home

BushCo To Consider September Iraq Troop Withdrawal

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:38:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

So the "Far Left" position on Iraq troop withdrawal now becomes the "centrist" view. The NYTimes reports:

The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.

Now, as usual, for reasons unknown, in the Village this is considered good political news for Republicans. Personally, I do not believe that but I also do not care. I want our troops out of combat in Iraq and anything that makes withdrawal from the Iraq Debacle more likely is welcome news.

< Obama No Longer Clinton 1992 Redux? | Foreign Policy Common Law >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    BushCo To Consider September Iraq Troop Withdrawal | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Oh Good (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:52:59 AM EST
    Now Obama can flip flop and change his 16 month withdrawal plan into a 10 month plan. Of course he will be bashed for pandering to the left...uh, I mean center, but I am OK with that.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    will get another good talking point. McCain will now get shown up for his foreign policy inexpertise with this development. Obama has been saying for a very long time that we need to move troops out from Iraq and put additional brigades in Afghanistan to fight the real battle against terrorism link.
    The foreign policy debate between Obama and McCain has not even formally started and McCain already seems to be on the way to lose it!

    Parent
    Well... as far as I've seen, McCain has (3.50 / 2) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    argued that we need to stay in Iraq until we win. The Bush administration is now claiming that we are winning. So we can now leave Iraq. That would mean McCain is right.


    Parent
    This line of argument (none / 0) (#16)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    will not work. If after all his taxpayer paid trips to Iraq, McCain could not figure out whether conditions on the ground were such that we could begin troop withdrawals within a couple of months and not decades, McCain's judgement on foreign policy and military matters will be heavily questioned. Ofcouse, McCain will try to put forth the argument that you provided, but I believe that the Obama campaign will pummel him hard on this matter. McCain is about to unravel on the only subject where he claims to have expertise!

    Parent
    Mission Accomplished (none / 0) (#42)
    by john horse on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    The Bush administration is now claiming that we are winning. So we can now leave Iraq. That would mean McCain is right.

    What do you mean the "Bush administration is now claiming that we are winning"?  Hasn't Bush said all along that we were winning.  If the only thing that has prevented us from leaving is an assertion from Bush that we are winning, then shouldn't we have left Iraq long ago?

    However, maybe you're right.  Maybe we should take Senator Aiken's advice during the Vietnam war - declare victory and withdraw.  I'll even chip in to get George W another "Mission Accomplished" banner.  

    Parent

    Good One! (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:35:49 PM EST
    Maybe we should take Senator Aiken's advice during the Vietnam war - declare victory and withdraw.  I'll even chip in to get George W another "Mission Accomplished" banner.

    I'm in on that. But you must know that what McSame/McBush is saying, what they are really saying is f'you, Iraq is ours. So the withdrawal (cough cough) is very limited at best.

    Parent

    Improving conditions in Iraq are (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Green26 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    resulting in consideration of withdrawl of more troops, in addition to the 5 surge brigades that are being withdrawn.

    This quote was in the Times article: "security in Iraq has improved vastly, as has the confidence of Iraq's government and military and police, raising the prospect of additional reductions that were barely conceivable a year ago."

    I hope this trend continues. My Ranger son is now back in Iraq for another deployment, so our family is back to the fulltime worry mode (and my wife keeps her mobile and landline close to her).

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47:18 AM EST
    This is important quote

    The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September
    .

    I want the troops removed as well, but I don't think this is more than posturing.  I didn't believe Hillary, and I sure as heck don't believe Bush, Obama, or McCain.  They will withdraw some troops - looks good for PR purposes - and then things will remain the same.  Colin Powell was right - we broke it, now we've bought it.  We will have troops there for decades to come - removing them will only cause more chaos (Plus, who is going to help guard the largest embassy in the world that is in Baghdad?  The one that is 104 acres in size?)

    LINK

    It's nice of Colin to make that statement, after (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:49:04 AM EST
    he wrote out the down payment.

    Parent
    Fair point (none / 0) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:52:47 AM EST
    But the sentiment, in my opinion, is the same.  We completely walk away now, then it will be a bloodbath until Iran or, worse, walks in and takes over the country.

