House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

How is that relevent? The bill being proposed forces us out by October 2008 - two months before a new administration comes in. If you want to argue that we should be focused on saving US lives, then Dems are being terribly irresponsible as well and should simply set a deadline of next month.

 

They can't do that, but setting one that is a good distance away gives the Iraqis time to get ready.

They need to take control of their own country.....time to bring our boys and girls home.

DD

 

Fine. I actually used Bush's name after backspacing through "we" because when it comes down to it, we started this mess. The circumstances of our starting it and the manner in which the campaign have been conducted are regrettable, but what needs to happen now is that we need to take a big, huge reality pill and decide what our way forward is.

Part of what the '06 elections were about was the fact that we have no clear direction, no clear exit strategy, not even hard benchmarks or as little as even a vague definition of "victory." That needs to be changed as evidenced by the elections and that is what the dems are trying to give to the people that elected them. I honestly don't think that putting down a hard date for the beginning of withdrawal is unreasonable.

That is especially true when you look at the timing. Eighteen months is plenty of time to see if the new general can turn the situation around. If that is the case and we can begin to withdraw, great. If they can truly not handle ALL of their security, but can handle a slow drawdown, I am certain that the dems will be MORE than happy to make that kind of arrangement leading up to the elections in '08.

But if Iraq keeps devolving no matter what we throw at it over the next 18 months, I think we should have an automatic "relief valve" that gives us a way out. It is no secret, everyone is aware, nobody is in the dark about what our plans are, and if all they want to do is have an all-out civil war for the next decade, there is no good reason to be in the middle of the crossfire.

If we don't have some kind of hard date for withdrawal, that is all we can possibly have. The current admin has not proven to be reliable on their predictions, assessments, or truly anything about the situation in Iraq.

If we could just get a clear definition of what "victory" in Iraq will look like, especially if that goal is actually achieveable, that would be something, but we can't even get that.

They did that and more! They gave more money for the war effort than anyone asked for because they thought it was necessary, but what they are saying now is that they will not give the money sans strings anymore. We have had that kind of Congress for six years and it has gotten us in a pretty bad spot in Iraq.

That is exactly what this bill is for. Bush will not draw down troops while he is President, but with an October '08 date we will at least have the clock ticking for the next Congress and President. If the situation warrants, they can extend the deployment.

The bill does not impede the new general's tactics, does not stop the president from directing the armed forces, and does not deprive the armed forces of anything they need. It starts the clock, and that is a good thing. As anyone who has ever seen a NASA countdown can attest, the ticking clock can be paused or turned off altogether, but this bill takes away the administration's ability to continue to be vague about our plans or the situation on the ground.

And it gives the troops more money than was asked for. Win-win.

 

They will have 18 months to make progress towards that goal. They have already been working on it for four years and if five and a half years isn't enough, then we need to move in another direction.

Besides, the "enemy" you say we "invited in" is Iraqis. By all accounts, Al Qaeda is a tiny percentage of the fighters in Iraq and, while we did invite them in, they are not by and large the people that are fighting in Iraq.

 

The unrealistic and irresponsible part is expecting us to continue an endless war without any path to victory (of course, you have to define it before you can plan a path to it), without any limits, without any accountability, and without any regard for the wishes of either Americans or Iraqis.

 

Come on, a year and a half is a LONG time and if we cannot make any progress, we NEED to be out by October of '08. If progress is actually being made, but the drawdown needs to be lengthened, the Dems would be fools to refuse a reasonable request. At any rate, whoever wins in '08 will bear the lion's share of directing a drawdown and if the country decides to vote for someone who favors a continuation of the war, they can work it out then.

But we needs benchmarks, we need accountability, and we need progress. If we cannot get that after 5.5 years, it is time to call the whole thing off.

 

Other stuff is in the bill too. If I offered you a bag full of cash no strings attached, it would be a bit different than if I offered you a bag of cash if you would just kill your wife first.

 

HAHA I get it you are making a joke based on my screen name. Oh my God that is so funny and original. You have given me tredmendous enjoyment while shaming me into becoming a democrat. I thank you sir and hope that one day I will be half of the godlike man that you are.

BTW, the analogy was fine. I was pointing out that there were strings attached in the bill. There is a difference between strings attached and no strings attached, which my analogy perfectly demonstrated.

 

Why? If its OK to be there until October 2008, why not February 2009?

No they wouldn't. The drawdown would be done before Bush left office, meaning there would be no chance of looking at other strategies or options and salvaging the situation.

Nothing that has happened up to now matters. Pulling the troops to punish the Bush administration is stupid. The only thing that matters is taking the course of action from here on out that produces the best end outcome given where we are. Getting out right before an election doesn't do that - it simply plays politics. If it's a such a bad situation, get out now. If it's possible to win, give the military an opportunity to do that. You don't micromanage wars from Washington - that's the absolute, single worst thing you can do. Creating an artificial deadline forces the military and the Bush Admin to take more chances than they should in order to meet the dumb deadline - that's just human nature. Virtually by definition, it precludes simply taking the best strategy.

 

None of that has anything to do with putting an artificial Congressionally mandated deadline in purely for political purposes.

 

Again, there are a lot more players than Iraq and Al Queda. Iraqis don't have access to the money, resources, and weapons that are making the insurgency possible.

 

Out of curiousity, if Clinton was in the Whitehouse, and asked for a bill to help feed the poor, and it included all the money he wanted but included various anti-abortion provisions and such, would you say he was stupid for vetoing money he asked for?

Yeah - I was using the house dates. I wonder what will come out of committee, and whether it will still pass both chambers.

 

By the way, for those of you who say Iraq should take control of their country and beat down the insurgency. Has it occurred to anyone that our massive military, intelligence resources and technology hasn't been able to defeat it thus far? How exactly do we expect Iraqis without nearly any of the resources we have to suddenly defeat it?

 

Suddenly? Who said anything about suddenly.

They have to make their own way...but for starters, at least they all speak the language.

There is NO battlfield, therefore no military solution, our soldiers are not trained to be police officers in a foreign nation, they are taught to win a war.

The war is won, train the Iraqis and get the hell out of their country.

DD

 

It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so easy and black and white. Yeah, it's that easy. Nevermind that we screwed everything up. Just train them and it'll fix everything!

 

Quick question - what happens if you're wrong? What if that doesn't work, and Iraq doesn't get control of the country? Have you considered the long-term consequences to the US?

 

What? That they hate us and become a hot bed of terrorism, like Afganastan?

Sure, and it would be our fault, but the fact is they don't want us there, and we should leave.

Did Vietnam turn out that way?

Major, there is no winning end game, the Iraqis have to take control of their own country. Our troops are not trained to handle police duties, and they don't speak the same language.

DD

 

By writing in a withdrawl date into the bill does impede the new general and the Commander and Chief's tactics as their tactics might be looking at a longer time frame. Their strategy could be depending on a longer time frame to achieve a certain progress.

As I said before I don't disagree with Congress mandating withdrawl but I have some serious Constitutional problems with legislating battlefield strategy. If Congress wants flexibility in the situation instead of writing in a withdrawl date or benchmarks now in a bill but hold off until 18 months from now to come up with a bill to end it for good. As legislators they can still say that there is an 18 month clock, they can even pass a non-binding resolution on it, but writing this into an actual bill now to me is stepping into Constitutional powers reserved for the Executive.