Posted on 03/08/2007 7:30:03 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
The answer is simple... They will be home by Christmas. That is what bill clinton promised about our troops in Bosnia & Kosavo.
There are people in government and people who study security who believe that anti-American groups have succeeded in using our presence there to recruit a ton of new recruits. There's also the issue of finite resources, and that resources used there can't be used for other priorities.
I'm not saying it's true, just that it's not as ridiculous as it first seems, and it's not just leftist politicians.
I think their main reason is that they know as long as we have a military presence in Iraq, we cannot be defeated. We may take casualties but we won't lose. As Rush Limbaugh has said many times, the Democrats are DEMANDING defeat because that's their whole playbook.
They clearly not only despise him, but they are afraid of him as well.
Cowards and traitors, all.
Can you document this, please?
I've heard this bandied about, but know of no figures to back it up. Also by 'people in government' to whom are you referring? ('People' like Valerie Plame could be said to be 'in government' as well, not to mentioned any number of clintonista holdovers in any department).
From Rooters/Yahoo
House Democrats seek mid-2008 Iraq withdrawal By Richard Cowan
17 minutes ago
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday proposed legislation that would bring American combat troops out of Iraq by August 2008 at the latest.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat, wants the proposal approved next week in the House Appropriations Committee as part of a $100 billion bill to continue funding the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If so, the full House would debate the measure the following week.
"Our troops are out by no later than August of 2008" under the legislation, Pelosi told reporters.
The proposal is a challenge to President George W. Bush, who has ordered extra troops into Iraq to try to stabilize the country and opposes withdrawal deadlines.
A House aide said that Bush would not be able to waive or extend that deadline if the proposal becomes law. But Senate opposition could stop the legislation.
The plan provides for U.S. troops to withdraw even sooner if the situation does not improve in Iraq. If Bush could not certify progress toward ending violence there, withdrawals would begin in July of this year and be complete by December 31.
The measure would allow some troops to stay to train Iraqi soldiers and protect American diplomatic facilities.
But an influential group of liberal House Democrats, which wants a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31 this year, said they would oppose their leadership's plan and push for their own legislation.
Negotiations between Pelosi and the liberals could continue for the next two weeks under the planned timetable for passing the legislation.
The House plan would place tough conditions on Bush implementing his plan to ramp up U.S. forces fighting in Iraq. He said in January he would send in 21,500 more combat forces.
Under the bill, Bush would have to give troops adequate rest from combat missions and adequate training and equipping before sending them into war. Bush could waive those provisions, but at some political risk.
"We don't support any plan that would give the president the opportunity to waive" provisions," said Rep. Maxine Waters (news, bio, voting record), a war opponent who backs a December 31, 2007, complete troop withdrawal. She and other liberals questioned whether Bush's certifications that troops are properly trained and rested could be believed.
But Waters, a California Democrat, added that she was "encouraged" by discussions on Wednesday night with House Democratic leaders that resulted in the August, 2008, target date for removing combat forces, which Pelosi had originally set for December 31, 2008.
(additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)
They cannot dictate the "how" in any manner outside of cutting funding FOR the war.
They also cannot dictate a withdrawl, pull out, or redeployment from a theater of combat.
They cannot even withdraw/rescind the "we're giving you the green light go to war" resolution in accordance with the War Powers Resolution.
They can cut funding, nothing more...they can use their power to cut funding as leverage, but they cannot dictate a timeline for commanding the military in a bill.
And after the plan was finalized.. "screw them" and publish "the plan".. Just before he pulled out of the "agreement with them"..
Ah! but George is not that smart.. or republican..
That's true, of course, but the "war" already happened. In 2003. That ship has sailed. What the people I'm talking about are obsessed with isn't even "a war" per se, it's a military occupation and reconstruction. The people opposed to this are so blinded (for whatever reason) that they don't even know what they're protesting. The "war" they're so against (they're still arguing about "WMDs") already took place. To listen to 99% of these people, it's as if they think that there's still a full-on "war" going on which they think can be "stopped" by pulling out our troops. (Paradoxically, these same people go on and on about how Iraq is in an unsolvable state of civil war.)
What I'm saying is, the simple belief that "war is bad" can't quite explain the obsession with the Iraq occupation.
Too bad Blunt apparently doesn't have a clue as to where to go about getting good news from Iraq. Probably too lazy to do anything but switch on CNN.
Their absence from this thread speaks volumes..
And this fact has tangibly affected the lives of the average people whining about it in the following ways (please fill in the blanks): ______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
?????
And, there's the belief that our presence there makes us less safe overall and not more safe.
Is there really such a "belief"? What would such a "belief" be based on exactly? All the attacks we've endured on our homeland since the invasion in 2003?
I don't doubt that there are people who "believe" that having a military presence in Iraq "makes us less safe". Actually... yes I do, come to think of it. I do doubt that. Certainly, there are people who claim in arguments to believe that being in Iraq "makes us less safe".
However, these people have not changed the daily behavior of their lives one iota, as far as I can see. They certainly aren't acting as if they "believe" that they are "less safe". I think it's an insincere, disingenuous pretense, myself. People who oppose us having a military presence in Iraq say "I think it's making us 'less safe'!" because they want to say something that sounds rational. However, deep down I don't think they don't really believe that at all. Do you? really?
Good point, but that explanation just raises a new question, i.e.:
Why do the Moveon people (&c) care so much that we have a military presence in Iraq? so much that they'll donate millions to candidates who promise/talk about ending it?
This explains media behavior re: the war, certainly. It doesn't quite explain the motivations of the "anti-war" (really, anti-reconstruction) faction however, unless what you're saying is that media focus on Iraq helps fuel these arguments, makes everyone feel like it's "important" and they need to "take a position" on the issue. Actually, that's likely.
There is something to this. When I listen to many of the so-called "anti-war" people, what really seems to bother them, at root, is the prospect of the U.S. wielding power successfully.
But why are they so against that? That's what I can't figure out.
I should have clarified.
They don't see a difference between "war" and "cleaning up the mess thereafter".
Which just means that their current "anti-war" stance really amounts to a "let's not clean up messes or help stabilize countries" stance.
What a stupid, self-centered position to be holding. I wonder, why don't they see that? What is it about the situation that blinds them to the truth of what they advocate?
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.