    Besides, Bush only said he is considering removing additional troops - that is not the same as removing all the troops.

    Parent

    Nonsense (4.50 / 2) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:56:27 AM EST
    We completely walk away now, then it will be a bloodbath until Iran or, worse, walks in and takes over the country.
    You are infantilizing the Iraqi people. The Iraqis do not need us to protect them. Who are we big daddy? In fact our presence there inflames and incites the violence. If we left yesterday the Iraqis would be fine.

    They have been there since the beginning of civilization and do not need us to hold their hand.

    Parent

    Ok (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    If every single troop and piece of equipment left tomorrow, everything would be completely hunky dory?  There would be no struggle for power, Iraqi enemies wouldn't see weaknesses and seize an opportunity to exploit those weaknesses?  The infrastructure would suddenly be rebuilt and the Iraqi army would be put back together again, like Humpty Dumpty?

    No, they don't need us to hold their hand, but my point was that Bush, McCain, nor Obama is REALLY going to get us completely out of there any time soon.  Anyone who believes the political rhetoric is naive.

    Parent

    I agree with you cmugirl that (none / 0) (#18)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    the fighting will not stop.  Clearly, Iraq will be at risk for civil war and attacks by countries with oil interests.  The only things that stops religious terrorists from acting out centuries old tribal warfare are:  1) death, 2) permanent incarceration or 3) paying them to temporarily not kill, which is what we are doing now.  I personally don't want options #1 or 2 on my conscience, and I don't want #3 on my tab.  

    It's time to cut the new Iraq government loose.  Watch how fast oil production takes off when they're no longer dependent on our money to foot the bill for security, government rebuilding, infrastructure developments and the like.


    Parent

    You Are Talking In Circles (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    For one, it is a non-sequitur to call me naive because I believe that any of our leaders are going to pull our troops out of Iraq. But that is one way to think you have won a stupid argument, make up irrelevant stuff and then call it naive.

    And second, the basis of our invasion, occupation and call for indefinite occupation follows the logic of BushCo, and coincidentally your logic, that the Iraqi people need us to rescue them and save them from themselves. It is self perpetuating nonsense which only serves to rationalize permanent US occupation.

    Parent

    They need somebody to protect them (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:18:09 AM EST
    All people do. When we leave Iraq, Iran will step in and take over. The Iraqi people will be "fine", if you believe that living under Sharia law is "fine". Let's not pretend that when we leave everything will suddenly be sunshine and daisies. It will be a great tragedy for the Iraqi's, just like the invasion was.

    Parent
    Paternalism USA (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    Who are you to decide what the Iraqi people need. Sounds like BushCo logic and the logic of Imperialism.

    The poor Iraqi people need the big USA to decide what they want. And if it is sharia law we will just bomb the sh*t out of them again and send American tourists to take over.

    Parent

    Iraq was a tragedy even before the invasion (none / 0) (#22)
    by davnee on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    The people were living under a cruel dictator who was happy to commit genocide against his own people.  What we did was destabilize and destroy one living hell, at a high cost of treasure and blood to everyone, only to replace it with an even worse living hell.  We can't just leave altogether.  We're stuck.  If we leave altogether, then they are back to living under a cruel dictatorship - only it will be a cruel dictatorship that is far more threatening to the wider world than Iraq ever was.  It's all so tragic.

    Parent
    Except it wasn't a living hell (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM EST
    They had high living standards and the women had more equality than is generally granted in Arab nations. Yes, there was oppression, but it didn't effect everybody all the time. They had stability. Their biggest problem was the boycott and Hussein's manipulation of it for his own political gain. Hussein was a monster - and his sons were worse. But he did manage to bring a relatively high quality of life to a nation that had been divided by civil strife for decades.

    Now... Iraq is a living hell. People are afraid to walk the streets, to go shopping. Women are being forced to wear the veil. That may not matter to you (women's issues generally don't seem to rate very high in terms of progressive's concerns about the middle east), but it matters to them. Instead of worrying about being murdered by Hussein, people have to worry about being murdered by somebody from a competing religious faction or local gang.

