Think Iraq has cooled as an issue in Congress because of the progress of Gen. David Petraeus’ troop surge? A heated exchange on “Fox News Sunday†between Sen. Carl Levin (in photo), D-Mich., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., signaled there will be more Senate floor fireworks over war funding.
Levin: “Why in the name of heaven are we not willing to at least establish a goal for the removal of most of our troops that’s not binding?â€
Graham: “Why in the name of heaven would we undercut the most successful military operation in counterinsurgency in American history, maybe world history, because of this idea of putting — capping troop strength, changing the mission, undercutting Petraeus?â€
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
39 Comments
“the most successful military operation in counterinsurgency in American history, maybe world history”
YIKES!
I always knew graham was bugf**k insane. I’m so glad now he’s proven it….
KFG, my thoughts exactly.
And, as Josh Marshall points out, the fix is in: the White House has released a joint declaration of “principles” between itself and Al Malicki laying the groundwork for a permanent occupation of Iraq. As if amybody with a brain didn’t already know this was coming back in 2003.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004772.php
It’s the oil. Always was the oil. Always will be the oil. And to be honest, there’s a good number of Democratic congressmen and senators who are just fine with that, thanks.
It is not Congress job to establish goals for troop reduction.
They either pay or they don’t.
It is the Presidents job to lead our men in battle.
Having a bunch of political hacks in Congress arguing about troop time tables and reductions is absolutely assinine.
The only thing it will do is hinder our ability to fight effectively.
Is that what you liberals want?
Do you want to sabotage the Presidents ability to fight the war?
That is what putting artificial troop reduction time tables does.
Either support funding the war or don’t.
Enough with this petty political crap of playing with the war.
Nathan,
Oh. You mean ‘petty political crap’ like hiding behind Petraeus’s skirt and daring the Democrats to come out and fight?
Bush has killed 3000+ troops for the sake of “petty political crap.” You ought to take “petty” politics more seriously; Bush certainly does.
CF2K,
Bush has not killed any troops.
IEDS, Insurgents, Terrorists, The Taliban, and Iranians are killing our troops.
When you can’t even get the simplist of things correct how am I supposed to take you seriously in anything else you say?
“Nathan” –
“The president’s ability to fight the war” has already, for four years, been sabotaged by the President’s inability to fight the war.
The “Surge” was supposed to buy time for Iraq to develop a political solution, remember? How’s that coming, “Nathan?”
Just which tidbit of “polical crap” did you go to Iraq for, “Nathan?” Were you there to “liberate Iraqis from Saddam?” Were you there “to promote democracy?” Perhaps you were there in response to 9/11. Or did you go so you could “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here?”
Nathan,
And these troops are being killed because they were sent…where? To Iraq? By whom? Bush? For what reason? Oil.
Bush has killed 3,500+ of our troops. I hold him personally responsible.
MonkeyHawk,
So the political solution is your new benchmark for success today?
Lets review the ever changing benchmark for victory the liberals have had in this war:
-First you argued that it would caost 10,000 men to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power and that it would take months.
We did it with less than 500 casualties in under a month.
-Next the argument was that we couldn’t find Saddam.
We eventually found Saddam and hung him.
-Then the liberals argued that there couldn’t be elections and even if there were elections no one would come out to vote.
There were not only elections, but a greater percentage of Iraqi’s came out to vote than do Americans in our elections!
-Then the liberals cried that we couldn’t find, capture or kill one of the promenent Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq.
We didn’t just find him, but we dropped a bomb on him killing hin and many of his top leaders.
-Next the benchmark was that we couldn’t acheive a military victory in providing less attacks and more peace.
We implement the surge and now we see the rewards of it and the success.
-And now the liberals cry that there is not any political victory….
MonkeyHawk, we have had victory and success time and time again and the only thing you and the liberals can do is keep changing what “victory” is.
CF2K,
With logic like that, why don’t you blame the mothers of those who were killed in Iraq for giving birth to them?
If they hadn’t been born they couldn’t have been sent to Iraq to die.
Levin: “Why in the name of heaven are we not willing to at least establish a goal for the removal of most of our troops that’s not binding?”
