May 10, 2007

Iraqis Appear Poised To Close The Door

A letter circulated by Moqtada al-Sadr and signed by more than half of the Iraqi National Assembly demands a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq and a cap on the number of troops allowed into the country. If the Assembly passes this as a resolution, it could have devastating consequences on American policy for Iraq. I look at the implications at Heading Right this morning, especially in light of growing discontent among war supporters of the Iraqi commitment to reform.

UPDATE: John Aravosis is angry that Democrats will back away from the games they have been playing on the Iraq war supplementals, but he's missing the bigger picture:

It's time to replace some conservative Democrats in Washington, DC. I just heard from an impeccable source that there is serious concern on the Hill that conservative Democrats in the House will vote with the Republicans to strip any and all restrictions from the Iraq supplemental tomorrow, effectively giving Bush all the money he wants with no restrictions and no effort to hold either him or the Iraq government accountable for anything. I.e., they will vote to continue this war along the same disastrous course because they're too afraid to challenge George Bush and his failed leadership.

Let me reiterate: This isn't some idle rumor. The concerns are coming from Hill sources themselves.

No, this is a smart move by the Democrats. If the Iraqis take the summer off, the Democrats know it will undermine support for the surge. Republicans are already warning the President that September will be the end of the line if the Iraqis haven't solidified the necessary political reforms for normalization, especially if it's so unimportant that they can postpone it until after summer recess. With this development today, the Assembly will have made it clear they don't want us there for much longer, either.

Why should the Democrats force the issue under those circumstances? Better to play it straight for the next few months. If the war collapses, it won't have their fingerprints. If the situation stabilizes and the Iraqis quell the violence, then the Democrats helped push them to do so. There's no upside now in excessive confrontation.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iraqis Appear Poised To Close The Door:

» Behold! from The Crossed Pond
A Captain’s Quarters post I agree with, with no additional qualifiers! With some right-on context no less. Man, somebody pinch me. Despite the fact that I’ve been in favor of ending our Iraqi NeoCon Laboratory experiment for some time no... [Read More]

Comments (29)

Posted by quickjustice [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 9:25 AM

If the Iraqis don't want us there, the moral basis for our involvement disintegrates. What's the exit strategy that best protects our interests? Negotiating for Kurdish independence, and redeploying there to protect the Kurdish population from the bloodbath further south?

The Iranian mullahs who engineered this are gloating. The Saudis and Egyptians must be besides themselves.

Posted by Sandy P [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 9:55 AM

Not the Iraqis, the Iranians and Saudis.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 10:00 AM

To some extent, last month's Iraqi parliament cafeteria bombing may have served its purpose more than we realize. Al-Qaeda in Iraq sent parliament members a message: "We can get to you, even in the Green Zone. We're everywhere. You'll never be safe until you leave us alone." With enough fear and stress, for enough time, people just stop caring. That is Al-Qaeda's stock and trade: destroying morale until the enemy just doesn't care anymore. It's not only buildings that crumble.

Posted by DJ Elliott [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 10:31 AM

Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said he had backed the draft but only on the condition that the withdrawal timetable be linked to a schedule for training and equipping Iraq’s security forces.

“But the sponsors of the legislation did not include our observations in the draft. This is deception,” he said.§ion=focusoniraq

Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 10:43 AM

I've been a solid supporter of the Iraq operation since before the liberation and I bought (and still do buy) the "neocon" argument that what ails Arab Islamic "civilization" is a lack of freedom. It's the argument made by Sharansky in "The Case for Democracy," and by writers like Victor Hanson. I knew at the start that this could take years and that it would not be an easy task.

But it was all predicated on the Iraqis being willing to help themselves, to make the effort necessary to bring about change. We seen that willingness from some, particularly in their military, but it appears as if the governing majority lacks it, or maybe flat out opposes change.

If that's the case, and this bill passes, then my support for the war in Iraq (not the overall war with Islamic fascism) is over. And the Iraqis will have to sleep in the bed they made.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 10:46 AM

If the Dems were really smart and were thinking long-term politics, they would have done absolutely nothing to try and influence Bush's policy in Iraq and wait for 2008 to take control of the white house where they could really change things.

