar to those he uses today to justify our withdrawal from Iraq.
In September of that year, Murtha stated during a television interview, “Our welcome has been worn out,” that Clinton had been “listening to our suggestions” and “I think you’ll see him move those troops out very quickly.”
Sound familiar?
Our hasty withdrawal from Somalia emboldened terrorists to attack the U.S. homeland. Osama bin Laden cited the withdrawal from Somalia as a victory for Islamist forces and an example for militants to follow when he “declared war” against the United States in 1996. Bin Laden said:
“But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia … However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. …”
Still, Murtha continues to laud Clinton’s “change in direction” in Somalia as a good example of wartime leadership.
Had Clinton stood fast in Somalia, he might have averted 9/11. He might have deterred terrorists from attacking the United States.
Murtha seems to ignore the connection.
When the Johnstown Democrat criticized the Bush administration’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, I thought that he would at last share his concrete counterproposals.
The administration’s plan is pretty detailed and comprehensive and I expected an intelligent retort. But I heard nothing new from Murtha besides his “we must redeploy” refrain.
Murtha’s argument for withdrawal is emotional, based wholly on the deaths and sufferings of American troops in Iraq and of their families back home.
It is an easy argument for him to make because no explanation, no matter how noble, will ever soothe this pain. Yet, Murtha must not be allowed to hide behind that pain without explaining how he would protect our long-term national security.
Otherwise, the sacrifices incurred by our men and women in uniform in Iraq would have been in vain.
Setting an arbitrary date for withdrawing from Iraq would be a mistake. As the Somalia experience proves, a hasty withdrawal would re-embolden the terrorists to act against the United States; may lead to the radicalization of Iraq; and would unleash Iran to impose its will upon the region and the world.
Iran’s ongoing effort to build a nuclear capability underscores this intent.
A hasty withdrawal would void the sacrifices made by our men and women in Iraq and would place future generations of Americans at risk of terrorist attacks and nuclear blackmail.
If the United States withdraws from Iraq as we did from Somalia, our enemies will know that all they have to do is wait us out and bleed us before we fold and they prevail.
Murtha should explain to us in detail his solutions to these dilemmas. He should tell us his plans to deal with the regional and global consequences of a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq.
Murtha should tell us how he will apply to the current conflict the lessons we learned from our withdrawal from Somalia because, so far, he has told us nothing besides his “we must redeploy” mantra.
In the absence of concrete details, I respectfully question Murtha’s leadership on the issue of the war in Iraq and his understanding of the consequences that such a retreat would have upon our national security.
The best solution is to stay the course. This policy might not be popular, but good policy seldom is.
For those that live under a rock or do not keep up with the news, it fell to the Ethiopians to clean up the mess that was left in Somalia by the last Murtha plan.
Now lets take a look at what experts all seem to agree on about the ramifications of an immediate withdrawal of our forces from Iraq.
From the Heritage Foundation we have five likely outcomes of an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq:
Consequence #1: An Army Up for Grabs. A sudden U.S. withdrawal would raise the risks of full-fledged civil war and disintegration of the army into hostile factions. The defection of soldiers to various militias, taking with them their heavy equipment, would bolster the militias’ firepower and capacity to seize and hold terrain. The result would be a bloody and protracted civil war such as the conflict in Bosnia following the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.From WorldThreats.com, we have more consequences from a premature withdrawal of American and coalition troops in Iraq:
Consequence #2: Energy Uncertainty. Growing anarchy in Iraq and the possible breakup of the country into autonomous regions would severely affect Iraq’s oil exports. In 2005, Iraq produced about 1.9 million barrels per day (MBD) of oil and exported about 1.4 MBD. By June 2006, Iraqi oil production had risen to 2.5 MBD, and the government hopes to increase production to 2.7 MBD by the end of the year. A U.S. withdrawal would undermine the security of oil pipelines and other facilities and increase the vulnerability of Iraqi oil production to sabotage. The resulting drop in Iraqi oil exports would increase the upward pressure on world oil prices in an already tight oil market. Energy uncertainty would be increased further if Iraq splintered and Iran gained domination over a Shia-dominated rump state in the oil-rich south.