Why not ask Hillary? She has stated the troops will stay at least until 2013. Oh and permanent bases to continue the war on terror.
Hillary is a republican when it comes to defense contractor $upport.
There are several hundred thousand trained ARI troops. There are at most a few thousand ‘dead-enders in their last throes’ to worry about. With a 100-to-1 advantage the ARI should be ready to take over.
That may be the reason she’s polling so poorly.
Ben,
You fail to take into account the advantage of being a small cladestine group bent on causing chaos.
So what if they are outnumbered 100-1?
What exactly does that have to do with the Iraqi Security Forces being ready to take over completely?
They have taken over in many places.
They continue to do so.
Would you have us just leave and then watch as a not prepared or logistically sound Iraqi Security Force crumbles?
Numbers don’t mean anything without context.
How about we provide intelligence and logistics support? The ARI should be the ones carrying out operations.
Oh, and it might be nice to see our allies in the House of Saud block their fighters since they are the #1 source.
Ben,
We do provide intelligence and logistics support.
The Iraqi Security Forces do carry out many missions.
When the Jews stop murdering Palestinians, the Jews say Palestinian violence is down, so the same must be true when we slowdown killing Iraqis.
‘many’ is not the lions share. It is THEIR country; THEY should be fighting it.
Ben,
I see that the more I address your comments the more trite they become in response…
Nathan,
I see that the more I adress your comments the more trite your sound bite responses.
Ben,
Such flattery! The best you can do is reduce this to a 2nd grade mocking contest!
Nathan – you consider my comments trite. So be it. I consider your comments to be trite.
I still want to know how many years it should take to get the several hundred thousand ARI up to speed. You only give trite excuses for why they cannot handle a few thousand dead-enders.
In 1948, when it looked like the Israelis might lose, the Palestinians refused a compromise that would have made Jerusalem an International City and ceded some land for a Jewish State.
After 1948, after the Israelis won, the Israelis refused a compromise which would have made Jerusalem an International City and given the Palestinians *their* own state.
Everything since then has been bull-headed intransigence on both sides.
Since Jerusalem is considered a holy city by Jews, Christians, *and* Muslims, the destruction of the city seems highly unlikely… or inevitable. I dunno…
Most Arabs are Sunnis. Iran is largely a Shi’ite country. The Arabs did a good job of recasting the Israeli problem into a Jew v. Muslim problem and fundamentalist (mostly American) Christians turned it into a Judeo/Christian v. Muslim fight.
There’s no logical reason for Shi’ites to back Sunni Palestinians if they were left to their own Muslim theologies.
The concept of “International Cities” was born after WWII. Berlin was one. So was Vienna. Those aren’t altogether great role-models in retrospect, but it *might* have worked for a while starting in 1948. It *might* be the ultimate solution to the Arab/Israeli question. But 60 years of fighting between whats become Muslim v. Judeo-Christian fundamentalists complicates the issue.
God, if He exists, probably has a sense of humor. In 500 years or so there’ll probably be a dominant religion centered on the message of a man named King. Rodney.
“Why can’t we all just get along?”
‘Til then, we won’t, you know.
Ben, Arguing with Nathan is like arguing with a rock, Tara once had to draw him a picture to explain things. Its easy for him to so pro war when the risk for him being in combat is nil, his tour in Iraq was what, Blogging and being a clerk.
Ben, you weren’t being inflammatory by using words like ‘deadenders’ were you?
Naw Ben would never do that.
-4 points for inflammatory word use.
Draw an extra scrabble letter from the bag as well. :)
No kansas, i was not. I was quoting someone else who described the Iraqi resistence as dead-enders in their last throes.
Of course, that ‘reliable source’ also said US military involvement would be “weeks, maybe months; not years”
It is time to cut the money off and end this thing. It has been going on for longer than WW2 went on and now Bush is talking about it going on longer. Bush should not be allowed to run the clock out and hand this off to whoever is next. End it now.
