Bring the troops home?

"I will begin to bring our troops home as soon as I am president, because it is abundantly clear that President Bush does not intend to end the war."
— Hillary Clinton, 10/30/07

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Democrats all across the country believed in 2006, when the Democrats were elected to the majority in the House and Senate, that that was a signal to end the war, and the war would end. You have said that will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term, 2013. Why not? CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we’re going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal?
– From 9/26 DNC

LOL, I’d say with that ad she just handed Republicans a huge gift- by showing herself to be a tax and spend liberal as well as being irresponsible (and dishonest) by saying she’d ‘bring the troops home’.

<< The demand to bring the troops home is ludicrous and irresponsible. The surge is working, to withdraw the troops now equals giving up while you’re winning. >>

MvdG, from you of all people I had expected better than such an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack.  You have righfully criticized others more than once in the past for doing the very thing.

Ludicrous? What is laughable about ending such bloodshed?

Irresponsible? How is one irresposible when one comes to the realization that a terrible mistake has been made and then immediately sets to laying plans to reverse that error as quickly as possible?

The surge is working? This comes from the same pathological liars who previously told us that Iraq had WMD and that Sadam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks and you take their word for it?  Surely you can muster up the 3 grains of sceptical salt required to cosider the source?

Many independent reports coming out of Iraq indicate that the apparent (and slight) reduction in daily carnage has little or nothing to do with surge.  In the Bagdad area a number of tenuous truce agreements have been apparently entered into with Sadr and other militants.  In the south the Warlords enjoy a de-facto victory with the departure of the Brits.  Why should these reports be any less credible that those produced by the occupation forces?

Vietnam offer a good object lesson.  Several decades ago the US forces left in a well documented panic and in apparent defeat, having utterly failed in "bringing Democracy" to those locals. Today, the US  enjoys a diplomatic relationship with that country, free of "benevolent" military interference, apparently having made far greater progress in bringing far more prosperity and even liberty to the Vietnamese through friendly trade than it ever did at the point of a gun.

Robert E: You’ve made some reasonable comments in the past but that one was totally off base.

First, what is your definition of ad hominem attack? Michael didn’t attack Hillary, he expressed strong disagreement with a matter of policy that she stated in the ad.

Second, there are oodles of people reporting progress in Iraq, who are not from within the Bush administration, so your ‘pathological liars’ bit is completely wrong (I’d also add that this was an example of an actual ad hominem attack.)

Third, some of the negotiated truces you describe are actually part of the surge strategy. Some of it had begun to happen spontaneously before the surge (in Anbar) but there was definitely an element in the planning which decided to capitalize on that phenomenon and encourage more of it. It’s a risky move since we’re embracing the ‘enemy of my enemy’, but we’re doing so specifically because these are all still Iraqi people who need to reconcile. If they say they’re now willing to lay down their arms and work together in a political process for power sharing, I think we have to take them at their word (cautiously, of course) and see if we can help make that happen.

The Vietnam canard is ridiculous and becoming annoying too. So the Vietnamese have recovered after more than thirty years, and that’s supposed to mean that it was no big deal?

BTW Michael,  on a lighter note,  while still a student many years ago (in the 60’s) I had a great friendship with Piet Glas, a dairy farmer in Leermens (just East of Groningen).  Besides giving me the incredible experience of assisting in the delivery of a Jersey calf with my own two hands and sharing in the biest (transl.: rich post-partum milk), he also gave me the foundation for an earthy respect for truth and facts which has served me well throughout my life.  Much of what I write today can ultimately be credited to him.

You would do me a great favor if you could find the time to find out if Piet is still around those parts and pass on Christmas wishes from a friend out of the long forgotten past. You have my last name.

Because, as I’m sure life had taught you, sometimes making up for a mistake means that you’ve got to take responsibility for that mistake and do what’s best now.

Well said, Michael.

I can’t help thinking it’s a bit like a boy getting a girl pregnant, and then he claims that his way of showing that he ‘learned his lesson’ is to say "I’m not going to have anything to do with THAT girl again." Instead, if he wants to show that he learned his lesson, then take responsibility for the pregnancy, and state that you won’t go around having unprotected casual sex in the future.

I certainly agree that the withdrawal from Vietnam was nothing to be proud of, but the really shameful act was to go there in the first place, as is true for the Iraqi adventure today.

Robert E: Then see my comment #10. What you should be looking for is someone who will take responsibility for the ‘mistake’ of going into Iraq by assuring the Iraqis that we will stick around to make the situation better as much as possible, while also clearly stating that they will not engage in policies that lead to wars like this in the future.

<< Because, as I’m sure life had taught you, sometimes making up for a mistake means that you’ve got to take responsibility for that mistake and do what’s best now. >>

Absolutely!  Keeping in mind however that the end-goal has to be withdrawing all occupational forces as quickly as humanely and practically possible.

<< "I’m not going to have anything to do with THAT girl again." >>

What the necons are saying is: "That girl was a fun!  Never mind that I knocked her up, I’m going to get me some more of that!"

"Oh, and now that you mention it, there seems to be another cute chick (Iran) living next door.  let’s do her too!  FUN!"

I’m arguing agains the stated policies of the current administration.

I’m arguing agains the stated policies of the current administration.

Actually you’re not. Do you care to show any quote from anyone within the administration that would support the idea that they thought the Iraq War has been ‘fun’ or that they WANT to go to war against Iran (as opposed to keeping a military option on the table in order to give leverage for sanctions and diplomatic solutions to work?)

OK, no point beating a dead horse then.  My business day is starting anyway, so I have to run.

TaTa!

Merry Christmas everyone.
PS.:  I love this place.  Lot’s of good exchanges, lot’s of well considered and diverse viewpoints and polite tolerance. 
BRAVO, Michael v.d. G.

or should I have said "tolerant courtesy"?

When conservatives hate it, liberals have got to love it, I’d say.

I dunno if I count as "liberal" though I’d say that generally yes, and I am not impressed. While sort of cute, I’d  much rather she wish everyone a happy holidays, in a more family oriented, less materialistic tone. She needn’t make overtly religious references, though nominally a Christian holiday (and originally a pagan holiday) people of many and no faiths celebrate these days. For me, it’s a family and gift giving time, sans the supernatural beings. For me the perfect ad would be one like Huckabee’s, but inclusive of everyone, that is, an ad that speaks not at all about politics, or campaign promises, but just wishes you well, whoever you are.

That’s about as blatant a commercial for nanny government as you will ever see. She’s going to give us all those things!

Unstated: But don’t worry, someone else will pay for them! All we have to do is eat the rich make Scrooge live up to his social responsibilities.

She needn’t make overtly religious references, though nominally a Christian holiday (and originally a pagan holiday) people of many and no faiths celebrate these days

This reminds me of a joke….

To all my Democrat friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress,
non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion
of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not
to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically un complicated recognition
of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions
to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America
in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To all my Republican friends:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

LOL, I saw that e-mail last year and it came to my mind too.

I found it a hilarious e-mail.

Which of course in no way intends to announce support or preferred treatment to either party in any way, shape or form.  And any illusion as to how one party is portrayed over another is for pure satirical content and in no way marks an agreement of such description.