Consequence #3: Allies in Jeopardy. The chief beneficiary of a rapid U.S. pullout would be Iran, which has considerable influence over the dominant Shiite political parties, which represent most Iraqi Shiites: about 60–65 percent of the population. If Iraq imploded, Iran quickly could gain dominance over an emerging “Shiastan” rump state endowed with the bulk of Iraq’s oil reserves. This would give Iran additional resources and a staging area to escalate subversive efforts targeted at the Shiite majority in Bahrain and Shiite minorities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. These and other countries look to the United States to serve as a guarantor against an aggressive Iran. If the United States fails to follow through on its commitment to establish a stable government in Iraq, it will severely undermine its credibility. Abandoning Iraqi allies would erode the confidence of other allies in U.S. leadership and further fuel conspiracy theories about American plots to carve up Iraq to keep Arabs weak and divided.
Consequence #4: Al-Qaeda Triumphant. Osama bin Laden would trumpet an abrupt U.S. withdrawal as a victory for al-Qaeda and proof that America is a “paper tiger,” just as he claimed after the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia in 1994. An unstable, failed state in Iraq would also provide al-Qaeda and other radical groups with a sanctuary for recruiting a new generation of suicide bombers and a strategically located staging area for deploying terrorists for attacks on Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere around the world. The recently declassified “key judgments” of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,” pointed out that a perceived victory for jihadists in Iraq would boost their strength and ability to threaten Americans.
Consequence #5: A Humanitarian Catastrophe. Iraq is a mosaic of ethnic, sectarian, and tribal subgroups. Baghdad and other major cities include significant intermingling of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turcomans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and other Christians. Instability and civil war would put many of these people to flight, creating a vast humanitarian crisis that would dwarf those seen in Bosnia and Kosovo and rival the scenes of horror and privation witnessed in Cambodia, Congo, Rwanda, and Sudan. Not only would Iraqis be put at risk of disease, starvation, and violence, but with the government unable to meet their basic needs, the Iraqi refugees would fall under the control of the sectarian militias, turning Iraq into Lebanon on steroids.
An Alternative to Failure. A continued U.S. military presence cannot ensure success in Iraq unless Iraqis cooperate in building an effective government, but a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. support would unquestionably guarantee failure, with disastrous results for Iraq, its neighbors, and U.S. national interests. The only winners would be an expansionist Iran and an increasingly lethal al-Qaeda.
The alternative is to insist that the Bush Administration finish the job it started by completing the training of Iraqi security forces, supporting Iraq’s new democratic government, beginning the disciplined reduction of American forces, and turning the future of Iraq over to the only people who can ensure the nation’s long-term success—the Iraqis.
The following is a list of consequences that any advocate of a withdrawal must consider:Joint Chiefs oppose Iraq Pullout:
Moral Consequences
* There are 25 million Iraqis engaged in the battlefield of Iraq, and hundreds of millions of Arabs and other Muslims whose fate will be decided by Iraq and the region’s future. There can be no more selfish act that to deny the Iraqis, who have fought and died along our side, the security, freedom and optimistic future for their families that we so cherish.
* Withdrawal would mean watching as millions of Iraqis are slaughtered by terrorists, insurgents, militias, and neighboring states as each faction struggles to take the spoils. We would also have to watch as hundreds of thousands of children die from treatable diseases, as any humanitarian effort would fail due to the violence.
* Advocates of withdrawal also must be willing to sacrifice the potential of freedom-loving people in the region. Democratic success in Iraq threatens nearby tyrannies and empowers those fighting them. Women who aren’t allowed to drive and are persecuted for showing skin, young girls who are stoned for being raped, homosexuals who are hung for their relationships, student activists who are tortured in jail for criticizing their leader must be looked in the face and be told, “The Americans didn’t feel your plight was a high enough priority. We wish you success in the future, but this superpower won’t be around to help you.”