But, since they were elected on a large anti-war sentiment and some probably have a conscious and feel they should do something about ending the war, they've tried to attach the timeline.

But I agree with Cap'n. They should back off some and let Bush and Co. deal with this latest development. Fund the troops and let this play out. Gates has already shown he's open to beginning and withdrawal, and now with the Iraqis seemingly calling for the same thing (over time at least), they don't really have to push much any more.

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 11:00 AM

Aravosis is your typical moonbat, but if he's saying the Blue Dogs are about to pull the plug on the slow bleed strategy, I believe him. Remember, these are the vulnerable Dems from Red States who were pulled in by the dissatisfied voters in '06.

They know full well that the backlash in '08 will start with them, because they are the conservatives that red state voters figured could and should do a better job than the GOP members who were wavering. They will not survive if they go from Blue Dog to White Flag.

In the end they have come to the same conclusion I have, and it's what I've been saying for more than a month now: there is no way the Dems can win on this issue. The Blue Dogs are going to put this to rest until September, and by then we should enough real progress in an around Anbar and Baghdad to convince the public to keep going.

Bush will get full funding. I have said this all along, if the Dems go down this path they are done as a party for a generation, for they will have lost Iraq.

Now, the Iraqi assembly is different. Clearly Cheney needs to let them know the score. It makes me wonder just how many Iraqi MPs are working for the bad guys. If this measure passes, it will be a complete disaster. Iraq will splinter into pieces and so will the rest of the region.

I just can't imagine why the Iraqis would want to sabotage their own government, for it would not survive this measure.

Posted by BD [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 11:06 AM

We're seeing the fruit of failing to carry the battle to the enemy when we had the chance.

Looks like Bin Laden was right - we are the weak horse.

Good G--, this is depressing.

Posted by Pho [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 11:16 AM

I've been behind this effort from the start, and also through the difficulty.


At the point some official issue passes their assembly processes (I can't even pretend to know how their parliment really functions proceedurally), and it winds up taking the form of an official request from the Iraqi government...

A letter from this guy, even it is signed by 100% of the parliment... doesn't count though. They need to make the request official. A letter like this, while good PR for this guy, isn't an official request. It's no different than a Caucus in congress writing a letter... it doesn't take the force of law or policy.

If they turn this into a formal request though... that may very well be the point we take our toys and go home. We can't force them to accept our help if they don't want it. Even if it's a plan assembled by one of the bad-actors we should've taken out of the picture in the first months.

Those actions have consequences though. And if they can't clean up their house on their own... we'll wind up being back in probably less than 10 years to start over again. The days are really over when we can let someone create a terrorist home within their country, and do nothing about it.

At that point all we can do is give them the tools to do it on their own, and see what they do with it.

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 12:10 PM

Anothony said:

I've been a solid supporter of the Iraq operation since before the liberation and I bought (and still do buy) the "neocon" argument that what ails Arab Islamic "civilization" is a lack of freedom.

I'm astonished that anyone still believes this. Look at what the people of the middle east have done with freedom every time they've been given a dose of it.

When allowed to choose a form of government and select their leaders, Muslims have overwhelmingly chosen theocracy as the form and leaders that are sympathetic to, if not outright aligned with, other theocracies and terrorists.

The Palestinians elected Hamas. The Shiites in Lebanon elected Hizbullah. The Sunni in Egypt are electing the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Shiites in Iraq have elected an ally of Iran. They are not choosing freedom; they are choosing Islamic totalitarianism.

Besides, Muslims all over the globe -- not just in the middle east -- are rejecting freedom in favor of murder in the name of Islam.

The Muslims that murdered hundreds in Madrid were free. The Muslims that murdered dozens in London's Tubes were free. The Muslims that routinely burn hundreds of cars and destroy millions of dollars worth of property in Paris are free. The Muslim that murdered Theo van Gogh was free.

Since 9/11, here in the United States, where it is just about as free as it gets, we have had numerous examples of what has been called, “instant Jihad syndrom”

Sulejman Talovic, an 18-year-old Bosnian Muslim immigrant, was loaded with enough ammo to "inexplicably" kill dozens of victims,, opened fire on shoppers in mall, evidently planning to slaughter as many as possible — and he would have, if an alert off-duty cop hadn't returned fire and stopped him. Talovic murdered five and wound four others with a shotgun. He was free.

A 30-year-old Muslim man, Naveed Afzal Haq, who went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center in Seattle, announcing "I'm a Muslim-American; I'm angry at Israel." He was free.

An Egyptian national, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who murdered two and wounded three at an Israeli airline ticket counter at LAX. He was free.

A bearded 21-year-old student, Joel Hinrichs, who blew himself up with a backpack filled with TATP (the explosive of choice in the Mideast) outside a packed Oklahoma University football stadium not long after he started attending the local mosque. He was free.

A 23-year-old student, Mohammed Ali Alayed, who slashed the throat of his Jewish friend in Houston after apparently undergoing a religious awakening (he went to a local mosque afterward). He was free.

The D.C. snipers — John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, both black Muslim converts — murdered 13 people in the suburbs around the Beltway as part of what Muhammad described as a "prolonged terror campaign against America" around the first anniversary of 9/11, which he had praised. They were free.

Omeed Aziz Popal of Fremont, Calif., who police said hit and killed a bicyclist there then took his SUV on a hit-and-run spree in San Francisco, mowing down pedestrians at crosswalks and on sidewalks before police caught up with him, whereupon the Muslim called himself a "terrorist." He was free.

A 22-year-old Muslim, Ismail Yassin Mohamed, who stole a car in Minneapolis and rammed it into other cars before stealing a van and doing the same, injuring drivers and pedestrians, while repeatedly yelling, "Die, die, die, kill, kill, kill" — all, he said, on orders from "Allah." He was free.

A Nashville cab driver, Ibrahim Ahmed, praised Hitler who he said was “trying to rid the world of Jews,” the alleged victim, Jeremie Imbus, told the court. He got angry at two passengers who disagreed with him, so he ran them down with his car, crippling one of them. He was free.

A 22-year-old Iranian honors student, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who deliberately rammed his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina to "punish the government of the United States" for invading Iraq and other Muslim nations.
He told the judge he was "thankful you're here to learn more about the will of Allah."
He wrote a letter to a TV station citing Quranic verses justifying his attacks and told a detective that Muslims "all over the world are being killed, and now it is the people in the United States' turn to be killed." He was free.

It isn’t a lack of freedom that “ails” the middle east and Muslims everywhere. It is Islam, an Islam that teaches them that killing infidels is both a moral duty and the path to paradise.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 12:30 PM

Pretty obvious, you need more than a marching army to bring "peace." Just as we know, in the USA, we have great police forces that contain the garbage. And, don't let the gangs spill out into neighborhoods beyond their own.

While Bush is pushing RICE, as a favor to his Saudi pals, to commit national suicide. Probably means, ahead, that Bush isn't gonna be gaining any ground; anywhere.

As to "timetable" that's probably a misnomer. Since the IRaqis can't pull the oil out of the ground, refine it. And, send it on its way, ANYWHERE.

Mookie in Iraq is about as popular as Cindy Sheehan is, here. It confuses the people in the swamp into thinking there's no enemies awaiting them in the MAINSTREAM. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, here's today's article from the Jerusalem Post. CAROL HERMAN

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Benchmarks for a bloodbath
Evelyn Gordon, THE JERUSALEM POST May. 9, 2007

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is not purposely trying to destroy all of Israel's hard-won security gains of the last five years. But if she were, she could hardly have improved on her new benchmark proposal. The proposal comprises two parallel sets of "benchmarks": steps (mainly Israeli) to increase Palestinian freedom of movement, and steps (mainly Palestinian) to combat Palestinian terror. However, it does not make either track conditional on the other. Thus should Israel accept the proposal, it would be pledging to fulfill its own side of the bargain regardless of whether the Palestinians honored theirs. And since increased freedom of movement for Palestinians includes increased freedom of movement for terrorists, that essentially means an Israeli pledge to facilitate terrorist operations even if the Palestinian Authority makes no compensatory effort to thwart such operations.

