McCain: "[Democrats] have a responsibility to tell us the consequences of a withdrawal in Iraq"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 12 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]374693[/snapback]</div>

A spike in flower prices after Iraqis depleted the world supply by buying them up to throw at the liberators.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 12 2007, 08:40 AM) [snapback]374693[/snapback]</div>

Pity poor McCain. Can't see the hypocrisy. He was so close to the presidency and now unless a miracle happens in Iraq (I can still dream, can't I?) he is never gonna get there. Personally, I believe what will happen upon withdrawal tomorrow is the very same thing which will happen in X number of years in the future. That nation will (once free of outside interference) figure it out themselves. Or not, and continue on the same path they have been on for a millennium. The only big difference will be the number of military lives lost between now and 'X', and how much more of our sovereignty and national security we choose to hand to countries willing to buy our debt. McCain has been a supporter all along, so HE should tell US what will happen when HIS gamble fails. He OWES it to the nation.

I am coming to the belief (still forming) that the Dems should get some cahones and give the military a 2 week window to evacuate, with the threat (backed up with action) to pull the financial plug, and go public with a statement that there have been so many screw ups that their main concern is for the lives of our military, and the long term safety of our country as evidenced by the emboldening of enemies of the state due to our poor showing in Iraq, and the fact that our military is overextended and we need them home for protection of US soil. They should make the caveat that if it becomes necessary to redeploy into Iraq sometime in the future there will be a requirement of a long-term plan with markers and exit strategy before funding will be advanced. They should counter arguments of further attacks on US soil by implementing at minimum, the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. It could be fully funded with the money saved by withdrawal from Iraq. As our service people return they should be treated to welcome-home parades and what not to show we support them and thank them for attempting a difficult job under poor planning and inadequate funding (by the republican congress which has been thrown out of power for their f**k-ups). It should made extensively clear that what happened was wrong, poorly planned, underfunded, (by a republican controlled house, senate and president) and the returning service people should be made aware that they will be retrained to go after BIN LADEN as soon as they recover. The dems should act proud that as soon as they had a say they put an end to this republican debacle, begin double impeachment proceedings, investigations into war profiteering with life in prison for the guilty along with removal of said corporate charters, and freezing of those corporate bank accounts. The dems should generally take full credit for doing the right thing in the face of miserable choices. They should BURY any whining republican with a media blitz and concerted efforts to oust those who bad mouth the dems for rescuing our national interests in the next election. That's a beginning of what SHOULD happen. I have little hope because the dems are as incompetent as the repubs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 12 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]374765[/snapback]</div>

Once you get Osama - and how do you do that without invading a sovereign country which ever one he might be holed up in - does that end the threat we face from terrorists?

And by the way - if you want to follow the ISG recommendations - the troops ain't coming home :lol: You should ask yourself why they think that. That might change the beliefs you are forming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 12 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]374693[/snapback]</div>

Ah, the irony of worrying about plans and consequences now. Poor McCain, I'd have much more respect to him if he'd stood up after the Bush smear on his adopted daughter. Now he's here having to shill for this sideshow.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 12 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]374693[/snapback]</div>

Exactly what I was going to say. Furthermore, that very obligation continue todays!

 

While i completely agree that Bush and his bedfellows screwed things up royally ever since the words "war on terror" and "invading Iraq" left the presidents mouth for the first time, i think McCain has a good point. When one group (or person) proposes a theory or plan to solve a problem or situation, it's pretty useless for the opponents to just stand there saying "Oh, that won't work".

BOTH sides need to look at their proposals (more troops versus more political pressure) and figure out what the pro's and con's are - something i don't think either side has really done so far. The whole conflict in Washington over what to do in Iraq is really starting to sound a lot like an "us versus them" argument, without regards to what may really be the best option...

Personally, I think i might stand up and cheer if Bush came on the air and said "We're all sick of this war. Over the next two weeks, we're withdrawing the troops, and if there isn't peace in the area by the time we're out, we're bombing the sh*t out of it until nothing is left."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 12 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]374800[/snapback]</div>

Yes, killing innocent civilians really sounds like a good idea. As if we haven't done enough with Bush's monumental errors of judgement.

I don't know why we're still arguing about this. Bush has already lost the war.

 

I think that Bush cannot say what the consequences of his escalation of the war will bring. For example, while Bush has dragged his feet the past month + devising his plan, isn't it just possible that our assorted enemies in Iraq, particularly the Mahdi Army, have gotten even MORE ready to escalate their own violence than our additional troops will have been prepared to deter? In other words, could we suffer, proportionately, even more casualties than than we've been having inflicted on us? (And remember, Maliki/Sadr OPPOSE Bush's move.)

Similarly, I think that those opposing the escalation cannot say what the consequences will be of a phased withdrawal. There are simply too many other "actors" and possibilities.

Have we ever witnessed a finer example of the Law of Unintended Consequences?

We're only asking that Maliki commit political suicide, by attacking lawless Shiites, no?

So McCain and others who espouse this line are simply asking for an avalanche of conjectural blather, to be stacked up against Bush's/McCain's blather.

I'm with MarinJohn (and Dick Durbin). We've given enough in lives and treasure, and four years should have been long enough, given what we ostensibly went to Iraq for. The Law of Unintended Consequences that bit Bush is that, thanks to wildly underestimated sectarian hatred among Iraqis, and the invasion-generated presence now of al-Quaeda in Iraq, that disintegrating country is now clearly worse off than it was in 2002, Saddam or no Saddam---and so is the United States of America.

The Iraqis will sort it out, and, no matter what emerges in the way of civil government, most of their people will despise us for opening the floodgates when we had no idea what our playing with matches would bring.

Let Iran, Syria and Turkey gobble up the pieces of our broken pottery---and its oil---if the Iraqis can't figure out how to govern themselves and secure their borders. Is nation-statehood so sacred that the world needs for Iraq to exist as an entity?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jan 12 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]374834[/snapback]</div>

Certainly I agree there were lots of unintended consequences, but not all of the consequences were unintended. Remember back to August of 2001. Bush had just benefited from a coup-de'etat and the country was foaming at the mouth and he faced very serious trouble at home. After 9/11 he sent the Saudi's out of the country (was it the Bin Laden family? I can't remember) by air even tho all aircraft were grounded. He made a farcical showing of going after the Bush-family friend Bin Laden, which very quickly morphed into an attack on Iraq. This served two very important functions/consequences. It gave him firm control of the country and placed his friends in the enviable position of non-bid contracts of 'support' in Iraq. Yes, there have been untold unintended consequences, but not all of them unintended. It was a script even Regan/Ollie North and the rest of the Iran/Contra drugs-for-arms crowd couldn't even dream of.

 

Prediction (duh):

REGARDLESS of when we leave---now or 7 years from now---the government of Iraq is eventually going to be almost indistinguishable from that of Iran (in both form and in attitudes/relationships toward/with the rest of the world, especially Israel).

If you buy that, then do you see any point in sacrificing even one more American life there?

If so, for what? One of those 30-year ripoff (vis-a-vis the host country) oil "development" contracts, secured by Exxon/Mobil or Shell, that were just announced (but which haven't had the finishing touches put on them by the Iraqis yet)?