Cheney

[theknife]

well, while we're all debating the wisdom of withdrawal from iraq, looks like it's a foregone conclusion:

PRESIDENT BUSH is planning a major pullout of US troops from Iraq amid rising opposition to the war on Capitol Hill and across America.
After a fortnight in which the political debate has rapidly moved from how to fight the war to how best to get out of Iraq, the White House is looking at reducing troop levels by at least 60,000 next year.

Confirming the worst fears of the war’s conservative supporters, who argue that more troops are needed to defeat the insurgency, senior military officials made clear yesterday that the Bush Administration’s goal is to cut troop levels from 160,000 to below 100,000 by the end of 2006.

Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, far from denying the withdrawal plan first reported in The Washington Post, said that a gradual pullout of troops could begin “fairly soon”, and that the number of coalition troops is “clearly going to come down”.

Dr Rice told Fox News that the US will not need to maintain its present troop levels in Iraq for “very much longer”, because Iraqi security forces are “stepping up”. She added: “I think that’s how the President will want to look at this.”

The talk of withdrawal comes after a profound and swift change in attitude about Iraq in Congress. The issue, festering just below the surface for months, has exploded in Washington and is resonating loudly throughout America. In the past fortnight the war has eclipsed every other subject and is accelerating Mr Bush’s slide in the polls.

note to the hawks: it ain't about victory in iraq, it's about victory in the 2006 Congressional elections. the situation is untenable, everyone knows, it's just a question of how to spin the bail-out.

[Mazer]

Believe what you want. Victory in Iraq has already been achieved, now it's simply a matter of keeping the peace. Really, calling all this the 'War on Terror' was an unfortunate mistake on the administration's part. Wars must come to an end, but defeating terrorism is a continuing process. The war with Iraq wasn't the war on terror, it was only one step in the process.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Believe what you want. Victory in Iraq has already been achieved, now it's simply a matter of keeping the peace. Really, calling all this the 'War on Terror' was an unfortunate mistake on the administration's part. Wars must come to an end, but defeating terrorism is a continuing process. The war with Iraq wasn't the war on terror, it was only one step in the process.

'victory" is a bit of a stretch, no? certainly you can say "mission accomplished" (that is, using the original mission objectives - get Saddam and the WMD's that weren't there). but victory for whom? not for US interests - we created a new generation of terrorists, weakened our military, made ourselves despised throughout the world, and put Iraq in bed with Iran. victory for the iraqis? they don't seem to share that sentiment - check this interview with iraq's first prime minister Iyad Allawi:

LONDON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - Abuse of human rights in Iraq is as bad now as it was under Saddam Hussein, if not worse, former prime minister Iyad Allawi said in an interview published on Sunday.

"People are doing the same as (in) Saddam Hussein's time and worse. It is an appropriate comparison," Allawi told British newspaper The Observer.

"People are remembering the days of Saddam," said Allawi, a secular Shi'ite and former Baathist who is standing in elections scheduled for Dec. 15. "These are the precise reasons why we fought Saddam Hussein and now we are seeing the same things.

"We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated," said Allawi in an apparent reference to the discovery of a bunker at the Shi'ite-run Interior Ministry where 170 men were held prisoner, beaten, half-starved and in some cases tortured.

hmm - human rights abuses as bad or worse now than under Saddam. that's some victory.

but it will be necessary for the administration to declare victory to begin withdrawing troops and it will be necessary for the hard-core Bush apologists to repeat it in order to save face.

[Mazer]

The difference is that now that Saddam is gone Iraq can do something about the human rights issues. As Sinner said in the text he quoted, Iraqis are beginning to despise the remanents of the old regime and you're going to see more and more of their attention focused on getting rid of them.

To prove that the US has lost this war, you'll have to prove that a) there are in fact more terrorists then there were before and they're more capable of attacking us, b) our military has been weakened, to do that you'll have to do more than cite recruitment statistics, c) show exactly how our image is hurting us in the eyes of other nations, ignoring general sentiment and citing actual economic and political evidence, and d) convince everyone that peace between Iraq and Iran is bad.

It's okay if you can't, as long as you just keep pounding the message we'll beleive you.