Indeed, the document explicitly requires Israel to dismantle many security precautions prior to the relevant PA security actions. For instance, it requires full deployment of a revamped PA security service in Gaza only by the end of 2007; yet Israel would have to start allowing regular convoys between Gaza and the West Bank on July 1. Thus six months before PA forces are even in position to combat Gazan terror, Israel would be required to facilitate the export of this terror to the West Bank.

AND SOMETIMES there is no parallel demand of the PA at all. For instance, the document requires Israel to remove various West Bank checkpoints on June 1 and June 15. Yet it mandates no Palestinian counterterrorism efforts in the West Bank; such efforts are required only in Gaza. Israel would thus be facilitating terrorist movement in the West Bank without any recompense in the form of improved Palestinian counterterrorism.

This lack of reciprocity would not matter if the benchmarks were all as innocuous as creating a Web site to provide information on the operating hours of border crossings (No. 6) or establishing express lanes for trucks carrying fresh produce at the Karni checkpoint (No. 11). However, several of them strike at the heart of the security mechanisms that have dramatically reduced Israeli casualties over the last five years.

One of these is the removal of army checkpoints, including around terrorist hotbeds such as Nablus. This has already been tried countless times - and each time terrorists exploited their new freedom of movement to launch a successful attack from the area in question. Put bluntly, absent dramatic Palestinian action against terrorism, removing checkpoints is a proven recipe for producing dead Israelis.

Rice's proposal, however, goes far beyond the limited experiments of the past, demanding the simultaneous removal of dozens of checkpoints throughout the West Bank. It would therefore likely produce even more mayhem than did previous such efforts.

FAR WORSE, however, is the proposal for regular passenger and cargo convoys between Gaza and the West Bank. The document does not discuss security arrangements for these convoys, but every previous incarnation of this proposal has assumed that Israel would either not conduct security checks at all, or would at most conduct superficial checks that would cause minimal delays; the PA would bear primary responsibility for ensuring that no terrorists or weapons were smuggled from Gaza to the West Bank.

Indeed, this is essential both to the proposal's practical goal (freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank, meaning without lengthy delays caused by exhaustive Israeli security checks) and its ideological goal: demonstrating that Gaza and the West Bank are a unified entity under Palestinian sovereignty.

Given that hitherto, however, the PA has done zilch to combat anti-Israel terror, there is no reason to believe that it would in fact keep the convoys free of arms and terrorists. And for Israel, this is literally a life-and-death issue: Since Gazan terrorist cells have better weaponry and more expertise (no West Bank cell, for instance, has yet succeeded in launching Kassam rockets), while West Bank cells have better access to Israel (which is why most suicide bombings inside Israel originate from there), a flow of Gazan know-how and equipment into the West Bank would significantly upgrade the terrorist threat.

Indeed, the threat posed by these convoys is even greater now than it was 18 months ago, when Rice last tried to browbeat Israel into allowing them - because Gaza terrorists have utilized this time to import massive quantities of weaponry, much of it far more sophisticated than what they had in November 2005.

Then, the main fear was the transfer of Kassam rockets and technology, which would enable West Bank terror cells to subject Jerusalem and Kfar Saba to the same daily bombardments that Sderot suffers. And that was certainly reason enough to veto the convoys. But the materiel that has since entered Gaza ranges from some 30 tons of explosives to the latest antitank rockets, the kind Hizbullah used so successfully against Israeli troops last summer. Were that kind of weaponry to enter the West Bank, the threat to Israel would obviously be even greater.

NOR IS there any doubt that Gazan terrorists would make the effort. Israeli intelligence agencies have long warned of the terrorist organizations' feverish preparations for war. But in an astonishing report in Sunday's Haaretz, veteran Arab affairs correspondent Danny Rubinstein cited Palestinian acquaintances in Gaza as saying that these intelligence reports significantly understate the scope of the preparations, which include massive arms smuggling and recruiting and training hundreds of additional "troops." Given a chance, the terrorists would certainly launch a similar build-up in the West Bank in order to force Israel into a two-front war.