Military Consequences
* Senator John McCain, a former POW in Vietnam, said it best this week when he stated that “the only thing worse than a stressed military, is a broken and defeated military.” Withdrawal would mean the complete collapse of morale in the military and a reluctance to support a responsible military budget. Failing to support and fund our military leaves our troops without the armor they need, and our political leaders without the option of force in dealing with foreign enemies.
* Advocates of a withdrawal think it will end the war, but it will not. The disastrous security situation in Iraq will lead to a terrorist sanctuary that the United States will then have to confront. Our uniformed men and women who came home the first time will have to enter again under much harsher and costlier conditions.
Consequences in Iraq
* Withdrawal would lead to a collapse of the elected Iraqi government, who all would then have to flee outside the region or be executed by terrorists. All the work done to bring about elections and representation for all the people of Iraq would vanish.
* In southern Iraq, the “Islamization” process would move full throttle, stripping away individual rights, particularly those of women. As Islamic extremist rule increases, and Iran grows more powerful, a radical Shiite state will be created that will oppress not only its own citizens, but seek to oppress others.
* Sectarian violence will spiral out of control, killing millions of Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia. Even more will be forced to flee their homes as radical militias seek to create homogenous regions. Shiite terrorist groups like Hezbollah will likely find safe haven and support.
* Sunni territory will become home to an assortment of terrorist organizations that will use it as a base to fund and plan attacks on the United States and nearby moderate Muslim nations. Al-Qaeda, who will certainly not hesitate to attack us again, will have access to safe harbor, recruits, and oil revenue.
* The Kurds of northern Iraq will likely declare independence, but will probably see a tremendous amount of violence and despair, as continued below.
Consequences in the Middle East
* The voices of those who want freedom and justice will be silenced. While the movement for democratic change will continue, its prospects for victory will diminish and come at a much higher cost.
* Iran, the #1 sponsor of terrorism and home to several Al-Qaeda leaders, will grow in power and become the leader of the region. It will become easier for Iran’s government, who denies the holocaust has ever happened and has repeatedly cited the destruction of Israel and the United States as its goal, to obtain nuclear weapons. The West will find its options to deter, isolate and affect Iran’s behavior very limited.
* In response to the growth of Iran’s power, countries in the region - such as Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the states in the Gulf - will obtain nuclear weapons. Iran’s leadership has expressed willingness to share its nuclear technology with other rogue states like Syria and Venezuela.
* Saudi Arabia will increase its support to Sunni jihadists and Wahhabists (which spawned Osama Bin Laden) in order to counter Iran’s influence. There may very well be a bloody civil war inside Saudi Arabia, causing oil prices to hit a new spike and possibly bringing the American economy into a deep recession.
* Nearby countries will probably increase the oppression of its dissidents in order to stifle any attempt at foreign subversion.
* The growth in power of terrorist elements will lead to a complete breakdown in the Middle East Peace Process, and renewed fighting between Israeli and militant Palestinian groups.
* Israel will have to take an even more hawkish stance towards Iran, quite possibly leading to a nuclear showdown.
* Turkey will invade northern Iraq to stop the emergence of a Kurdish state, leading to yet another war. Iran will almost certainly join in.
* One of the problems the United States has had among Iraqis is that they don’t believe we will stay to protect them, so they sit on the sidelines and won’t stand up to the terrorists. A premature withdrawal would forever eliminate any goodwill and trust between America and the people of the Middle East, instead it will be replaced by bitterness and hatred as its people watch their family members die due to American selfishness. Any hope of having a foreign ally would diminish, since no one would trust the United States to stand by them in tough times.
The consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq are not limited to Iraqi territory, or even to the region. They are felt worldwide, in every conflicted nation and every oppressed people. Some of the scenarios above may come to pass regardless of a withdrawal, but a withdrawal would guarantee these outcomes, and certainly exasperate them. The most immediate consequence would obviously be a base for terrorists in Iraq, who would find access to the oil revenue they previously never possessed in Afghanistan. The terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001 would find themselves in possession of even greater resources, and would be free to finance as they wish, arm as they wish, and build any kind of weapon they wish, in order to kill innocent Americans.