Look, everybody is getting what they wanted. US forces are going to leave Iraq on a rather short timetable, Iraq gets the chance to prove they're grown up enough to manage their own nation democratically, and the fact that no WMD's were found there is actually a good thing. The middle east is a safer place now because, no matter what you say, a madman with killer weapons and an entire nation at his command would be an order of magnitude more dangerous than even a thousand madmen with carbombs and machine guns.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

To prove that the US has lost this war, you'll have to prove that a) there are in fact more terrorists then there were before and they're more capable of attacking us, b) our military has been weakened, to do that you'll have to do more than cite recruitment statistics, c) show exactly how our image is hurting us in the eyes of other nations, ignoring general sentiment and citing actual economic and political evidence, and d) convince everyone that peace between Iraq and Iran is bad.

actually, i think it's more of a stalemate, but to address your points:

1)the number of terrorists attacks world-wide, and obviously in iraq, are higher and dealier than ever (google the reports, but they've been linked here before), therefore it would be reasonable to assume there are more of them and they are better at it.

2)anecdotal, but telling: i was at Fort Bragg, NC last month, home of the 82nd Airborne - there are aging pot-bellied civilian rent-a-cops at the gates. they simply don't have enough active duty personnel to guard the base. there are lots of reports and stats, but you can google them as well as i can.
it is also questionable whether we currently have the resources to sustain a second war, long held to be the benchmark of our military capabiliies.

3)ask any American who's travelled overseas in the last year (i spent T-Day with a bunch of them) - the dislike for Amerca is palpable, the hostility often overt. extrapolate that into dollars lost for Americans who don't want to go back there, and foreigners who don't want to visit here. anecdotal as well, but a sea change nonetheless - we are simply no longer the beacon that we used to be.

4)"peace between iraq and iran"? i suppose that's one way to look at it - another way might be that one leg of Bush's "axis of evil" has now expanded it's sphere of influence to include a large part of iraq. this is a good thing?

[Repo]

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania was right when he said that the U. S. military "have become the target" and he was right to suggest the U.S. should pull the troops out of Iraq. Immediately after Murtha's statement the Bush Administration linked the pro-military Democrat to Michael Moore and the so-called radical left of the Democratic Party. When the Bush War Room realized that most Americans agree with the hawkish Murtha, they toned down their description of Murtha recognizing his military service before criticizing his call to leave Iraq. The Bush Administration has two War Rooms, one to fight the political battles at home and one to fight the political battles in Iraq. Sometimes they forget which room they are in and tend to paint Democrats with the same brush they paint insurgent Sunnis. Vice President Dick Cheney called critics of the war "dishonest and reprehensible." Do you think he would have described himself that way when he asked for and was granted 5 deferments from the Vietnam War? Maybe deep down in his subconscious he knows that he is dishonest and reprehensible and now feels the need to call others that for criticizing his Iraqi war. It is the epitome of hypocrisy for Cheney to call critics of the Iraq War "dishonest and reprehensible" when he himself did everything possible to avoid the Vietnam War. Rep. Murtha was right to call Cheney on his 5 deferments. That is what stopped the Bush Administration from their catcalling and linking of Murtha to Michael Moore, the fact that Bush and Cheney did everything to avoid going into the Vietnam War and will do everything to keep sending others to war, a war in which they embellished the intelligence so they would have a reason to go to Iraq, throw out Saddam and take the Iraqi oil. Unfortunately the prosecuting of the Iraq War was not as simple as the simpletons in charge thought it would be and we find ourselves in the no win situation of staying for decades with the U.S. military getting picked off daily or leaving and letting the country fall into an all out civil war...

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) in the House said to Murtha that a former marine told her to tell him, "That cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body that we will see this through." I have a question that everyone that voted for Schmidt should ask her and every other Pro-Iraq War congressperson. How many American casualties does it take for her to "see it through?" There are over 2,100 American dead from the Iraq War. At what number of American dead do you say enough already? In six months, a year, two years a decade, two decades, if the insurgency is the same and 4,000 or 10,000 US. soldiers are dead will you still say, "That cowards cut and run, Marines never do" and will you still want to give "the assurance from this body that we will see this through?" Voters should hold their representatives and senators to their word. What is exactly the end game? Is an Iraqi democracy, as Bush and Cheney want worth thousands of American lives and billions of dollars while little or nothing gets done to help the New Orleaneans that became refugees in their own country? An exit strategy should be laid out on the table for all to see with a specific timetable; anything less is nothing short of dishonesty. But then again dishonesty is something Bush, Cheney and the Republican led Congress have made into an art form...

Rep. John Murtha has the foresight and understands that staying the course means more American dead with little or nothing to show for it. It is easy to wrap yourself in a flag, say 'support the troops' and stay the course but the best way to support the troops is take them out of a war with no end in sight. Murtha has a strategy to get the U.S. military out of Iraq. President Bush and the Republican Party have a strategy to stay the course with some small temporary withdrawals to appease voters....

The bottom line is that no one likes another country to come into their country and occupy it, even if you remove a dictator in the process, occupation is occupation. As long as American soldiers patrol Iraq there will be an insurgency and as long as there is an insurgency there will be American casualties. Is that really the course you want to stay? I don't think so...

