Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abandoning Iraq (1. Declare victory: 2. Cut; 3. Run)
RealClearPolitics ^ | November 8, 2006 | David Warren

Posted on 11/08/2006 10:30:21 AM PST by quidnunc

Regardless of its final composition, and regardless of other pressing issues or its mandate, the leading item of business for the new U.S. Congress will be Iraq.

It didn't matter who won control of each house — the fix was already in. Look at the composition of the Baker-Hamilton commission, which the outgoing Congress had already appointed to "find a way out of Iraq" — a bipartisan commission, representing the foreign-policy opponents of President Bush in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Soon it will formally report.

James Baker, secretary of state under President Bush's father, was the man who, in 1989, secured an American exit from Lebanon by effectively surrendering the country to Assad's Syria. Lee Hamilton, former Democrat chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, joined him in stacking the Commission's study groups with men and women representing the pre-9/11 foreign policy consensus, which could be summarized in the phrase, "stability through disengagement". On the Baker-Hamilton plan, Congress will take the war in Iraq out of President Bush's hands, as Congress took the Vietnam War out of President Nixon's. Iraq will then be delivered into the hands of Iran's ayatollahs.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: Allegra
We can't. Not after all that's been achieved. We can't pull out now. We cannot do that to our armed forces and our allies who have worked so hard, sacrificaed so much and come such a long way here.

We can't leave them high and dry now!

The decisions as to the right and honorable things to do were placed in the wrong hands last night. They'll do whatever they feel is in the best interests their future power. Those who have sacrificed can just deal with it.

41 posted on 11/08/2006 11:02:35 AM PST by AngryJawa ({NRA}{IDPA} Proud Infidel Since 1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Loyolas Mattman
"Give me one reason why terrorists would be more likely to strike now, as opposed to if we kept congress."

Because the people of America just blinked.

42 posted on 11/08/2006 11:03:35 AM PST by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras

How did we blink on 9/11?


43 posted on 11/08/2006 11:05:29 AM PST by Loyolas Mattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
G Larry wrote: Now that the terrorists have beat us at the ballot box, how long before they blow up a few more U.S. cities?

They won't do that and risk rousing the American public such as happened after 9/11.

Instead they are going to subject us to the death of a thousand cuts on the peripheries until our resolve collapses completely and we surrender to their will.

44 posted on 11/08/2006 11:05:47 AM PST by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

A nightmarish article. Scary because it's true.


45 posted on 11/08/2006 11:06:11 AM PST by stanz (Those who don't believe in evolution should go jump off the flat edge of the Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

A must read.


46 posted on 11/08/2006 11:07:43 AM PST by stanz (Those who don't believe in evolution should go jump off the flat edge of the Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
Those who have sacrificed can just deal with it.

When you trivialize the best of the American crop like that, you insult us all.

47 posted on 11/08/2006 11:08:41 AM PST by Allegra (Help! I'm "Stuck in Iraq!" I KNEW I Should Have Studied Harder....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rllngrk33
"I'll bet we have a terrorist attack within six months."

Yes, and Republicans will blame the Democrats declaration of defeat in Iraq, and the Democrats will blame the Republicans failure in Iraq.

"The only question is, what are you prepared to do about it?"

48 posted on 11/08/2006 11:11:00 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (Osama Wins!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SFGI
I think the MSM will start telling everyone the Democrats are doing a great job, look at the economy, the success in Iraq...and so on.

That would be great, IMHO. Who cares who gets the credit, so long as we WIN.

Problem is our internal enemies probably won't be satisfied with anything short of complete and definitive defeat, just as was the case wrt Vietnam. BTW, the ostensible claim that they just want to "bring the troops home" is lie, as was also proved by Vietnam. The American (and international) left actively pursued the defunding, deligitimization, demoralizing and defeat of South Vietnam even after America troops had been removed from the country and a peace treaty was signed.

Of course their overriding aim is not defeat for America as such, but America's humiliation and humbling of its supposed predatory "arrogance" thereby. I'd even be satisfied if it could be made to appear to the American Left (while not so much to our external enemies) that America had been "humbled," but in such a way that we could still actually win. I doubt that's possible though.

49 posted on 11/08/2006 11:12:16 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Loyolas Mattman

ummm,

didnt the WTC get bombed in 93?

or is Ramzi Youseff in jail for J-walking?


50 posted on 11/08/2006 11:13:56 AM PST by ONTHEFIFTY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
Allegra,

Sorry. I need to clear up what I wrote. I meant that from the Dems perspective.

My personal view of last night's nightmare w.r.t. those who have sacrificed, you included, cannot be stated without wanting to cry.

51 posted on 11/08/2006 11:15:17 AM PST by AngryJawa ({NRA}{IDPA} Proud Infidel Since 1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Loyolas Mattman

WTF? We blinked yesterday. Who said anything about 9/11?


52 posted on 11/08/2006 11:15:31 AM PST by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ONTHEFIFTY

Yeah, sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referring to the time running between the two WTC attacks.


53 posted on 11/08/2006 11:17:27 AM PST by Loyolas Mattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Loyolas Mattman
There was no Patriot Act from 1993-2001 and we didn't get hit then, either (OKC being a debatable exception). We don't have enough information to know if we haven't gotten hit because of the Patriot Act, etc. or because it's AQ's m.o. to wait years between attacks if it suits them. And based on the President's performance in today's presser, I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The terrorist haven't been able to successfully hit us again, but they have tried.

54 posted on 11/08/2006 11:18:55 AM PST by Chena ("I'm not young enough to know everything." (Oscar Wilde))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

Do you get the feeling that sleeper trolls are out in force today?


55 posted on 11/08/2006 11:19:43 AM PST by Chena ("I'm not young enough to know everything." (Oscar Wilde))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras
To your mind, terrorists attack when America blinks. What "blinking" caused 9/11?

Terrorists attack because they are nihilists. It is their nature, it's what they do and who they are.

If you accept the principle that if we do X, the terrorists will do Y, then the next logical step is that if we don't do A, the terrorists won't do B. Which opens the door to negotiating with terrorists, which I bet neither of us would be willing to do.
56 posted on 11/08/2006 11:21:18 AM PST by Loyolas Mattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Chena; Loyolas Mattman
The terrorist haven't been able to successfully hit us again, but they have tried.

It's likely they haven't hit us again because they have been engaged elsewhere.

57 posted on 11/08/2006 11:21:29 AM PST by Allegra (Help! I'm "Stuck in Iraq!" I KNEW I Should Have Studied Harder....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Chena
Do you get the feeling that sleeper trolls are out in force today?

YES!! They're ALL OVER THE PLACE on FR!

58 posted on 11/08/2006 11:22:53 AM PST by Allegra (Help! I'm "Stuck in Iraq!" I KNEW I Should Have Studied Harder....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Loyolas Mattman

We didn't blink on 9/11. We blinked thru the 90s and in 2000 with the USS Cole. Bin Laden has stated this so many times that we are a paper tiger, and the specific example he uses is Somalia. I would consider that a blink, wouldn't you?


59 posted on 11/08/2006 11:24:18 AM PST by newsjunkiepgh (I doubth the MSM will start changing their tune on current affairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
It's likely they haven't hit us again because they have been engaged elsewhere.

I wish I had thought to add that truthful statement too, Allegra. Well said!

60 posted on 11/08/2006 11:26:07 AM PST by Chena ("I'm not young enough to know everything." (Oscar Wilde))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson