British ready to cut and run?

width=”100″ height=”78″ border=”0″ title=”Britishsoldier” alt=”Britishsoldier” src=”http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/images/britishsoldier.jpg” /> The head of Britain’s army, Gen. Richard Dannatt, said this week that British forces should withdraw "sometime soon" because their presence only "exacerbates" the situation. "Whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi populace, he said, "has largely turned to intolerance."
Indeed, a recent poll found that a solid 60 percent of Iraqis support attacks on U.S. and coalition troops.
Dannatt clarified his remarks Friday, saying that he meant a phased withdrawal over the next year or two or three. Still, when our closest ally is saying the presence of foreign troops isn’t helping things, it’s a sign the coalition of the willing is at the breaking point.
Do we accuse Britain of cutting and running?
Posted by Randy Scholfield

29 Comments

  1. Ben Huie
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Didn’t Bill Clinton recently visit Great Britain?

    IT’S CLINTON’S FAULT!

  2. TRACY
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    It’s not Bill’s fault unless he had extra-marital sex while he was there.

  3. gster
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    It’s cease and desist, old boy!Ta

  4. TRACY
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Only 60%?Seems a bit low.I wonder what percent did not want to be “liberated” in the first place?Any guesses?

  5. Ed Friedemann
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    They got to him………

  6. Ian Santiago
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    The British puppets are beholden to the same “people” that our puppets are beholden to; so the limeys ain’t going nowhere.

    V.L.R.B!!

  7. TRACY
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    This is our lowest hour?

  8. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Or are the good General’s comments based upon the reality he sees, combined with the upcoming election in Great Britain? I suspect the Brits will be leaving at some point, and the remarks are intended for preparing the public for the inevitable.

  9. Ian Santiago
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Things that make you go hmmmmmmm…:

    “.. the plan for the ‘Modern World-State’ would succeed in its third attempt (Third World War) and would come out of something that would occur in Basra, Iraq.” H.G. Wells, 1933

    V.L.R.B!!

  10. TRACY
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it…..Abbie Hoffman

  11. Posted October 13, 2006 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Dammit! Those SISSY COWARDS!

    From now on, it’s “freedom muffins,” no “English muffins” for me.

    “London broil?” No thank you, it’s “Freedom broil.”

    And what about the “English” language?

    It’s “Freedom language” now.

  12. TRACY
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Correction CapN.It’s the Uh-murkan langwij.(Bushspeak)

  13. gster
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    “We don’t need any dammed Fureners!! They even drive on the left side of the road, dammed Liberals!!”,– off-mike comment from White House.

  14. hotlick
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    If the General said pahsed withdrawal in a year or two or three, then that wouldn’t be cut and run, would it?

  15. Ben Huie
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know hotlick. The Bush team is planning to maintain full force until 2010 so, in comparison …

  16. hotlick
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    If you are refering to the guy who said 2010 because he wanted to “keep his gun loaded” or whatever he said, then that is long range, worst case planning. At least, this time, somebody is planning.Speaking of comparision, the Dems have offered resolutions to get out so quickly that cut and run is the only way to term it.

  17. Jed
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Cap’n,As a historical note, shortly after our revolution, congress came within one vote of declaring Hebrew as our national language. They were pissed off with Britain then too.

  18. Ben Huie
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Most of the Dem proposals have been for a phased withdrawal – first to strategic bases and borders and then out over time. Much like what this military officer is calling for.

    The Bush administration, on the other hand, says we will be out within “months not years” of the original invasion.

  19. XXX
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Jed, Hebrew? That’s the spirit! Better yet, let’s declare “Eubonics” the national language. It’ll drive Ian crazy.

  20. Ben Huie
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    How about “BushBonics”?

  21. Jed
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    XXX,They chose Hebrew since it was the original language of Adam.

  22. Ben Huie
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    I thought that would have been Aramaic.

  23. Dr.L
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Hebrew?? Mel Gibson is just this *–* close to commiting suicide over the thought.

  24. hotlick
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    I’m in a poker game, so I’ll make this quick.Ben-The withdrawal you speak of is to bases so far away that it is not samrt. Same as C & R. I raise, call fold.

  25. JM
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    The British are and have always been unpredictable when it comes to policy on anything. One moment, they are the flag waving, soldier marching and patriotic banner-wearing peoples. The next moment they are liberal peaceniks that defy any lawmaker or politician to hold them to anything that requires an attention span longer than 12 months.

    Wait…nevermind, I just described the United States. :)

  26. steve
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    You may fight for your country, but you die for your friends.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_re_us/navy_seal_killed

  27. Jim G.
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    George W. Bush has embroiled this country in a world perception downgrade that will not be overcome for 20-30 years. There is no conceivable way that Bush can be consider more than an absolute failure on all levels. He is in way over his head. He must have been a snotty bully growing up because that personality has stuck with him. I hope he lives a long time so he can listen to the world talk about how dismal his presidency has been.What’s even worse – he is in office because 1) the religious fanatics think he is God’s son, 2) our political parties are so polarized that it’s considered a sign of poor character to choose a candidate from your own party.Tony Blair really fucked up, he got hoodwinked by little Georgey.As for GWB parents – who gives a shit about Babs and all her arrogant ramblings….and GHWB has shown in his words and mannerisms that he knows his son is a complete fuck-up.Bush has shown us that a sissy arrogant texas turn can ride daddies coattails and get elected to the highest office in America. Here’s some perceptions – how is that we give a pass the Bush for his complete ravagement of the spoken word. “Nucular” has been repeated by this lame ass since he was sworn in…almost 7 years and he has not corrected this word.Isn’t this a sign of a dumb son-of-a-bitch?If conducting an interview – wouldn’t you pass on a candidate who spoke like an Arkansas yo-yo pig fucker.We have a President as inept as that dead SOB from Enron.I am counting the days until this little prick frat boy gets sent packing.I hope the Dems win big in November and start holding Bushy accountable for Iraq decisions. We know he is a filthy liar….I mean a filthy liar who is adored for being a Christian.I should take a valium now.

  28. Jim G.
    Posted October 13, 2006 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    correction:

    “choose a candidate from a party opposite your own”

  29. steve
    Posted October 14, 2006 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Since the Brit’s are down to 7500 troops in Iraq, I’d say they cut a long time ago.