    You can't whitewash this, pretending that when we leave Iraq everything will be fine an dandy. Actually, that's wrong. You and a lot of other people will whitewash this. You will simply ignore what happens in Iraq after we leave. Every so often "60 Minutes" will put on a report about Iraq, which you will watch and shake your head about, wondering why people choose to live in such a difficult and non-Democratic nation.

    Parent

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    Please you do not have to instruct me on Iraqi history and the current conditions. I have been following it rather closely for the last 20 years or so. And I am not pretending anything is going to be fine and dandy after we leave. I am arguing that our presence is not helping the Iraqis but helping the US and its oil problems.  But you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here:

    That may not matter to you (women's issues generally don't seem to rate very high in terms of progressive's concerns about the middle east), but it matters to them.
    But somehow the fact that the Iraqis want us out doesn't matter to you, because you know better than they do what is good for them.

    Parent
    Stop trying to topple straw men (none / 0) (#36)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:16:15 PM EST
    You seem to be claiming that I want us to occupy Iraq forever, even though I never suggested that. I do, however, believe that we have to do everything in our power to minimize additional trauma to Iraqi's when we leave. It's naive and irresponsible to think that we can just pick up our toys and go home after tearing a nation apart.

    Parent
    I Maintain (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:02:44 PM EST
    That it is irresponsible for us to stay. Our presence there is what is broken. The fix is leaving. You are the one who is naive and under BushCo spell.

    The Iraqis have been there for centuries, they will be fine. Think of it this way, if the situation were reversed and Iraq was occupying the US, would you want them to stay?

    I certainly would not.

    There are plenty of other countries that are messed up, but they do not have oil. If anything the US should leave a few hundred billion dollars and exit now. The Iraqis want us out and will be fine without our wonderful support/occupation.

    Parent

    The Shia will control Iraq (4.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    It is the Sunnis who have reason to worry.  And, Sunni Saudi Arabia has said it would step in to protect the minority Sunnis if need be.....

    The likely reason there will be no Status of Forces agreement this year between Iraq and the U.S. is that the Shia government (that's what it is) in Iraq doesn't need U.S. troops to control the country.  And the Iraqi/Shia government will be allied with Iran.

    Iran is the bigger worry, and always has been.  Taking out Saddam Hussein benefitted Iran.

    Parent

    That Is BushCo Logic (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:40:41 AM EST
    To a tee, and the logic of centuries of Imperialism. They need us. Poor babies.

    Parent
    It is disingenuous to pull out the (none / 0) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    anti-paternalism riff now.  Although it's an effective mantra to chant with those who have no knowledge of facts.  But it's still just the mirror image of renaming fried bits of potato 'Freedom Fries.'

    We should have never invaded Iraq in the first place.  We stormed into a politically and religiously complicated situation to satisfy the vanity of one man and the jingoistic patriotism of (I remind you) most of the American public, and made the country and the rest of the world a worse place than when we began.

    But we did go in, and turned a brutal but stable dictatorship into violent chaos.  We broke it but now you the Iraqi people to own it.

    The appeal to anti-paternalism and anti-imperialism is just as jingoistic as the faux patriotism that got us into this situation in the first place.  Of course paternalistically denying any people the right to self-governance is bad.  But that argument was made (by all too few) and lost years ago.  No one is arguing that the Iraqis should be denied self-governance.  But we do have to determine how to fix the disastrous consequences in a way that will minimize further damage caused by us.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:03:44 AM EST
    Although it's an effective mantra to chant with those who have no knowledge of fact.
    What great knowledge of fact do you have under your belt?

    We have been trying to "fix" Iraq for going on five years now. What you are arguing for is winning, just like McSame says we could have done had we stayed longer in Viet-Nam. What do you propose another 10 years?

    There is no solution other than to leave in respect for the Iraqi people's wishes. Handing  over a few hundred billion dollars so that the Iraqi people can reconstruct the damage we have wreaked on their country would be a good thing. Doubt that will happen though, as we still have not done anything to mitigate the damage of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

    Sounds like your vision of fixing Iraq is that McDonald's is on every corner, lots of hotels and tourism, with no dirty muslims running around in burkas and the country at peace.

    Parent

    al Sistani is a moderate (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:18:34 PM EST
    So, I'm not sure about Sharia law being imposed.

    Parent
    stop it (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:48:52 AM EST
    Obama is going to keep huge force in Iraq too.

    Parent
    WTF? (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:36:45 AM EST
    Is that some sort of non sequitur?  Maybe you need to fix your browser so that you can follow the thread better.

    Parent
    Yeah, sure. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:50:58 AM EST
    All the GOP has to do is lie, again, and voters will come running their way.  They will probably even bring some troops home.  But their intent is to maintain an occupation that artificially keeps oil production down so OPEC can manipulate prices.  Bush and his Saudi associates are getting very rich.  They're not going to let go of their cash cow.

    Just remember you heard it here first.  And here.

    And here  Whoops, that comment got deleted, Here's the pertinent text again:

    Next fall, the GOP will declare that the surge worked and they can start drawing down troops.  Low info centrist voters will breathe a big sigh of relief and run back to vote for McCain.  No matter that the military is paying terrorists to not kill people until after November (8 month contracts started in Feb 2008, weekly payments for those who keep "cooperating" and helping trick Americans into believing the surge is working.)
    And here. Whoops, that comment was deleted too.  You guys really don't like my insight.  Here it is text from the message you deleted:
    All McSame has to do is lie about ending the war.  He already lies about supporting the troops while voting against veterans.  People look at him, they feel like he's a good guy who cares about them, and they get suckered into believing what he says.  All he has to do is announce he'll bring troops home, and middle America will dump the Dems and vote for big Daddy McCain, who deep in their heart (and amygdala) they just know will protect them.
    McCain could get a surge boost (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by davnee on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    McCain put all his eggs in the surge basket.  He was out there all along against all the Dems and many R's on this issue.  Now he can run around and say he was right all along about the surge, because troops are being sent home quicker than anticipated because they did such a good job.  In that sense I think this is good news for the R's, because it reinforces McCain's "good judgment" on the surge.  And hey it is just flat out always good news to bring soldiers home. I don't think accelerated troop withdrawals in the fall of an election year are coincidental.

    I also think it undercuts Obama to the degree that he is waffling and "refining" on Iraq, in order to get out of commitments he made to bring troops home quickly, just as it becomes apparently possible to bring many troops home quickly.  Makes him look like he is out of touch with what is really going on on the ground there and too much of an amateur to handle national security.  Also, because his flip flop was ill-timed, the flip flopper label gets reinforced in the context of flipping the wrong way.  The R's can say this guy is not just unprincipled, but he's also incompetent since he can't even figure out the right direction to sell out.

    If Iraq remains relatively quiet, I think Obama should tread lightly on it in the campaign.  He's lost a lot of his high ground on it, and I think public anger on it has cooled some as well.  Besides, the economy is the big issue in this election now.  That's where he needs to focus.

    Depending on the number of troops Bush (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    brings home in September and if he brings more home in October, Iraq could become a negative campaign issue rather than a positive. Also, if Obama wins the WH, Bush can put him in a position where it appears that Obama is reneging on his campaign promise once again. Obama has said that he plans to leave a number of U.S. (unspecified number) to preform multiple tasks. Bush could calculate the number of troops remaining in Iraq in January in such a way that additional withdrawals could not responsibly begin according to the schedule Obama campaigned on. Might be left with just a token gesture that could be portrayed as small change after Bush and the Republicans did all the "hard work."

    Parent
    suppose he gets more out than (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:52:00 AM EST
    Obama promised to get out?

    Parent
    The public are cooling.... (4.66 / 3) (#20)
    by dianem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:22:40 AM EST
    ...because the media aren't reporting on the war. When was the last time you heard about a soldier dying? A bombing? Governmental progress in Iraq? It seems that I read something about an explosion this week that killed a bunch of people. It may have been in Pakistan, come to think of it. Even progressives have stopped paying attention to the war. We had a much more "interesting" battle going on right here - the battle for the Democratic nomination.

