"They want an exit strategy, a cut-and-run exit strategy. What we are for is a successful strategy," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn, according to AP.
But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said: "We want to change the course. We can't stay the course."
Despite the differences, today’s developments indicate a growing willingness by Congress to probe the president’s handling of the Iraq war as the U.S. military death toll rises, public support slides, and the Iraqi resistance grows.
Al.
"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."
"The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Mr. Clinton said.
It would have been better if the U.S. had left Iraq's "fundamental military and social and police structure intact," he noted.
The current U.S. President George W. Bush has been trying recently to revive the public's fading support to his unjustified decision to invade Iraq, saying that many current critics warned that Saddam was a threat before the war started.
Jazeera.
Rep. John Murtha, an influential House Democrat who once voted for invading Iraq called Thursday for immediately pulling out American troops from the country, a move described by analysts as another sign of growing unease in Congress about the war.
"It is time for a change in direction," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats said, adding that the U.S. Army "is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region."
Italics mine. Comfort and encouragement for the insurgent murderers to keep doing what they're doing, theirs.
The issue is not whether these Americans have the right of free speech, it's whether they are doing good in their exercise of that right. If they can question, so can I: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
::Sigh::
ReplyDeleteWhen are the Righties going to stop pretending that somehow wanting the troops out of harm's way or a more effectively waged war to minimize their exposure to danger while maximizing their effectiveness isn't bias against the troops?
The "stay the course" line of reasoning is faulty on many levels, not the least of which is on-the-ground reality. The current Administration strategy, as enacted since 2003, is not effective. There are no arguments that do not involve the infinite timeline or ex post facto reasoning that can even dispute that.
This whole "genocide" thing is totally off-topic from Tom's ridiculous post. Al-Jazeera is one of the finest news agencies in the world, Tom, and also the most unorthodox and unbiased sources of news in the Middle East. Furthermore, your contention, that somehow criticizing the Administration policy for what it is - ineffective - gives succor and encouragement to the insurgents is completely undemonstrated by anything. All you have to show for such a case is your own visceral reaction. It's not even demonstrated in the Al Jazeera piece (which, in fact, repeats Republican talking points on Democratic positions, and not the Democratic positions themselves - so who's helping the enemy then?).
Your contention rests on nothing more than an emotional appeal and hatred.
Thank you for reading me carefully, Keith. The careless reader is a thoughtless one.
ReplyDeleteThe questioners get very huffy when they themselves are questioned.
Sorry but the charge of bias against our troops is going to stand in this case.
ReplyDeleteBecause the case is so well-established? (/sarcasm)
As the argument presented had nothing to do with getting our troops out of harms way, and had everything to do with smearing their character and actions.
I'm sorry, but whose arguments are you referring to? Because I was referring to the actual topic at hand, not JC and buzz's ridiculous genocide/not-genocide argument with Tlaloc.
But I suppose calling out troops genocidal, careless, tyrants and morally equivelant to Saddam is "helping our troops and freedom in Iraq..."
Show me who, out of all the people Tom quotes in his post, or anywhere else on this site, makes those contentions. Anywhere. Show me one Leftist who is taken seriously (and, contrary to popular Righty belief, Michael Moore and Ward Churchill aren't) who is on record saying such a thing. Tlaloc can have his own opinions - and for what it's worth, I think you're willfully misunderstanding what he and others have said - but he hardly speaks for all Leftists, Democrats, or anti-war protesters.
Seriously. Keith and Tom, you have got to prove this one or give up the broad brush-strokes.
It's quite clear there are no arguments that you will find convincing, Mr. Elliott, since the invasion of Iraq is called "unjustified" in the body of a "news report" (note "scare quotes"), and still you call al-Jazeera a fine news agency.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, my point is that American politicians could avoid heated sound bites that provide fodder for al-Jazeera and the like. (Al-Jazeera did not feature Monday's [?] 279-109 House vote for "staying the course" as it did the other things I cited. That illustrates my point. It is not a fine news agency.)
I heard Sen. McCain disagree with the disbanding of the Ba'athist army without the foolishness of calling it a "big mistake."
As a man with the world's ear, and who has been on the world stage for 15 years, ex-President Clinton should have known better.
Or perhaps he did, and didn't care. If so, even more shame on him.
(You apparently missed Sen. Kennedy calling the US the new operators of Saddam's torture chambers, and would-be future ex-President Kerry saying the US terrorizes Iraqis by breaking into their homes late at night. As for "genocide," you have a point there. No sane person would say such things.)
(I would have been happy to discuss this issue with you, James, but as usual, this comments section has been clogged from the start with irrelevance and nonsense, and there's no point in continuing at this late time for a very limited readership.
Perhaps next time.)