Withdrawing from Iraq would not end the war, it would prolong it. Some ignorant Americans argue we aren’t at war, but I’d ask such Americans to take a visit to Ground Zero, or talk to our Iraqi allies, or read any of Osama Bin Laden’s statements.
All six members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, amid an ongoing Pentagon review of strategy for Iraq, oppose pulling out U.S. troops now, and are also against a specific withdrawal timetable, a defense source said yesterday.Then we have the NYT piece, written Nov. 15th, 2006, "Get Out of Iraq Now, Not so Fast Experts Say":
"The chiefs are solid. They want victory," the source said. "There is no dissent."
The Joint Chiefs -- which includes Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman, along with a vice chairman and the heads of the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy -- have been meeting several times a week to review a list of Iraq options for President Bush.
The Pentagon has said all options are open for consideration during the far-reaching review. But on the question of withdrawal, the issue is settled in favor of Mr. Bush's position, the source said.
"We are looking at the whole spectrum of possible military actions," Gen. Pace said yesterday. "I'm not going to say to you where I am personally, nor where the chiefs are, because our responsibility is to give our best military advice."
A Pentagon spokesman said he had no information on the chiefs' positions.
At a press conference, Gen. Pace endorsed the idea of shifting more Iraqi forces into violence-wracked Baghdad, where Shi'ite and Sunni terrorists are on a killing spree to gain control of the capital. A number of lawmakers, including Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and House Armed Services Committee chairman, advocate sending more Iraqi battalions to the capital.
"I think that idea has a good amount of appeal for multiple reasons," Gen. Pace said. "Because Baghdad is extremely important to the Iraqi government, and their armed forces and their security forces are the proper long-term solution to that problem."
One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.
This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.
But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.
Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.
“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”
[...]
John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”
“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”
Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.
[...]
Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution who served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, also argued that a push for troop reductions would backfire by contributing to the disorder in Iraq.
“If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion that the United States is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality of civil war tomorrow,” he said. “That is how civil wars start.”
The American people are sick and tired of seeing death and destruction on their televisions and in their newspapers... but, does anyone think that if we withdraw immediately that those pictures will go away? Or will we then see even more horrible pictures of genocide and beheadings, torture and a complete breakdown of Iraq and a full fledged regional war begin?
It is very easy to take a "moral" stand and say enough, we want a conclusion and then to criticize any and all strategies that the administration proposes to bring us TO a conclusion.
It is also very easy to say "We cannot stay the course", "we cannot leave immediately", "we do not want more troops in Iraq"......but what exactly DO they want? The war to be over and the US to succeed...well wishing for it, isn't going to make it happen...some PLAN is needed and if one cannot offer an alternate plan, at least the President has, which is more than I have seen from anyone else.
It is fine and dandy to debate, criticize and oppose a plan, but to do so without offering ANY alternate measures that would lead to stabilizing Iraq, is indeed, as the President stated, very irresponsible.
Political games are being played out in our newspapers and our televisions, but not many people are asking the one question that could perhaps HELP us succeed in Iraq...... what is your alternate plan for success?
To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.-----George Bush.
He has a point...whether you agree with him, like him or detest him, he is right.
OPEN TRACKBACK MONDAY.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rightwing Guy, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, stikNstein... has no mercy, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox News, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tracked back by:
Democrats Revealed from Rightwing Guy...
U.S. Military to Ditch the Red Cross for the Red C from Faultline USA...
PrisonerS GeT their own SpooNS..yay from Woman Honor Thyself...
Employers should Pay less for Overtime hours from Planck's Constant...
Cox Calls King a Visionary from Idaho For Cox...
Ixnay on the Cross eh.. in the U.K. from Woman Honor Thyself...
Last Post on "24" ... Promise! from Dumb Ox Daily News...
Be HonesT ’bout Po-rn from Woman Honor Thyself...
.
