Speaking of the woeful rebuttal, it is evident that Nancy Pelosi does not understand plain English:
Because of the courage of our servicemen and women and the determination of the Iraqi people, Iraq’s election on Sunday was a significant step toward Iraqis taking their future into their own hands. Now we must consider our future in Iraq.
We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force. Neither should we slip out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving chaos.
Despite the best efforts of our troops and their Iraqi counterparts, Iraq still faces a violent and persistent insurgency, and the chairman of the National Intelligence Council said in January that Iraq is now a magnet for international terrorists.
We have never heard a clear plan from this administration for ending our presence in Iraq. And we did not hear one tonight.
Where do they find these people? The plan has been clear, and the idiotic and facile calls for a ‘timetable’ and an ‘exit strategey’ shoujld be recognized for what they are- empty rhetoric employed for political gain. The President has been clear about when our troops will get hope- when the job is done. But, once again for the perpetually slow, he re-stated this prior to Pelosi’s remarks:
The new political situation in Iraq opens a new phase of our work in that country. At the recommendation of our commanders on the ground, and in consultation with the Iraqi government, we will increasingly focus our efforts on helping prepare more capable Iraqi security forces – forces with skilled officers and an effective command structure.
As those forces become more self-reliant and take on greater security responsibilities, America and its coalition partners will increasingly be in a supporting role. In the end, Iraqis must be able to defend their own country – and we will help that proud, new nation secure its liberty.
Recently an Iraqi interpreter said to a reporter, “Tell America not to abandon us.” He and all Iraqis can be certain: While our military strategy is adapting to circumstances, our commitment remains firm and unchanging. We are standing for the freedom of our Iraqi friends and freedom in Iraq will make America safer for generations to come.
We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.
Whenever I begin to think we really need a viable opposition party, people like Pelosi chirp up and I realize how much better off we are with these loons marginalized and out of power.
nick
sure – a non existant exit plan is
clear as the emperor clothes
and your intellect
there ISNT ANY!
John Cole
Wow. Did Atrios link here?
M. Scott Eiland
Even Duncan “Atrios” MacClown isn’t *that* vacuous, John. I’m thinking it’s the guy responsible for manufacturing “plausible” phony judicial precedents for Harry Reid to cite as the reasons he doesn’t respect Clarence Thomas.
Kimmitt
I’d like some more specific ideas of precisely how democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself we’re shooting for, and I’d also like information on what returning home means, precisely.
That said, we are pretty clear — now — on what the plan is, even if we had to wait until a year or two after we invaded.
shark
Here’s yer exit plan:
success.
Anyone demanding anything else is accepting failure
Robin Roberts
Exactly, Shark. As Rumsfeld himself has said, the administration doesn’t have an exit plan … it has a victory plan.
Paul
The only exit plan that will satisfy the left is called “cut and run”, or even better, “Imperial Amerikkka is defeated by head chopping freedom fighters”.
The last thing they want is for the country they hate, the one that keeps them comfortably ensconced in a cushy chair at Starbucks with a Vende Latte at hand, typing deliriously away on their laptops, to achieve victory. They tasted defeat in Viet Nam, and it tasted GOOD to them, and they’ll have another serving, thank you very much. Even better still that they could lose a war and have 3 million insignificant SE Asians thousands of miles away do all the dying.
Vermin.
Bob
So Bush gives his timetable: [When Irag is] A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with all its neighbors and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.”
We are talking about four or five thousand years of recorded history without any of that having happened. One might think that this might be Bush getting glassy-eyed and talking about the End of Time to his falangelical fans, but I think of those reports of the 12 to 19 permanent military bases in Iraq. Now I have a hard time believing that our crack investigative journalists might overlook permanent military installation, and nothing is really permanent, but my guess is that the blueprints Bush follows is going to keep troops there for a while.
Paul
Well it strikes me that some military bases in a friendly Iraq right smack dab in the middle of the ME is a feature, not a bug. Big difference between troops on a base and troops roaming the streets in tanks and APCs. Big difference in the numbers required, too.