Indeed, Hamas publicly rejected the benchmark proposal last week precisely because the organization is "preparing for battle," to quote one of its leaders, Khaled Mashaal. Why should Israel facilitate this effort?

For Rice, desperate to buy Arab and European support on Iraq with "progress" on the Israeli-Palestinian front, higher Israeli casualties may well be a price worth paying. But no responsible Israeli government could concur.

The only proper response to Rice's proposal can thus be summed up in one word: No.

Posted by Lightwave [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 12:36 PM

Michael, those are all excellent points.

Indeed, the problem with the responsibility of democracy is the fact it still can be used to make hideously bad decisions, and if the people making those decisions are in the pockets of Iran or Syria or Al Qaeda, then they will clearly try to use democracy as a path to split Iraq up and enable Sharia law instead.

And again, let's take a long, hard look at the media's defeatist rhetoric and the traitorous Dems. They are just as responsible for this tactic as the Iranians are. If indeed the parliament votes to oust American troops, the results will be a bloody civil war that will engulf the region...and guess who will be called upon to clean that mess up?

Here's a hint: It won't be the EU, the UN, China, Russia, or Hugo Chavez.

You would think that enlightened self-interest would have every Dem leader down in Baghdad this weekend trying to save the Iraqi government from a decision that will lead to the dissolution of Iraq...and the end of the Democratic Party in the US. If the Iraqis say "Yankee go home!" and the country implodes after the Dems and White Flag Republicans force us to go, does anyone really think the voters will blame Bush when the resulting regional war drives gas prices up to 8 bucks a gallon?

The backlash will decimate the Dems. They know this. They know there will be GOP one-party rule in this country for a generation or longer starting in '08. The Blue Dogs are terrified. They know the reckoning is coming.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 12:39 PM

IRAQ THE MODEL commented about the cafeteria bombing in parliament. Saying "they got what they deserved!"

While there had been a planned wall going up, to surround the Sunnis. But the complaints from Riyadh reached Maliki. And, he countered the American order.

Anyway, yesterday, at Drudge; meaning millions have seen it, even if you have not. There's been a republican REBELLION in the House; and GOP members went into the White House and confronted Bush. They were very blunt. They saw themselves as losing, when it comes their time for re-election. Which means? The Ma and Pa Kettle Show is actually on a roll.

Bush did "win" in Iraq. In 3 weeks time. Within which Chalabi got flown in, with goons, on a C-130. Including the "landing rights." His goons went out and LOOTED.

Paul Bremer? He set the failure up BUT GOOD. Because for the ten months BEFORE his arrival, you were actually safe in Iraq. He turned that one around, QUICK!

There's a saying in business. When you lose a customer, you can't bring them back. (That's why Mr. Macy worked it out as "the customer is always right." Let people know you deal with their complaints, and they'll be back. Giving you more business.)

While all this Bush has handled, all his life, have been failures that brought the Saud's into his parlor. Giving him millions for companies he was running into the ground.

You really should read HOUSE OF BUSH / HOUSE OF SAUD. It's detailed.

And, then? Well, you can think Cindy Sheehan "caused this mess." But you'd be wrong.

You can try to guess how people vote. And, here, again, you don't control how people pull the levers. There's usually candidates for everyone. (While most people are attracted to voting for the side that CAN WIN.)

In military matters, we excell.

But there was nothing on the table, from the White House, that had success written on it. After Saddam? It was supposed to be ALLAWI. Wasn't him. He's not a powerhouse in parliament, there; because the purple fingers of the people have been voting against the CIA, and the House of Saud, for some time now.

Not that it's stopping James Baker.

But failure has a way of digging trenches, so bad presidents, like Jimmy Carter, too. Can just sit there until it's time to swear in the next guy. And, then they can go home.

Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 12:42 PM

It isn’t a lack of freedom that “ails” the middle east and Muslims everywhere. It is Islam, an Islam that teaches them that killing infidels is both a moral duty and the path to paradise.