[albed]

You think at the level of a goldfish going belly up after the aerator quit, so what you think is of little concern to normal people.

The real bottom line is plenty of Iraqis are very happy having U.S. troops providing a degree of security and freedom to them and even the biased liberal media occasionally airs their statements to that effect.

Saying it's easy to stay and fight instead of cut and run shows how your seriously damaged brain can't even process the simplest logic without inverting it.

The same legislators that voted to invade Iraq and now say we should withdraw, have recently voted against withdrawing; so whatever their mouths are saying their actions have contradicted and they have completely discredited themselves to intelligent, ethical people.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

The same legislators that voted to invade Iraq and now say we should withdraw, have recently voted against withdrawing; so whatever their mouths are saying their actions have contradicted and they have completely discredited themselves to intelligent, ethical people.

Do you think there are playing follow the leader?

[multi]

Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War

For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war
since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost
them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from
office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If
convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.
Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War

Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew
University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He
is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading
list for officers. An interview with Martin Van Creveld. See also Nowhere To Run

metafilter

[theknife]

not such a great week to be Cheney....documents unveiled this week in Libby's upcoming trial indicate disclosure of classified documents was done, in fact, on the Vice-President's orders, as part of the larger campaign to sell war with Iraq and crush critics thereof:

According to court documents disclosed last week, Libby told a federal grand jury that he disclosed in July 2003 the contents of a classified National Intelligence Estimate as part of the Bush administration's defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the documents it was his understanding that "Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors."

The White House has refused to comment on the case.

meanwhile, the VP went hunting with pals over the weekend, ostensibly to blow off a little steam, but managed to blow holes in his hunting companion instead:

WASHINGTON Feb 12, 2006 (AP)— Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.

Harry Whittington, 78, was "alert and doing fine" after Cheney sprayed Whittington with shotgun pellets on Saturday at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, said property owner Katharine Armstrong.

Armstrong said Cheney turned to shoot a bird and accidentally hit Whittington. She said Whittington was taken to Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital by ambulance.

all of this only confirms what many have already suspected about the VP: he is not to be trusted with guns, government, or government secrets.

[tambourine-man]

Shame Bush wasn't on the hunt...

...with his moose-antler cap...

...and a fur coat...

...and a target drawn on his ass.

[JackSpratts]

if the republicans want to shoot each other power to them.

- js.

[Nicobie]

They were out hunting. They both had guns.

The other guy could have shot back u know.

I bet almost none of u dillweeds have ever eaten what u killed.

U just let others kill for you.

Pay attention pls.

[Mazer]

Maybe he deserved it, he is a lawyer after all.

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by Nicobie

I bet almost none of u dillweeds have ever eaten what u killed.

Are you saying that Cheney is a cannibal?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

Are you saying that Cheney is a cannibal?

[theknife]

"Good news, ladies and gentlemen; we have finally located weapons of mass destruction. ... It's Dick Cheney," David Letterman said in his CBS Late Night monologue. And, "We can't get bin Laden, but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney."

ABC's Jimmy Kimmel: "You know what they say, if Dick Cheney comes out of his hole and shoots an old man in the face, six more weeks of winter."

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Letterman's Top Ten Excuses For Dick Cheney:

10. "Heart palpitation caused trigger finger to spasm."

9. "Wanted to get the Iraq mess off the front page."

8. "Not enough Jim Beam."

7. "Trying to stop the spread of bird flu."

6. "I love to shoot people."

5. "Guy was making cracks about my lesbian daughter."

4. "Thought the guy was trying to go gay cowboy on me."

3. "Excuse? I hit him didn't I?"

2. "Until Democrats approve Medicare reform, we have to make some tough choices for the elderly."

1. "Made a bet with Gretzky's wife."

[theknife]

and from the Daily Show:

Jon Stewart: "I'm joined now by our own vice-presidential firearms mishap analyst, Rob Corddry. Rob, obviously a very unfortunate situation. How is the vice president handling it?

Rob Corddry: "Jon, tonight the vice president is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Wittington. According to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush.

"And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Whittington's face."

Jon Stewart: "But why, Rob? If he had known Mr. Whittington was not a bird, why would he still have shot him?"

Rob Corddry: "Jon, in a post-9-11 world, the American people expect their leaders to be decisive. To not have shot his friend in the face would have sent a message to the quail that America is weak."

[daddydirt]

and from the White House press corps:

Q Is it proper for the Vice President to offer his resignation or has he offered his resignation?

Q Scott, would this be much more serious if the man had died?