    Parent
    Maliki Government Calls for Withdrawal (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    Maliki government appears to be calling for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal as a condition to entering into a long-term "security" agreement with the U.S.  Some speculate this relates to attempts to appeal to pro-withdrawal sentiment popular among Iraqis as elections there approach.

    See Reuters article: LINK

    Mostly for show and to help Republicans in Nov. (4.50 / 2) (#3)
    by Saul on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    The danger that is luring in the wind is that Bush and Cheney always wanted to hit Iran before they left.  Knowing how unpopular that is they turned that assignment over to Israel.   Israel is getting the green light from Bush to hit Iran.  It was in the news that he did just that.  Somehow I feel this will happen before Bush and Cheney leave.  What a mess the new president will have on his hands in 09. If it does you haven't seen anything yet.

    I want out too (none / 0) (#1)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    The decision to invade and occupy Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in history, IMO.  O/T: I just heard Carl ( the great vote-thief ) Levin say that the world needs to unit against Iran because they are shipping arms to Iraq to use against the US there.  Excuse me?  The US never belonged in Iraq in the first place.  By invading and occupying Iraq, we have lost any moral authority to suggest what the world must do WRT Iran or the Middle East.  That Iran would try to eradicate the US from Iraq was completely predictable BEFORE a single troop deployed to the area.  Ask yourself this: if Iran invaded Canada, do you think the US would stand on the sidelines, and not get involved?

    Twist (none / 0) (#5)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:35:20 AM EST
    It is both funny and sad that now the Bush position is to the left of the most recent pronouncements by Obama on troop withdrawals.

    I don't care how it happens - I just want this horror ended.

    That Is Absurd (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:46:58 AM EST
    Are you on crack? No way is BushCo to the left of Obama on this.

    Parent
    No crack... (none / 0) (#33)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:26:16 PM EST
    Today's Bush position as quoted above:

    "The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago."

    Obama's position on July 3rd, backtracking from his previously stated commitment to withdraw troops within sixteen months of taking office:

    "I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

    When I read the above, I get that Bush is talking about beginning withdrawals of some troops in September. I get that Obama has no idea what to do.

    If you wish to say, well, Bush is lying. Maybe. That would not be surprising. And the democratic congress will limp along with him.
    But Obama, at least the way I read what he said, is offering us nothing at all.  At best, he is echoing the Bush position of "listening to the commanders". So, today's statement by the Bush administration is, at this moment in time, preferable. Of course, that is only my opinion.

    I don't believe either of them, to tell you the truth.

    Parent

    BushCo (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:31:52 PM EST
    May be saying that he is going to withdraw some troops in September, and of course Obama cannot say anything like that because he is not in charge.

    But this statement by BushCo is not to the left of Obama by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing close because it comes complete with the whole right wing BushCo Iraq policy package.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#38)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:51:08 PM EST
    What irks me about Obama is that he not longer will even say what he would do.

    So the "centrist" position is that "we'll see what the commanders tell us about the conditions on the ground". This is what Bush has been saying, and Obama is now saying.

    So, anything that in fact is promising to withdraw troops, even some of them, is to the "left" of the "centrist" one - which is to do nothing.

    I don't wish to get into a argument over semantics.

    It is my wish that we get our troops out of there now.
    I see no reason that we can't do so.
    Obama doesn't seem to feel that we can just get out.
    We have to do so "responsibly". We have to protect our embassy.
    We have to leave residual forces. And so on.
    Murtha spelled out how we could get out almost two years ago.
    So did Kucinich.

    But Obama, our standard bearer, wants to wait and see.
    I know he isn't in charge. But he could take a strong position and assert pressure on Bush and the stalled democratic congress. He is doing neither.

    Parent

    Sounds Prudent To Me (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:48:06 AM EST
    Best to say what he would like to do ie end the war, because he is not POTUS yet.

    He is not saying what Bush is saying, I think that is a mischaracterization. Bush is saying that we are going to be in Iraq forever, whether the Iraqis want us or not.

    As far as what he has said, I am against his position as was I against Hillary's. Basically the bipartisan foreign policy of America is to have a long term "presence" in the region, and it seems like Iraq is where it is going to be.