Michael, that's what I mean. When the choice is between pan-Arab nationalist dictators on the one hand and a totalitarian, fascist Islam on the other, the average Arab on the street sees no hope for change and just plays along with whoever has the bigger guns. The effort in Iraq has been to plant the seeds for a third way, one that allows for consensual rule-of-law government that could then serve as a model for the rest of the region. Really, we're on the same side.

This may still work, even if the Iraqi parliament passes that bill. When Napoleon's armies conquered the Continent, they carried them the ideals of the French Revolution. (Note: ideals, as opposed to the bloody reality.) These ideals infected a whole generation of Europeans, leading to the democratic revolts of 1848 and formed a large part of the evolution of modern, democratic Europe. Even if the effort in Iraq fails, the ideas we planted there may yet bear fruit in ways we can't predict.

Back to that bill for a moment, I wonder how much Iranian money was spread around those Shiite parliamentarians who signed this letter?

Posted by Angry Dumbo [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 1:09 PM

Natan Sharansky or Bernard Lewis make the "case for democracy" or for "freedom" in the Middle East. However do not link Sharansky's case for democracy with the conduct of the war in Iraq. Sharansky posits only that there is a linkage between freedom and peace as opposed to tyranny and terror.

Is Sharansky wrong if the Iraqi parliament votes to kick the US out of their country? The question is are the people of Iraq free from the repressive forces of Islamism?

More to the point, is brave Sir Mookie even in Iraq? Last I heard he was hiding behind Amdadinejad's skirt.

Posted by Count to 10 [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 1:24 PM

1. This is just a letter. There is a lot of bluster in arab politics, so don't go too wild over this until something is actually passed.

2. Similarly to the argument with the union cards, individuals can be intimidated into signing things one at a time, when they would have rejected it in an official vote.

3. It is not a demand to leave right now, but calls for a timetable. While not good, if such a resolution was officially passed, it could be still be revoked if/when the concequences are, well, bad.

4. If they do officially order everyone out, about all we can do is cross our fingurs. You have to take chances to acomplish anything worthwhile, and some you win and some you lose. What bothers me is the people who use one loss as an excuse to never take a chance again. But, again, this is a long way from loosing.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 2:36 PM

Really, don't trust anyone who tells you they can predict the future. Because, no one can.

But I do see the donks ahead, right now. And, I think they're building a "war chest of opportunity," so they can inflict voter scarcity for the GOP. Come 2008.

Bush has nothing to show for Iraq. He's coming up empty-handed.

While he has James Baker prodding the "situation" in Israel. As if Olmert can't think on his feet! And, isn't welcoming the change from the WINO gathering; where the Likud has been trying to push itself back into power.

You'd be surprised what the members in the knesset, know. Because they're not racing into new elections.

So that even while ALL the future outcomes are unknown; some things are more likely to happen, rather than less likely to happen.

And, the GOP is gonna get tossed on the ropes!

Here's a clue. There's NOTHING in Iraq that even looks like peace. There's nothing in gazoo, either.

And, Harry Belefonte went out of his way to publickly pee on Condi Rice. Calling her a "nothing." Where, among blacks, that's just about where she sits. Her best bet? She also gets sex from Dubya. Not an area where she's done well, at all. Not that I'd care, either way. Bush has no taste for picking great staff.

And, the donks know what they are holding.

They're also going to accuse the SAUD's of mischief. At least I think they can.

How do these chips fall? Well, the Saud's bank, (which they bought from Burt lance); fleeced more people than any other Ponzi Scheme, EVER. When the plug was pulled, the bank couldn't find $13-billion-dollars of depositor's money. And, the Saud in charge? Has been forbidden to return to banking, anywhere. Instead? He became in charge of the money conduit, from the HOUSE OF SAUD, to the terrorists.

Dubya's gonna bounce on those ropes! Nope. The ring doesn't provide safety nets. And, the referee? If it's gonna be Pelosi, beware. She sports the testicles of DeLay, now. And, she's not grandma.

If you can't figure out how to get through these woods? It appears the donks can win, by claiming the high ground. They've been mentioning what a catastrophe Iraq is. And, all their ammunition comes from Bush playing tough. OR Bush pushed by his dad's hand picked man, James Baker.