Of course such distinctions confound the limited critical thinking skills of your average moonbat.
Kimmitt
Well it strikes me that some military bases in a friendly Iraq right smack dab in the middle of the ME is a feature, not a bug.
Ah, but there’s the rub: If we’re forced to choose between a friendly authoritarian Iraq with bases and an unfriendly and/or unstable but representative Iraq without bases (keep in mind that Iraq and the US have significant conflicts of interest, especially with regards to Iraq’s oil fields), which will we choose?
Paul
Or what’s behind door number three…
A stable representative Iraq that is friendly to the nation who liberated it from a murderous sociopath and the sadistic henchmen in his employ, and knows, since it actually made good on its word to give control of government AND the oil to the Iraqis, that America is a worthy ally. It doesn’t hurt that we’re the most powerful nation in history either.
Of course that scenario doesn’t fit your woodenheaded dogmatic assumptions about Amerika, Bu$hitler, Halliburton, et al.
Hey but the events last Sunday didn’t fit your quagmire narrative either.
Mikey
Gotta start somewhere, Bob. Why not try here? Japan never had a history of truly representative government until we rammed it down their throats. They seem to like it real well.
I know this will be hard, but try giving people credit for liking to run their own affairs without a strongman; and try to give the USA some credit for agreeing with that.
[Although I’ll admit we haven’t done that nearly often enough.]
billyboy
Paul-
It appears you have some interesting, perhaps even thoughtful things to offer. Do you think punctuating your posts with aggressively offensive, assholish remarks enhances your position or the discourse here?
Nick-
Ditto for you, except for the having anything interesting or thoughtful part.
Steve Malynnn
billy, any comments regarding Kimmitt or Bob, or are your blinkers set on R today.
billyboy
From what I observe, Kimmit and Bob maintain a civil tone. If you read my post, I can’t possibly see how you think there is any partisan motivation–Nick is clearly “left”, among other things.
Paul
Billyboy:
Stick around, and if you’re as observant as you think, you’re notion of Bob and Kimmit’s civility will be dashed.
Everyone has pet peeves. I guess for you it’s vitriolic commenters..
For me it’s traitors who’ve been the useful idiots of our enemies for decades, and entrenched members of the Democrat party since the late 60’s.
Dean
Kimmitt suggests that, given a choice, we’d prefer an authoritarian Iraq over a democratic one.
But the recent Ukrainian elections pitted one faction that wanted to pull its troops out of Iraq immediately, against one that indicated a willingness to leave them there (at least for a while longer).
Guess which side Dubya and the United States supported?
Bob
Paul says, “Well it strikes me…” regarding some military bases in a friendly Iraq. It strikes you, but not hard enough to get through your skull.
Paul, where might that friendly Iraq be? Oh, in the future, “[When Irag is] A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with all its neighbors and able to defend itself.”
Of course, we’ll be just be setting up military bases in a friendly Iraq around the time we’ll be bringing the boys back home.
Kimmitt
But the recent Ukrainian elections pitted one faction that wanted to pull its troops out of Iraq immediately, against one that indicated a willingness to leave them there (at least for a while longer).
We had multiple interests in the Ukraine. Our main interest in the Ukraine is for it to be stable and willing to trade with us, an interest which far outweighs its miniscule contribution to the Iraq effort.
It’s not a good analogy. A better one might be the US’s response to Spain’s new government, which was spiteful and nasty.
That said, it really is an open question to me. There’s no doubt in my mind that there are multiple factions in the Bush Administration on this issue (I really do think that Wolfowitz and Pearle are still waiting for those flowers and cakewalks, and I really do think that Cheney’s still looking forward to Iraq providing energy stability to the US for the foreseeable future), and even doubt within the factions.
Bush may have even painted himself into a rhetorical corner, not that that affected his actions toward Venezuela or Uzbekistan.
We’ll find out soon enough, I imagine.