Its easy for him to so pro war when the risk for him being in combat is nil, his tour in Iraq was what, Blogging and being a clerk. Rev Jim
I dont agree with Nathan on this issue. Knocking his service this country is uncalled for whether you agree with him or not. BTW Rev Jim how many tours have you done?
now Bush is talking about it going on longer. Bush should not be allowed to run the clock out and hand this off to whoever is next. End it now.
Posted by: Kev | November 26, 2007 at 06:14 PM
Well the top democrat running for president gave Bush the green light to keep troops on the ground in Iraq.
Thanks so much Hillary Clinton for saying the troops would be there until AT LEAST 2013! Wish it was YOUR daughter serving until then.
“It is the Presidents job to lead our men in battle.”
I’d like to see that…literally.
It is the Presidents job to lead our men in battle.”
I’d like to see that…literally.
Posted by: Rox
Actually, that is not a presidents job. But if it makes you feel good, go ahead and make that the socialist gospel.
Still waiting for FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ. They certainly can take credit for leading our nation into battles. First Clinton to Bosnia and Black Hawk Down.
FDR AS President
Crossed an Atlantic teeming with German submarines to meet with Churchill and Stalin in Tehran.
JFK Captain of PT 109. Less than 20 years prior to election as President. His vessel cut in two by a Japanese cruiser, he led his crew to an island. Then he tred water all night attempting to signal for help in Japanese patrolled waters.
george bush
30 years prior to stealing the Presidency, evaded service in Viet nam by hand picked placement into a stint in the Texas Air national guard. Service record in question.
No defender of Bush here but I do have a question for JR. How does a military record or lack therof have anything to do with a persons suitability to be President?
No defender of Bush here but I do have a question for JR. How does a military record or lack therof have anything to do with a persons suitability to be President?
No defender of Bush here but I do have a question for JR. How does a military record or lack therof have anything to do with a persons suitability to be President?
Still waiting for FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ. They certainly can take credit for leading our nation into battles. First Clinton to Bosnia and Black Hawk Down.
Posted by: Pat Herron | November 26, 2007 at 10:14 PM
FDR AS President
J R must stand for “Joking Retard” because you failed to find anything on the democrats who took us to war.
Not ONE of them LED men DURING the war in combat while they were president.
Zilch, zero, nada.
So the idiotic post about Bush leading his men in battle remains the same. Stupid.
My post remains unchallenged.
It is the Presidents job to lead our men in battle.”I’d like to see that…literally.
Posted by: Rox
Actually, that is not a presidents job. But if it makes you feel good, go ahead and make that the socialist gospel.
Still waiting for FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ. They certainly can take credit for leading our nation into battles. And the First Clinton took us to Bosnia and Black Hawk Down. Clinton served dope, not guns.
Pat Herron,
Nice try at the facts. Too bad you missed.
================MISSION TO SOMALIA; Bush Declares Goal in Somalia to ‘Save Thousands’By MICHAEL WINES,NY Times, 12/5/92http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D8103EF936A35751C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
President Bush ordered troops into Somalia today on a mission to “save thousands of innocents,” as the Pentagon outlined an operation that will leave soldiers and marines in Somalia well into the Administration of President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Bush gathered broad support for the intervention from top leaders of Congress, from other world leaders and from Mr. Clinton himself, and then went on television at midday to announce an operation that thrusts the United States into a new post-cold-war role as a military force on behalf of humanitarian, not strategic ends.
“I understand the United States alone cannot right the world’s wrongs,” Mr. Bush declared in his speech, delivered just 47 days before he leaves office. “But we also know that some crises in the world cannot be resolved without American involvement, that American action is often necessary as a catalyst for broader involvement of the community of nations.” [ Transcript, page 4. ] 28,000 Troops Going
Military leaders said they would send 28,000 troops into Somalia, beginning next week and proceeding in four stages. The State Department said that Britain, Belgium, France, Canada, Pakistan and Jordan would also contribute troops or supplies and that Germany and Japan, among others, were expected to contribute money and perhaps equipment.
But the bulk of the force will be American. Administration officials expressed hope that the United States could begin to hand off some of the country to the existing United Nations peacekeeping operation before Mr. Clinton is inaugurated on Jan. 20, but it was clear that the new President would inherit an ongoing military operation.countries.