When Obama Meets Harry

He supports them by trying to save their lives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 26 2007, 04:31 PM) [snapback]430744[/snapback]</div>

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. We've been digging this hole long enough. Either we find some completely new way to further our goals in Iraq, or get out. More of the same just means more deaths before our inevitable withdrawal. We did this once before in Vietnam, and I'm old enough to remember that one.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Apr 26 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]430749[/snapback]</div>

Agreed - There comes a point at which a measurement of progress towards a goal needs done. The elections that were held in Iraq were progress, but the Iraqui's (sp?) don't seem to be taking the next step in establishing a viable government, for whatever reason. This is what I see as the major failure to this point. As someone stated in a response to one of my earlier posts, we can't make them democratic only help them become democratic. One has to question whether they want to be democratic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 26 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]430712[/snapback]</div>

What would you consider a success in Iraq?Would stability be the main objective?
I gather that last week the Bush Admin stated its no longer a priority to train Iraqi nationals to take over their own security forces.What a monumental flipflop!
Americans are forever expected to provide "security " ?
Is the objective to instill Democracy?If we allow freedom of choice ,Iraq will be a Shiite religious state under Shiara law.
Is the objective to end terrorism?We are fomenting terrorism in the next generation of young Muslims.I would guess that we have already created ,many times over ,more terrorists than we have killed. If the objective is to win hearts and minds weve lost that battle a long time ago.
We killed Saddam Hussein ,and stopped his threat of using WMDs.Lets declare "Mission Accomplished" and go home as victors .There is no real objective other than to occupy the region.

 

The war is lost, and was in fact never winnable, since we had no agreed upon definition of success before going in there in the first place.

It's pretty clear that, militarily, this level of involvement (or less) is all that we're willing to tolerate...and that this level of involvement is not enough to do anything but prolong the agony.

Additionally, there has been (relative to the war effort) quite little planning on how to rebuild Iraq (compared with how to destroy it). Which indicates to me that a realistic cost assessment of the full campaign has not been performed or communicated to us, the folks who will be paying for it all.

Which, in turn, makes me wonder how many things were misstated.

Further, it's becoming more and more clear that the Iraqis will not step up to take control of their government, at least not in the way we're expecting. So one of the tenets of the whole conflict, the transition of security responsibilities from 'us' to 'them,' has now changed.

Bottom line: if we're not going to/can't escalate any further...and we have no real, strategic plans for putting their cities and towns back together again in any case (which seems paramount to ensuring stability in the region; making sure that the basic needs of human beings are met)...then the only other real choice is to put an end to it, take any lumps that come with the consequences of our previous decisions, and move on.

That's how I see it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 26 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]430744[/snapback]</div>

Hypothetically let's assume Harry Reid is wrong and the war is, indeed, not lost.

Is it more duplicitous of Mr. Reid to tell the troops, "I support you, but I am telling your enemy that we lost the war," or "I support you while you are in harms way, but I'm cutting off your funding."

Would you also "support" your local police force by telling them that they have lost the war on crime (the war on crime has yet to be won ) and that in a show of support for the officers . . . to spare their lives . . . you are going renew their funding as long as they get off the streets and go back to their barracks and police stations.
Do you think crime rates would get better? (hey, if they aren't reported they WILL. :blink: )
Do you thing the police would become demoralized?
Do you think the police would have a harder, more dangerous job to do in the future????

 

Why is it that I have a nagging feeling that this thread was started in order to divert attention from comments made earlier today by General Petraeus concerning the situation in Iraq:

[Excerpts]

 

If Harry "dingy" Reid really believed that the war was lost, or if he had any sack, he would just pull the funding now!

What is this BS about a deadline, if its lost NOW, then end it Now.

Come on Dem's insist that the funding is pulled now and we'll see what the November vote really meant!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 26 2007, 11:36 AM) [snapback]430712[/snapback]</div>

First, if you are going to quote Senator Reid, please use the entiure quote instead of a couple of words out of context. The quote, as delivered on the floor of the Senate was:

<blockquote>
"As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course."

</blockquote>
I happen to believe that Senator Reid is correct in his assessment. The Bush Administration has failed the American people, and has failed our troops by placing them in an unwinnable war without a plan to succeed. President Bush ignored the recommendations of the Baker/Hamilton commission, sent more troops into harm's way knowing that he did not have the support of the American people or the Congress, and now expects Congress to fund an ill-conceived plan (which a strong majority of reasonable Americans believe is unwinnable). There is no reason to believe that the Bush administration can succeed in Iraq based on their past performance, and as an American voter, I believe that Congress should strip the administration of it's war powers regarding Iraq and let more reasonable heads take over and implement solutions which include diplomacy.

Now, on a procedural basis, it is the right of the Congress to choose what to fund and what not to fund... they are representing the people, and are constitutionally granted the power of the purse. It is also the President's right to veto bills which are sent to him. Bottom line, if he vetos the bill, Congress is under no obligation to pass another, and President Bush must begin withdrawing the troops as soon as funding runs out in July.

Congress is doing the job we elected them to do, and I personally am not disappointed that they have attached reasonable limitations to this bill.
Now, can Harry Reid push for limits and timelines on this war and still support the troops? Despite what you assert, he can do this without the conflict you suggest. Ried is attempting to force the President to change policy... that has nothing to do with support or lack of support for the troops, or your perceived support of the enemy. It never has, and pushing this misperception is a desperate right-wing lie.

Does Reid embolden the enemy? No. Reid isn't saying anything that the American people and the Iraqi people don't already know, and isn't saying anything that 'promotes' more attacks. To suggest so it more of the big right-wing lie, and shows that you are desperate. Did John McCain embolden the enemy by proclaiming a market to be as safe as a farmer's market in Indiana, only to see insurgents bomb that market the very next day? Did President Bush embolden the enemy by saying "Bring 'em on." a few years ago - apparently inviting attacks on our troops?

Dr. Berman, you aren't an unintelligent person. You need to step back and examine your comments... look at them from a reasonable view (the view of the majority of Americans) instead of concentrating on right-wing talking points. You need to realize that the November elections were a clear mandate against the war, and against the policies of the Bush administration. The American people don't want this war, and don't like this administrations policies. They put Democrats into control to remedy that. Harry Reid is doing the job the American people want him to do, and I commend him for being the voice of the American people and standing up to this out-of-control administration.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 26 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]430788[/snapback]</div>

The war on crime is actually a lot like the war in Iraq; without addressing some of the underlying issues for the conflicts, the 'war' (either one), will continue at a standoff.

I'm feeling like your scenario is a bit simplistic in nature...wanting to win and figuring out HOW to win are two entirely different things.

Also, supporting our local law enforcement agency is actually possible (neighborhood watch programs, becoming involved with the PD and taking courses, teaching our children to be law abiding citizens, etc.)...but, honestly, I don't really think it matters one way or another if I write in this forum that I'm for or against the war.

I have to pay taxes and support the conflict, and that's it. What I say or write or do is (normally) of absolutely no consequence in deterring our war efforts...just as your remarks are of absolutely no consequence in supporting them. Tell me how, specifically, what I've written here has in any way influenced the outcome of events in Iraq. If I had that kind of power, you'd better believe I'd do something about the situation!

 

Incidentally, here's the transcript from the congressional record. These remarks were delivered by Senator Reid on April 19th, 2007. Read it in context - you'll find it enlightening:

Madam President, the White House has been telling America that Democrats are doing the wrong thing by calling for a change of course in Iraq. They say holding the Iraqi Government accountable is wrong. They say finding a political solution in Iraq is wrong. They say redeploying troops out of a civil war is wrong. They have said even debating a strategy for changing course is dangerous, and many Senate Republicans have backed that up by blocking several of our attempts to debate this issue here on the Senate Floor.

The American people want us to debate the war, and they want us to change the course. Listen to what the President's own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in the last few hours, and I quote:

"The debate in Congress has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

The President and some of my Republican colleagues have also attempted to create a false crisis by claiming that Democrats are putting the troops in danger by not sending the supplemental bill immediately. But today, the Pentagon acknowledged what Democrats have long known - that President Bush continues to misstate the reality on the ground and in Iraq to score political points.

Like the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon now acknowledges that it can pay for the Iraq war at least through June with the funds that have already been provided.

I hope the President and our Republican colleagues in Congress will put these false claims aside so we can get back to working toward a bipartisan solution.

Yesterday I met with President Bush to express the will of the American people, senior military officials, and a bipartisan majority of Congress that we must change course in Iraq. I told President Bush that, going on to 5 years, more than 3,300 American soldiers lost, tens of thousands wounded, a third of them gravely wounded, and billions and billions of dollars depleted from our Treasury, we as a country must change course in Iraq.

Conditions in Iraq get worse by the day. Now we find ourselves policing another nation's civil war. We are less secure from the many threats to our national security than we were when the war began. As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. But there must be a change of course. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and our praise. More important, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice.

The supplemental bill we passed with bipartisan support offers that. It includes a reasonable and attainable timeline to reduce combat missions and refocus our efforts on the real threats to our country's security. It offers a new path, a new direction forward. If we put politics aside, I believe we can find a way to make America safer and stronger.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Apr 26 2007, 05:42 PM) [snapback]430869[/snapback]</div>

What Sen. Reid is actually saying . . . just not verbally:</span>

"As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost" . . . ' but by following this arbitrary timeline of retreat and surrender, we guarantee that defeat.'

"No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do". . . . ' but that's only because I don't consider a military success, well, a success.'

"The supplemental bill we passed with bipartisan support" . . .' but it was also met with bipartisan opposition. My fellow colleague, Sen. Joseph Lieberman does not agree with me. He stated, "In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost. But if we follow the plan in this legislation, it will be lost and so, I fear, will much of our hope for stability in the Mideast." - 'but personally, I don't care. I am now large and in-charge around these parts and I am going to demonstrate that fact with this legislation which is guaranteed to be vetoed by the president. I am going to play politics at the expense of our troops' morale.'

"It includes a reasonable and attainable timeline to reduce combat missions and refocus our efforts on the real threats to our country's security" . . . ' and when we succeed in bolstering those threats , we will once again support our troops by surrendering and retreating further and further. War is icky, and I don't have the stomach for it.'

<span style="color:#009900">* Lieberman quote . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/26/con...iraq/index.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 27 2007, 03:22 AM) [snapback]431041[/snapback]</div>

In the words of Charlie Brown ....