Politics > Politics-USA > In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
25 Jun 2006 09:42:45 PM |
| Object: |
In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
It’s as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there’s going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn’t be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It’s as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there’s going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there’s also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you’ve been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it’s one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there’s
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it’s obvious what’s going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn’t think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn’t want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there’s not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don’t have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn’t be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It’s as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there’s going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
26 Jun 2006 09:43:05 AM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm deadline for
withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
Casey's plan calls for withdrawal, *based on the situation on the ground*,
ie the troops are not necessary because the Iraqis are taking over security,
you know, BUSH'S EXIT STRATEGY?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dion" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
26 Jun 2006 10:31:38 AM |
|
|
"Taylor" <123@456.com> wrote in message
news:ZnSng.24075$JW5.5015@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm deadline
for
withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
Did you read the Kerry-Feingold amendment or can we say you're repeating the
GOP/NeoCon talking points?
--
Dion
The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
"The President has broken the law,
and the censure resolution I introduced
is intended to hold him accountable.
Nobody says that we shouldn't be
monitoring suspected terrorists. Of
course we should, and we can under
current law. We have yet to hear a
reasonable argument from the president
or anyone else why it was necessary to
break the law." Russ Feingold
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run inFall to Help Win Elections |
27 Jun 2006 09:54:49 PM |
|
|
Taylor wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm deadline for
withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
Casey's plan calls for withdrawal, *based on the situation on the ground*,
ie the troops are not necessary because the Iraqis are taking over security,
you know, BUSH'S EXIT STRATEGY?
What part of end of 2007 isn't firm for you?
RT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kent Allard" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut andRun in Fall to Help Win Elections |
26 Jun 2006 10:37:11 AM |
|
|
Taylor wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm deadline for
withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
How can it be surrender? George "Mission Accomplished" Bush already
declared victory.
Casey's plan calls for withdrawal, *based on the situation on the ground*,
ie the troops are not necessary because the Iraqis are taking over security,
you know, BUSH'S EXIT STRATEGY?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
27 Jun 2006 10:38:48 AM |
|
|
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:HaTng.371$7i.202@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm deadline
for withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
How can it be surrender? George "Mission Accomplished" Bush already
declared victory.
It's funny, the Dems always criticize Bush for not being aware of "nuance",
when the Dems then go and blur the distinctions. As has been repeated a
thousand times, "Mission Accomplished" was that ship's mission, which was to
topple Hussein, which they did. I know the details are tough for liberals
to grasp, but hopefully you get it now. Bush said in that speech that there
was hard work ahead. The Islamic Jihadists just didn't go home and give up,
like the Dems want us to do.
Casey's plan calls for withdrawal, *based on the situation on the
ground*, ie the troops are not necessary because the Iraqis are taking
over security, you know, BUSH'S EXIT STRATEGY?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kent Allard" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut andRun in Fall to Help Win Elections |
27 Jun 2006 11:47:59 AM |
|
|
Taylor wrote:
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:HaTng.371$7i.202@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm deadline
for withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
How can it be surrender? George "Mission Accomplished" Bush already
declared victory.
It's funny, the Dems always criticize Bush for not being aware of "nuance",
Actually, it's Bush who brags about it.
when the Dems then go and blur the distinctions. As has been repeated a
thousand times, "Mission Accomplished" was that ship's mission, which was to
topple Hussein, which they did. I know the details are tough for liberals
That's what you conservatives keep telling us, but it was Bush who chose
to stand in front of the sign, codpiece firmly tucked inside his brand
new flight suit, and told us the "major combat operations have ended."
By his choice of the location to deliver that message, the sign became his.
to grasp, but hopefully you get it now. Bush said in that speech that there
was hard work ahead. The Islamic Jihadists just didn't go home and give up,
There were no Islamic Jihadists in Iraq. None, zero, zip, nada.
Why do you keep blurring the distinction between the war against Islamic
terrorists and the occupation of Iraq?
like the Dems want us to do.
No Democrat has called for giving up. None, zero, zip, nada. Besides,
how can we give up and go home. The objective of the invasion was the
removal of Saddam. That has been done. We won, so we can bring the
troops home and direct our attention to the war against Islamic terrorists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
27 Jun 2006 03:29:24 PM |
|
|
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:3jdog.401$7i.242@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:HaTng.371$7i.202@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm deadline
for withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
How can it be surrender? George "Mission Accomplished" Bush already
declared victory.
It's funny, the Dems always criticize Bush for not being aware of
"nuance",
Actually, it's Bush who brags about it.
when the Dems then go and blur the distinctions. As has been repeated a
thousand times, "Mission Accomplished" was that ship's mission, which was
to topple Hussein, which they did. I know the details are tough for
liberals
That's what you conservatives keep telling us, but it was Bush who chose
to stand in front of the sign, codpiece firmly tucked inside his brand new
flight suit, and told us the "major combat operations have ended." By his
choice of the location to deliver that message, the sign became his.
to grasp, but hopefully you get it now. Bush said in that speech that
there was hard work ahead. The Islamic Jihadists just didn't go home and
give up,
There were no Islamic Jihadists in Iraq. None, zero, zip, nada.
According to the 9/11 commission report, Al Qaeda was training in Iraq with
the cooperation of Saddam Hussein. Al Zarqawi, the (deceased) Al Qaeda
leader in Iraq was there before the war.
Why do you keep blurring the distinction between the war against Islamic
terrorists and the occupation of Iraq?
like the Dems want us to do.
No Democrat has called for giving up. None, zero, zip, nada. Besides,
how can we give up and go home. The objective of the invasion was the
removal of Saddam. That has been done. We won, so we can bring the
troops home and direct our attention to the war against Islamic
terrorists.
Uh, the war against Islamic Jihadists is going on right now, in Iraq. To
leave is to surrender.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dion" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
27 Jun 2006 03:42:03 PM |
|
|
"Taylor" <123@456.com> wrote in message
news:Eygog.398$Bh.315@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Uh, the war against Islamic Jihadists is going on right now, in Iraq. To
leave is to surrender.
Learn to trim posts Taylor so the ***** will be easy to spot.
--
Dion
The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
"The President has broken the law,
and the censure resolution I introduced
is intended to hold him accountable.
Nobody says that we shouldn't be
monitoring suspected terrorists. Of
course we should, and we can under
current law. We have yet to hear a
reasonable argument from the president
or anyone else why it was necessary to
break the law." Russ Feingold
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run inFall to Help Win Elections |
27 Jun 2006 11:10:44 PM |
|
|
Taylor wrote:
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:3jdog.401$7i.242@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:HaTng.371$7i.202@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm deadline
for withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
How can it be surrender? George "Mission Accomplished" Bush already
declared victory.
It's funny, the Dems always criticize Bush for not being aware of
"nuance",
Actually, it's Bush who brags about it.
when the Dems then go and blur the distinctions. As has been repeated a
thousand times, "Mission Accomplished" was that ship's mission, which was
to topple Hussein, which they did. I know the details are tough for
liberals
That's what you conservatives keep telling us, but it was Bush who chose
to stand in front of the sign, codpiece firmly tucked inside his brand new
flight suit, and told us the "major combat operations have ended." By his
choice of the location to deliver that message, the sign became his.
to grasp, but hopefully you get it now. Bush said in that speech that
there was hard work ahead. The Islamic Jihadists just didn't go home and
give up,
There were no Islamic Jihadists in Iraq. None, zero, zip, nada.
According to the 9/11 commission report, Al Qaeda was training in Iraq with
the cooperation of Saddam Hussein. Al Zarqawi, the (deceased) Al Qaeda
leader in Iraq was there before the war.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
...
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
carrying out any attacks against the United States.
...
Why do you keep blurring the distinction between the war against Islamic
terrorists and the occupation of Iraq?
like the Dems want us to do.
No Democrat has called for giving up. None, zero, zip, nada. Besides,
how can we give up and go home. The objective of the invasion was the
removal of Saddam. That has been done. We won, so we can bring the
troops home and direct our attention to the war against Islamic
terrorists.
Uh, the war against Islamic Jihadists is going on right now, in Iraq. To
leave is to surrender.
"war against Islamic Jihadists" - HAHHAHAHAHHHA! What crap. Iraq was invaded
because of the mythical WMDs!
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
29 Jun 2006 09:33:50 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44A20144.29344068@hotmMOVEail.com...
Taylor wrote:
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:3jdog.401$7i.242@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:HaTng.371$7i.202@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in
Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political
significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls
Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in
Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment
when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when
it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be
pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of
2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some
troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that
there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending,
but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in
this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have
the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be
a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it
is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in
Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm
deadline
for withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
How can it be surrender? George "Mission Accomplished" Bush already
declared victory.
It's funny, the Dems always criticize Bush for not being aware of
"nuance",
Actually, it's Bush who brags about it.
when the Dems then go and blur the distinctions. As has been repeated
a
thousand times, "Mission Accomplished" was that ship's mission, which
was
to topple Hussein, which they did. I know the details are tough for
liberals
That's what you conservatives keep telling us, but it was Bush who
chose
to stand in front of the sign, codpiece firmly tucked inside his brand
new
flight suit, and told us the "major combat operations have ended." By
his
choice of the location to deliver that message, the sign became his.
to grasp, but hopefully you get it now. Bush said in that speech that
there was hard work ahead. The Islamic Jihadists just didn't go home
and
give up,
There were no Islamic Jihadists in Iraq. None, zero, zip, nada.
According to the 9/11 commission report, Al Qaeda was training in Iraq
with
the cooperation of Saddam Hussein. Al Zarqawi, the (deceased) Al Qaeda
leader in Iraq was there before the war.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
...
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts
ever
developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
carrying out any attacks against the United States.
...
"Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad
confederation. In Sudan, he established an "Islamic Army Shura" that was to
serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with
which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura
together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that
were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups
from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya,
Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Al Qaeda also established
cooperative but less formal relationships with other extremist groups from
these same countries; from the African states of Chad, Mali, Niger, Nigeria,
and Uganda; and from the Southeast Asian states of Burma, Thailand,
Malaysia, and Indonesia. Bin Ladin maintained connections in the Bosnian
conflict as well.37 The groundwork for a true global terrorist network was
being laid. ...
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with
Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist
agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against
"Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact
been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to
attract them into his Islamic army.53
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement
that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin
apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued
to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan)
outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups
suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help
they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are
indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped
Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with
a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.
Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as
well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq
responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw
additional efforts to establish connections.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the
initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United
States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi
intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet
first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one,
or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin
Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In
1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a
series of large air attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven
in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in
Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports
describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides'
hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these
or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational
relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with
al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United
States.76 "
http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9237/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571
Why do you keep blurring the distinction between the war against
Islamic
terrorists and the occupation of Iraq?
like the Dems want us to do.
No Democrat has called for giving up. None, zero, zip, nada. Besides,
how can we give up and go home. The objective of the invasion was the
removal of Saddam. That has been done. We won, so we can bring the
troops home and direct our attention to the war against Islamic
terrorists.
Uh, the war against Islamic Jihadists is going on right now, in Iraq. To
leave is to surrender.
"war against Islamic Jihadists" - HAHHAHAHAHHHA! What crap. Iraq was
invaded
because of the mythical WMDs!
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run inFall to Help Win Elections |
29 Jun 2006 10:19:29 PM |
|
|
Taylor wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44A20144.29344068@hotmMOVEail.com...
Taylor wrote:
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:3jdog.401$7i.242@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Kent Allard" <Kent@Shambala.org> wrote in message
news:HaTng.371$7i.202@chiapp18.algx.net...
Taylor wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in
Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political
significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls
Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in
Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment
when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when
it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be
pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of
2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some
troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that
there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending,
but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in
this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have
the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be
a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it
is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in
Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm
deadline
for withdrawal, no matter what. That is surrender.
How can it be surrender? George "Mission Accomplished" Bush already
declared victory.
It's funny, the Dems always criticize Bush for not being aware of
"nuance",
Actually, it's Bush who brags about it.
when the Dems then go and blur the distinctions. As has been repeated
a
thousand times, "Mission Accomplished" was that ship's mission, which
was
to topple Hussein, which they did. I know the details are tough for
liberals
That's what you conservatives keep telling us, but it was Bush who
chose
to stand in front of the sign, codpiece firmly tucked inside his brand
new
flight suit, and told us the "major combat operations have ended." By
his
choice of the location to deliver that message, the sign became his.
to grasp, but hopefully you get it now. Bush said in that speech that
there was hard work ahead. The Islamic Jihadists just didn't go home
and
give up,
There were no Islamic Jihadists in Iraq. None, zero, zip, nada.
According to the 9/11 commission report, Al Qaeda was training in Iraq
with
the cooperation of Saddam Hussein. Al Zarqawi, the (deceased) Al Qaeda
leader in Iraq was there before the war.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
...
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts
ever
developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or
carrying out any attacks against the United States.
...
"Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad
confederation. In Sudan, he established an "Islamic Army Shura" that was to
serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with
which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura
together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that
were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups
from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya,
Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Al Qaeda also established
cooperative but less formal relationships with other extremist groups from
these same countries; from the African states of Chad, Mali, Niger, Nigeria,
and Uganda; and from the Southeast Asian states of Burma, Thailand,
Malaysia, and Indonesia. Bin Ladin maintained connections in the Bosnian
conflict as well.37 The groundwork for a true global terrorist network was
being laid. ...
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with
Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist
agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against
"Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact
been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to
attract them into his Islamic army.53
As if Saddam would work with someone who was working against him!
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement
that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin
apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued
to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan)
outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups
suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help
they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are
indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped
Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with
a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.
Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as
well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq
"no evidence" hahhahah thanks!
responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw
additional efforts to establish connections.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the
"reportedly" - even better! LOL!
initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United
States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi
intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet
first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one,
or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin
Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In
1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a
series of large air attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
"may have" - this gets funnier and funnier!
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven
in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in
Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports
describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides'
hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these
"no evidence" - AGAIN! geez you're a loser!
or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational
relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with
al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United
States.76 "
"Nor have we seen evidence" HAHHAHAHAHA - hey, did you bother to read this first?
HAHHAHA
http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9237/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571
Why do you keep blurring the distinction between the war against
Islamic
terrorists and the occupation of Iraq?
like the Dems want us to do.
No Democrat has called for giving up. None, zero, zip, nada. Besides,
how can we give up and go home. The objective of the invasion was the
removal of Saddam. That has been done. We won, so we can bring the
troops home and direct our attention to the war against Islamic
terrorists.
Uh, the war against Islamic Jihadists is going on right now, in Iraq. To
leave is to surrender.
"war against Islamic Jihadists" - HAHHAHAHAHHHA! What crap. Iraq was
invaded
because of the mythical WMDs!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
27 Jun 2006 09:37:13 AM |
|
|
Taylor wrote:
The obvious difference is that the Democratic plan sets a firm deadline for
withdrawal, no matter what.
You never bothered to read any of the Democratic plans.
I can understand why, given that holding Republican lies about what
Democrats have said and what the Democrats have actually said would
make your head explode.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DefendUSA.blogspot.com" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
25 Jun 2006 10:27:15 PM |
|
|
Gee. The Democrats propose phasing the troops out of Iraq over the next
year or so and the Republicans kill it calling it "Cut and Running" and
claiming that it proves how Democrats are disloyal. A few days later,
Bush announces "I've got a great idea, why don't we phase the troops
out of Iraq over the next year or so?". It is a good thing that the
Republican party has the Democrats to listen to. This follows a long
string of Republicans taking credit (long after the fact) of Democratic
ideas. Democrats said the terrorists were trying to attack the US and
we should stop them and the GOPs said "bad idea", until 9/11. The
Democrats say we should use FEMA to protect the homeland, GOPs say,
"Bad idea" until after Katrina. Of course, sometimes the GOPs get it
wrong. Patriots yell for years for someone to get Cheney, but instead
Cheney starts shooting people in the face while drunk. Oh well, what do
you expect from the lie and die neo-convicts.
---------------------------------------------
blog:http://defendUSA.blogspot.com
bumperstickers:http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
bumperstickers:http://bumperstickers-bumperstickers.blogspot.com
Harry Hope wrote:
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
On when those troops will be withdrawn, the New York Times reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=e7b313b95d1640d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance.
The first reductions would take place before this falls Congressional
elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008
presidential election.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) reiterated that the
timing of the troop withdrawals is politically motivated:
[Troop withdrawals] shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going
to be with this administration. ...
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
Watch it:
http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levintroops.320.240.mov
Conservatives have criticized progressives for suggesting a
redeployment of troops in Iraq, saying they wanted to "cut and run."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/
But it looks like conservatives are willing to adopt redeployment when
it will help them get re-elected in the fall, instead of now, when it
is good policy.
Full transcript below:
WALLACE:
Alright, Senator Levin, there's also a report today that General
Casey, the top commander of all foreign forces in Iraq, has laid out
to plan to the Pentagon under which 7,000 U.S. troops would be pulled
out by September and an additional at least 30,000 by the end of 2007.
Now, you've been asking for a timetable.
You put out a resolution this week that called for getting some troops
out by the beginning of the year and a timetable for further
withdrawals.
Are you willing to take yes for an answer?
LEVIN:
Of course.
Frankly, it's one of the worst kept secrets in this town that there's
going to be reductions in our forces, redeployments in our forces,
before the election.
I mean, it's obvious what's going on here.
When we offered a resolution -- not with a fixed timetable for the
final departure of american troops -- most Democrats voted against
that.
That was the Kerry resolution.
We didn't think there should be a fixed timetable for the ending, but
we did, almost all the Democrats, including all of the Democratic
senators who are considering running for president, then coalesce
around the so-called Levin-Reed resolution, which urged simply the
President to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from
Iraq by the end of this year.
The White House didn't want to do that, and so it was rubber stamped
by the Republican-dominated Senate.
They just went along because the White House said no.
But let me tell you something -- it will be the greatest shock in this
town, it would be like a tornado hitting this town, frankly, if
there's not a reduction in our forces prior to the election.
It will be timed for that by the administration, and i don't have the
slightest bit of doubt that --
WALLACE:
This is twice you have linked this to the election.
Let me ask you -- do you think the decision to pull troops out is a
political decision or a military decision?
LEVIN:
It should be a military decision.
General Casey at the Pentagon a few days ago said he believes there
will be fairly substantial troop reductions this year.
Of course, when we say military decisions, ultimately, it should be a
civilian decision, but it shouldn't be a political decision, but it is
going to be with this administration.
It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Feney" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
26 Jun 2006 06:14:58 AM |
|
|
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
It’s as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, there’s going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
Sen. Levin: Administration Planning Reduction of Troops in Fall to
Help Win Elections
This week Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq,
announced U.S. troop reductions in Iraq by the end of 2007.
...
It's just as the Republicans have insisted...the withdrawal should be
event-driven rather than schedule-driven. They neglected to say,
however, that the "driving event" would be the US mid-term elections
rather than any events in Iraq.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "NetPoster" |
|
| Title: Re: In Spite of Their Shrieking, Republicans Planning to Cut and Run in Fall to Help Win Elections |
26 Jun 2006 08:43:24 AM |
|
|
In article <sfiu925msjphqum3jttked6o127oumsab8@4ax.com>, Harry Hope
<rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Itâs as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this
election, this November, thereâs going to be troop reductions in Iraq
and the President will then claim some kind of progress or victory.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/25/levin-iraq-troops/
________________________________________________________
We've all pretty much guessed that, haven't we.
Harry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Right. The repugs cut and run from the truth every time, even when
they don't have to. Stay the course to disaster in the quagmire, thats
the ticket.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
