What We Are About To Do Here Is What The Good Lord Would Call A Cleansing of the Wicked. I Call It A Good Old Fashioned Texas Ass Kicking.
Posted on 11/30/2005 2:21:23 PM PST by Hadean
Congressional Democrats are criticizing President Bush's speech on Iraq, saying he failed to detail a strategy for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Congressional Democrats say Mr. Bush's address did not offer a realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq, nor did it offer a plan for the future.
In his speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, the president highlighted progress in the training of Iraqi security forces. He said as Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, the United States will be able to decrease its troop levels. But he rejected setting a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal, saying it would send the wrong signal to U.S. allies and embolden the insurgents.
Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Bush did not paint a realistic picture of Iraqi troops' readiness.
"I think he was overly optimistic," Senator Reed says. "He failed to point out some of the internal tensions within the Iraqi security. First of all, it is going to be a very difficult challenge to build a truly national Iraqi security force. There are ethnic divisions, there are battalions that are almost exclusively Kurdish or Shi'ia. It is not yet a coherent, fully integrated national army. That is a long task ahead."
Even one key Republican, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says Mr. Bush needs to be more specific in addressing the readiness of Iraqi forces.
While praising the president's speech, Senator Lugar says he hopes Mr. Bush will discuss the issue on future occasions:
"This is something that really needs to be discussed," Mr. Lugar says. "What are the components of the Iraqi security forces? How do they interact with each other? Is there some central command that is Iraqi as opposed to the United States? Is there any coordination, as a matter of fact, between security forces town by town, as these towns are secured?"
Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who challenged Mr. Bush for the White House in last year's election, said victory in Iraq cannot be achieved solely through military means. He said the president's speech did not address the need to include support from Iraq's neighbors.
"There ought to be a much greater diplomatic leverage in the region," Senator Kerry says.
The top Democrat in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California, said Mr. Bush failed to offer a clear exit strategy from Iraq:
"The president provided no specifics on how or when the number of troops would be reduced," Ms. Pelosi says. "With more than 2,100 American soldiers killed, thousands more wounded grievously, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, the president owes the American people more than he provided today."
Mr. Bush has been under pressure from lawmakers to offer a detailed strategy in Iraq, amid public opinion polls that show a majority of Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the war.
Congressman Jack Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and a decorated military veteran, has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops as soon as possible. He estimates a withdrawal could be completed over a period of six months.
Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who is said to be considering running for president in 2008, has called for a troop withdrawal to begin this year.
But many other Democrats are opposed to setting a timetable for a troop pullout.
Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is among them. He addressed the issue in an interview with VOA's Press Conference USA program:
"I think a timetable set here in Washington by politicians would be a terrible idea," he says. "We have a lot on the line, the world (and), in my opinion, certainly the Iraqis have a lot on the line, in our successfully completing our mission in Iraq."
Senator Lieberman recently returned from a visit to Iraq, where he met with U.S. military commanders and troops and members of the elected Iraqi government.
Support from who? Iran? Syria? What a dolt.
What was their exit plan for Kosovo and Bosnia again? I seem to have missed that one.
Maybe the Democrats can't read?
Bush spells out his plan
Instead of saying, its a bad plan then spell out their own plan.
The Democrats say, Bush has no plan.
It seems that the "V" word isn't in their vocabulary.
"He's only been laying out the plan repeatedly for the last two years: train up the Iraq military, kill terrorists, and leave."
Exactly!
What they want is a date and time so that our enemy will lay low and when we're gone undo what Bush has done and make this war a disaster.
I'm glad these guys weren't around during WWII. They would have demanded that FDR give detailed plans in public for the Normandy invasion.
Speaking of "V", this is from the Voice of America. The smarmy-cutesy VOA is a shameful element of our foreign policy mix.
Well, see, that's why we have an all volunteer military. Some people aren't sharp enough to understand very plain, clear english. They would probably be able to understand it if the President drew pictures for them. Would that help?
That seal is, is so "french" of them!
Here we go again.....
Lytle: What is the U.S. exit strategy in Iraq?
Rumsfeld: It's what I just described. It is to see that we work with the Iraqis to pass off to them political responsibility for their country -- they already have a cabinet, they already have a governing council, they already have city councils all across that country, they're working on a constitutional process -- and see that they assume more and more of that responsibility as fast as they're capable of doing it. That's our goal. AND THE SAME THING'S TRUE WITH RESPECT TO SECURITY. That's our exit strategy. - Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Sheeeesh .... Talking to Dems is like talking to a brick wall.
Way to go 'Loogy... you 'stinkin POS!!
Methinks the Dems are starting to get worried that this war may be "won" before the next election. That would be a teal tragedy in their eyes. There is definitely a sense of urgency in their message. They're worried. No doubt about it.
Once again the MSM has rushed to circulate the cowardly and traitorous responses of the Stalinist democrats of the anti-American party. In a democracy such as ours, one can only weep for those who will lose their lives because of those traitors.
LOL....
"Many Democratic political strategists and foreign policy analysts have long believed the party can benefit more from criticizing Bush's handling of the war than from specifying an alternative."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.