Keep thinking it's Cindy Sheehan. Cause that stupidity keeps ya from seeing what's obvious, now.

"How do we stand down in Iraq?" I'll guess that we don't. We just give them the options of having a working oil business; to having everything in flames. What the Iraqis pick next time? well, it probably won't be Maliki. And, it won't encourage the Saud's.

Sometimes you can win "for losing." Where the one's who've caused this calamity? I already know. Bush is the Realtor for the House of Saud.

Here? The slowest of learners.

Which in political terms? Robs ya of powers.

Posted by Linh_My [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 3:48 PM

Anthony (Los Angeles) said

"When Napoleon's armies conquered the Continent, they carried them the ideals of the French Revolution. (Note: ideals, as opposed to the bloody reality.) These ideals infected a whole generation of Europeans, leading to the democratic revolts of 1848 and formed a large part of the evolution of modern, democratic Europe. Even if the effort in Iraq fails, the ideas we planted there may yet bear fruit in ways we can't predict."

Very good point. Over the last 12 years of going in and out of Viet Nam, I have noticed that this is what seems to be happening in Viet Nam. It is not what I would have to be the result of a Communist Win when I was there during the war. When is the last time a Liberal had anything good to say about Viet Nam today? Think about it

Posted by NahnCee [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 4:03 PM

We said we'd stay in Iraq until they asked us to leave. Didn't we mean it?

I don't understand why this letter is a problem. If they want us to leave and we want to leave, then why isn't this a win-win for everyone involved? Just because they will fall to massacre-ing each other with great zest and gusto as soon as the last helicopter flies out of Baghdad, I *really* don't see where that will be our problem any longer.

"They made their bed / let them lay in it" will replace "If you broke it, you pay for it."

Posted by TyCaptains [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 4:27 PM

You don't understand NahnCee.

To be counted as a "win", we need our Mt. Suribachi where we can triumphantly raise the American Flag and collectively say, "we kicked ass!"

Anything less than that would be "surrender".

Oh yea and before I forget, all Dems are traitors and should be shot.

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 5:08 PM

Carol 2:36PM,

I think you are correct about the GOP except for one minor detail - the Dems are imploding faster.

Once they start shooting their own (ala Rs in '06) they are in big trouble.

The idea of coalitions is more alive in the Rs now than in the Ds.

With no improvement on corruption I think the Ds are in big trouble.

Posted by euni84 | May 10, 2007 5:35 PM

$340 billion has already been spent in Iraq. What has resulted from that money? The money would be better spent on plans such as the UN Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty. The Borgen Project states that just $19 billion annually can end starvation and malnutrition. Issues such as poverty foster a lot of the tensions that exist in the world today. As leaders in this world, we really need to get behind peaceful growth rather than war. Instead of continuing to fight, we should be equipping the Iraqi people with the things they need to succeed.

Posted by NahnCee | May 10, 2007 6:07 PM

To be counted as a "win", we need our Mt. Suribachi where we can triumphantly raise the American Flag and collectively say, "we kicked ass!"

Well, then, let's put that big honking statue of Saddam back up in their public square and drape an American flag back over his head before we leave. Would that do?

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 6:36 PM


Watch this youtube; all nine minutes of it.... You won't regret it...

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 7:27 PM

M. Simon. That's why they're called "opinions." People hold different ones all of the time.

I began calling Pelosi and incompetent driver; who took her speakers chair out of the showroom, before waiting for the doors to open.

I thought it was INSANE for the donks to go so soon to their left. And, declare victory. When 2006 was a "minor year election." And, the donks ran Blue Dogs to win their congressional advantages.

Then, I've been calling the pelosi/reid show "Ma and Pa Kettle. Because that was a popular show, once. And, the way the donks were acting in DC, reminded me of the Ozarks. And, what happens when people strike oil. And, gold. And, it goes to their heads.

ON THE OTHER HAND? I do see that Bush is in deep doo-doo. Without a single clue on how to get out of this mess. I guess he thought we'd be happy if he didn't spritz a Blue Gap dress. When most Americans don't care, one way or the other, what Bush does, now.