    As far as I am concerned we need to leave now, troops, diplomats and contractors, and only return to the embassy if the Iraqi government asks us to.  

    Parent

    Uninformed torch bearers don't get elected. (none / 0) (#49)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:04:34 AM EST
    Obama was and is still saying he will get us out of Iraq.  Everything he says now about extracting our troops can and will be used against him in a 457 ad.  It's that simple.  I wouldn't want our Dem candidate to be taken down for not at least saying he'll consult with leadership on the ground.  What Obama is saying this week is both sensible and presidential.  He's not backing off of the commitment to end the fiasco, he's simply saying it's a process that must be done carefully, with consultation of our military on the ground.  It's not a "wink, wink, I'll get us out but I have to say the right things first."  And it's not that he's really a stealth Republican who will keep sending our troops and money down the whirlpool of Iraq's ongoing civil strife/religious fanaticism/multigenerational civil war.  Both those views are extreme images of Obama that are reflected in comments here and in other media.  But the reality is that during the primary, he said he said he'd end the Iraq disaster, he's still saying so now, and he's working hard to not hand the GOP 457 material that would show him as naïve about the situation.  

    I'm with squeaky on this one:  It does us no good if our candidate runs around saying he'll get troops out no matter what.  That's exactly what the GOP wants him to do - look naïve, uninformed and so anti-war that his actions would make us and the troops (more) unsafe.  Since he's made these refinements of his Iraq policy, they can't paint him as left wing/anti war/crazy liberal on the Iraq issue.  Hence, the new strategy for BushCo is to pretend they're going to end the occupation in an attempt to undermine the anti-war support Obama has across the country.  They won't actually end it, it's just the GOP's way of trying to win an election in spite of their policies that have disgraced the country and brought our economy to it's knees.  


    Parent

    "They gave their lives so that oil (none / 0) (#7)
    by Blowback on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:46:39 AM EST
    "They gave their lives so that oil can be free. No, I mean so that Iraqis can be free. Oil is $140 per barrel, exactly as planned"

    Resident George W. Bush

    http://www.youtube.com/user/hdavis21ch

    What does this link to a rock party (none / 0) (#40)
    by wurman on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    have to do with the price of oil, Iraq, US troop withdrawals, or anything at all?

    Parent
    Robbing Peter (Iraq) to pay (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:44:37 AM EST
    Paul (Afghanistan): it's a shell game.

    We don't have the necessary personnel to address what is happening in Afghanistan unless we start pulling troops out of Iraq and sending them there.  

    Forgetting for the moment - if that's possible - that we never had to go into Iraq in the first place, what is happening now just highlights the Bush administration's folly of taking on Iraq before Afghanistan was actually resolved.

    But, I think it's also likely that the timing is such that by the end of October, if conditions in Iraq have deteriorated as a result of the troop reductions, it is going to bolster the GOP's position that the Democrats' plan to begin withdrawal is a terrible plan - calling Obama's bluff and then having a field day with his response.

    The Bush administration is considering... (none / 0) (#29)
    by clio on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    Yeah, right.

    And how often has this been said in election years before?
    And how many troops have come home?

    Bush is lying about this now as he has before.
    Obama should welcome this announcement, point out that Bush's words have brought zero troops home in the past and say that he and the nation will wait to see if any troops actually come home this time.

    Heh (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    I also remember when Bush was going to listen to the Iraq Study Group!

    The timing of this suggests that it's due to the Iraqi government deciding they want a timetable for the occupation to end.  The fact that it's Bush suggests that we shouldn't hold our breath for it to actually happen.

    I have a friend who is a Kurdish artist (none / 0) (#41)
    by laurie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    he was delighted that the US went into Iraq. He says that things are now much better, people are finding jobs etc. He told me not to believe the TV.
    However there must be a timetable for the occupation to end. September is as good a moment as any for withdrawal to start.
     Or does everything revolve around Obama these days?

    The Kurds (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:39:19 AM EST
    Loooooove BushCo. And BushCo loooooves their oil.

    Parent
    BushCo To Consider September Iraq Troop Withdrawal | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment