Warner to Bush: Start troop withdrawals from Iraq

As Paulo would say, damn those democRATS! Oh wait, Warner is a Republican.

Viet Nam all over again.

Hey! Where are all the ChickenHawk Conservative Keyboard Warriors! Cannot wait to hear what marching orders you get from Rush and FOX News on what to call John Warner. Let's See...DefeatORepub! Cut and Run Geezer! WAit, Wait. I know, I know. Secret Documents will be leaked to the press declaring that John Warner is being treated for Alzheimers Disease and he forgot that we were actually winning the hearts and minds of Iraq. He actually thought he was getting back from Viet Nam in 1971 when he actually was getting back from Iraq! OK - Take your marching orders now!

"I KNOW WHAT YOU CAN DO SENATOR. GO GET 1994 INTERVIEWS WITH DICK CHENEY RELATING TO OCCUPYING IRAQ THROUGH MILITARY FORCE."

EVERY REASON WHY NOT, HAS BECOME THE REALITY OF TODAY. A QUAGMIRE THEN BUT BY HIS NEW SECRETARY OF STATE, AN AUGUMENTATION. ONLY THIS TIME AT THE EXPENSE OF MORE THAN 142 BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN AND 150,000 CHEMICALLY INJURED, BUT 3900 BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN AND 56,000 INJURED BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN, 65% DIVORCED MILITARY FAMILIES AND ACCORDING THE BRITISH PRESS 1,000,000,000 IRAQIS.
ONE MILLION, THATS RIGHT.

SO THAT IS A START SENATOR.

AND IF THAT ISN'T ENOUGH, THEN HAVE A REAL MOMENT IN YOUR SENATORIAL CAREER AND REWRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS FOR MY GRANDAUGHTER AND IMPEACH BUSH, CHENEY IF THEY DO NOT LISTEN TO YOU!

THAT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, NOT YOUR MORAL OR ETHICAL DUTY, YOU U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO US WE THE PEOPLE!

IF WE ARE STILL WE THE PEOPLE UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION.

Why didn't Warner tell him man to man? I guess I answered my own question.

That would send a wonderful message to the terrorists that if we don't get what we want on our timetable we fold just like we did in Vietnam. We would have won that one if not for the Dems. Let's not have another loss like that.

Oh wait... kb!
5000 troops home by Christmas is Not Cut,Run and Lose like the democRATS want for their own political agenda.
Oh wait!Joe Lieberman,Democrat V.P. hopeful in 2000 backs President Bush on the war on terror,including Iraq.

Paulo

Ever wonder what the Tribune would look like if self-appointed conservative "guardians" on this blog had their way?

Newsbusters.org(exposing and combating liberal media bias, no less) on the following topics:

No comments on Sen. Warner's assessment yet, but this on NYT article:

NYT Shifts Iraq Goalposts
By Richard Newcomb | August 23, 2007 - 10:56 ET
Now that the military surge led by General Petraeus is clearly succeeding in lowering the violence level in Iraq, the liberal media cheerleaders for defeat are scrambling for a new strategy to convince Americans that Iraq is a disaster. But what line will they choose?

The New York Times has apparently decided that since success on the military end of things is now fairly evident, that it is time to begin chipping away at the political side. To this end, they have once again utilized their favorite tool, the anonymous source, to try to destroy Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The Times story, posted on the front page of their web site, is entitled Report Cites Grave Concerns on Iraq's Government.

No mention, of course, that even commanders in the field say nothing else matters if no political solution is achieved. Nor do they mention that Republicans are among those questioning Malici's effectiveness.

On Arthur Bremer, attempted assassin of George Wallace:

George Wallace Assailant to Leave Prison; AP Fails to Note Wallace Was Democrat
By Ken Shepherd | August 23, 2007 - 15:21 ET

Yeah, and Shepherd fails to mention that the Dixiecrats deserted the party for the Republicans when Kennedy and Johnson pushed for civil rights legislation. Dems did the right thing and lost the South to the Republican Party.

A little light in the forest...hope springs eternal...

Just watched an interview with Warner. His ideas seem very reasonable. Even for a republican!

Too little too late.

The US had no business going in Iraq in the 1st place.

Wonder what Osama has to say. Any conservatives remember him?

Exactly Paulo, its not all black and white. That's the point. You assume because I make fun of you that I must be Dem who hates Lieberman. Sorry. I just like poking fun at people like you who have such a narrow black and white view.

Too little too late indeed.

You kept your yap shut when it would have made a difference. Now there's 4,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis on your head. Rot in hell Warner.

Too little, too late...sure looks that way RB.

Interesting perspective from seven enlisted men and nco's from the 82nd Airborne Division, in a NYT op-ed about Iraq War (Slate article):

http://www.slate.com/id/2172634

Some comments that don't bode well for an Iraq "success story":

The central point of the seven soldiers' critique speaks to the very heart of counterinsurgency theory. They write:

Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched.

This difficulty, they say, is intensified by "the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army." By day, Iraqi security forces are armed and trained by U.S. military personnel. By night, they help insurgents plant bombs that maim and kill those same U.S. personnel the next day. The seven soldiers write:

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that [Iraqi] battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Read the whole article, it's quite sobering.

Despite all evidents, President Bush and his administration are still arrogant and blinded by the Iraq War. The people of this country are fed up with Bush’s senseless war and the lack of domestic policies. There are much more important issues in this world that the US should be taking part in, such as global poverty. According to the Borgen Project, whose goal is to fight global poverty, US are one of the nations pledged in the Millennium Development Project. MDP is aimed at eliminating world poverty in half by the year 2015. However, this country has done anything but reducing poverty. The war on “terror” has created more poverty, more hunger and more violence within Iraq and the United States. It is time for this country’s president to rethink the direction where this great nation is going. Put aside the political gain and stop the Iraq war and stop global poverty now.

Paula,

You, Joe Lieberman, and the 78 remaining Bush supporters can keep praising the war effort. Bravo to you.

First of all Paulo, you neocons need to stop using "cut and run". It just doesn't fly after 4 1/2 years.

Second, it's not about a "war" being lost. It's about how America lost its heart, soul, dignity and reputation as a just nation when Bush started his immoral war of choice.

We no for a fact that AlQaeda has expanded since this was started. There was no "Alqaeda in Iraq" before the war. An, as also has been proven, Iraq had nothing to with 9/11/01 and there were no WMD's.

That being said, I do think Warner is right here, and it was what Democrats have been saying all along. We basically need to tell Maliki (and the Iraqi govt't) to "shape up" or we'll "ship out".

When the British finally ended their occupation of India in the 1940's, India had many problems with waring factions (mainly between Hindus and Muslims). But, while they still have some problems, they are a great success story with a thrivng democracy.

It's time we see if Iraq can take the same course and we will only know by leaving. We can't hold their hands forever.

What a Defeatocrat!!

Ain't it all strange. Warner and a whole legion of Republicans have been saying it you set timetables and dates for withdrawing we will embolden the enemy. They have said that time and time again. Now it's okay to set time tables. If we had started a pull back or re-deployment 3 years ago we would be out of Iraq, and what would have happened would have happened by now. Now we have yet to go through what will happen. Ain't it strange?

Big headline, small story.

5000 troops are too few to make any difference one way or another. Warner's suggestion is not so much good or bad as it is inconsequential.

Watching Bruce, Paulo and the rest of the far-right Dubya apologists try to spin thoughtful Republicans like Warner, Hagel, and Lugar would be laughable were it not for a lot of people getting killed for no damned good reason.

al-Maliki & company have demonstrated time and again that they are utterly incapable of forging a political reconcilliation.

A thoughtful, orderly withdraw of our troops from Iraq is the right thing to do.

the sooner we do it, the fewer the people die.

Big headline, small story.

5000 troops are too few to make any difference one way or another. Warner's suggestion is not so much good or bad as it is inconsequential.

Posted by: Bruce | August 24, 2007 10:49 AM

I disagree. It's not the numbers that are important, but the concept. This likely signals that "stay the course" is no longer tenable within the Republican ranks. This signals the Maliki-led government that it must begin to show results because we will began drawing down our forces, one way or another.

GW:

Warner isn't advocating a wholesale pullout. He just wan't Duh'bya to play chicken with Maliki - because Maliki and the rest of the Iraqi government has been taking our presence there for granted.

The point is that Warner wants to put pressure on the Iraqi government to move toward that "political reconciliation" that is so essential to lasting peace, but which Maliki and Co. haven't lifted a finger to put in place.

So, no, there is no contradiction between the position of the anti-timetable crew and those who want to scare Maliki into action. After all, if they plan on never having a political reconciliation, then no one can argue to keep our troops there - unless we want to conquer the place and run it ourselves. Right?