Except I think he prays to much. And, he tired the Old Man Upstairs OUT! Jimmy Carter did the same. So I guess, no matter the religion, the joke's an equal opportunity employer.

I also think pelosi and reid are fantastic politicians. They seem to know how to galvanize a lot of Americans AWAY from the GOP! Hence, yesterday's headline at Drudge. And, how GOP House members toodled over to the Oval Office. And, were BLUNT. (The Blue Gap dress, by comparson, looks better. Why? Bill Clinton understood the political stuff. Was bright. And, didn't keep putting his putz into a pickle.) That he put it into, or nearby Monica? Well, that's what men do, every day. Just don't get so surprised.

The best question people who love to follow politics can ask, is "where are they now?" "THEY" being a majority of voters in this country. And, most of them are miffed. Way less than thrilled with Iraq; even if Iraq makes sounds, other than the incompetent religious ones that fly out of every quarter.

In other words? No stars. Nobody has come on stage that garners respect. Say what you will, you are known by the company you keep.

Bush doesn't have much of a word of honor left, either. Given that Condi is approaching Israel, with what seems Bush's desperation. Trying to force her off the land. Just so he can have a new "start up" ... for palestinians, free of them ever having to stop terror.

So you might say what Bush has, that he wants to wave, and use, is thoroughly discredited. Even before Condi made it to Israel. Where she cancelled.

But Cheney was in Riyadh. I guess there are a lot of muslems about as worried as they can get. And, they, too, had to be assured Maliki wasn't going to go on any two-month "vacation."

One of the ways you can see that the donks scored; is that they're the ones who pushed this out into the open . It's not called "running away." It's called PUT UP OR SHUT UP. And, Bush ain't holding great cards.

Politics. It has ONE GOAL POST. Getting elected. Why two people, or more, vie to be the first one through the door! Sperms don't even work so hard when they're knocking on the egg.

And, it seems pelosi is one tough son of a bitch. Not until I read DeLay's book, did I understand her talent. And, then I understood why she's majority leader.

What's the right got? They're defending with spitballs? Praise the lord, how dumb is that?

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 10:00 PM

Iraq may end up in a civil war when we leave. Doesn't matter how long we stay, they'll still fight it out when we leave. Why get more Americans killed over an Iraq civil war.TyCaptains.... if you want to shoot all dems try me on for size. Just bought a new .270 Weatherbee for deer hunting. Guess I'm not one of those pacifist democrats. I'm what my friends refer to as a scrapper. Republicans like you are vermin and punks, so save the tough guy image, it don't fly.

Posted by Right2thePoint [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 11:30 PM

To echo what DJ said earlier in the thread , this comes from the Weekly Standard and throws a whole new light on the Iraqi vote on this.

In Baghdad, the Sadrist block has pushed a draft bill through parliament calling for "a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and a freeze on the number of foreign troops already in the country." The parliament would also have to approve the UN mission in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007. A Sadr aide claimed to have 144 of the 275 parliamentarians supporting the bill. The bill is under legal review and has yet to reach the speaker of the parliament's desk.

According to Alertnet, the bill is actually a "petition, which is nonbinding," and must be presented to speaker. "Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear."

The Kurdish block backed the legislation but "only on the condition that the withdrawal timetable be linked to a schedule for training and equipping Iraq’s security forces." The Sadrists didn't include this requirement, prompting the Kurdish block to refer to the legislation as a deception.

The Sadrist block pulled off a masterful propaganda stunt. Expect the bill to be defeated when it comes to the full vote in parliament, as prior versions have been.

Posted by NahnCee [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 10, 2007 11:49 PM

cons-democrat - you're pathetic. but you *are*, demonstrably, a democrat alright.

Posted by KendraWilder | May 11, 2007 12:49 AM

Posted by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 10, 2007 10:00 AM

"That is Al-Qaeda's stock and trade: destroying morale until the enemy just doesn't care anymore. It's not only buildings that crumble."

Sounds eerily like the Democrat/Lib/MSM agenda here on the homefront in America in trying to grab their power back for the past six years. Wonder who they learned it from?