Democrats may unite on plan to pull troops

[kc456 0]

Since when is withdrawal (retreat) a "strategy" to win?

Broadly speaking, wars have been won in the past where forces have had to strategically withdraw from time to time. So the argument that a withdrawal of any kind is synonymous with defeat is simply wrong.

That said, Bush himself says that Iraq is part of the greater war on terror. Keeping that in mind, a withdrawal from Iraq and a redeployment in places like the Horn of africa, Afghanistan and Kuwait, very well could be part of a larger plan to win the war on terror. After all, Iraq isn't the only place we need to be fighting terror. A shifting of resources out of Iraq doesn't necessarily mean defeat in the larger war on terror.

I see it that US lost the war either it stays or leaves now. So it's time to declare victory and withdraw.

[Peter Miami 0]

Unfortunately this has become their (Dem's) signature....Cut'n run.....Americans identify democrats as the party most likely not to follow through on miltary commitments and to be essentially weak on defense.

broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

Another reason they'll probably loose the next Presidential election. They're just not listening; nor are they getting it!

I am in total agreement with you!

Edited February 20, 2006 by Peter Miami

[Sister Fracas 5]

I fully support the war on terror. I think it is a blessing to have a democratic nation in the heart of the middle east.

and you think we've fully acheived that?

No, I don't think we are done. But I think we have accomplished a lot in a few short years. They shouldn't leave until the Iraqi military can defend themselves.

yeah..like destroying bagdad....people's homes destroyed..no wmds..leaving a power vacuum and graft and corruption.

collateral damage...and anyway...we know what's best for the rest of the world!

[kc456 0]

collateral damage...and anyway...we know what's best for the rest of the world!

That's the spirit!

[yogib37 3]

Wonder which country they will destroy next.

IRAN.. I hear the wild Retard comander in chief wants to bomb IRAN now.

This guy is out of control.. He is a Mad man

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The "war on terror" is about as winnable as the "war on drugs". Remind me, how long we've been fighting the latter? Have we won yet? Are we going to?

Since when is withdrawal (retreat) a "strategy" to win?

When has the administration put forth a strategy to win in Iraq? I must have missed that. All I've heard from Bushco is to "stay the course". Well, the course has sucked to this day and it appears it's just going to continue to suck since the administration seems hell bent on staying on it. It's insane. Remember, insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different outcomes.

Edited February 21, 2006 by ET-US2004

[kc456 0]

"stay the course"

What was the cartoon that I saw? -- "A very bad idea"

"If we pull out now all of the sacrifice in pursuit of the very bad idea would have been in vain."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure, but that was a few admininstrations ago. Agreed Kissenger, and of course his boss Nixon sold the South out from under them but we supposedly learned "lessons" from that.

The primary lesson was never to undermine the mission and morale of our troops whilst they are in harms way.

The dem's haven't learned this lesson very well. no0pb.gif

I never understood the argument that criticising the war equates to trashing the armed forces. Its convenient of course for political types to make it indistinguishable, simply because its easier to hide behind patriotic bluster and rhetoric (i.e. how people feel), rather than deal with the real issues (i.e. what people are doing).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Incidentally, with all the civil liberties issues that have been in the fore over the last few weeks, I thought we might all be interested in this little gem:

Privacy Guardian Is Still a Paper Tiger

A year after its creation, the White House civil liberties board has yet to do a single day of work.

By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — For Americans troubled by the prospect of federal agents eavesdropping on their phone conversations or combing through their Internet records, there is good news: A little-known board exists in the White House whose purpose is to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are protected in the fight against terrorism.

Someday, it might actually meet.

Initially proposed by the bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was created by the intelligence overhaul that President Bush signed into law in December 2004.

More than a year later, it exists only on paper.

Foot-dragging, debate over its budget and powers, and concern over the qualifications of some of its members — one was treasurer of Bush's first campaign for Texas governor — has kept the board from doing a single day of work.

On Thursday, after months of delay, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a first step toward standing up the fledgling watchdog, approving the two lawyers Bush nominated to lead the panel. But it may take months before the board is up and running and doing much serious work.

Critics say the inaction shows the administration is just going through the motions when it comes to civil liberties.

"They have stalled in giving the board adequate funding. They have stalled in making appointments," said Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.). "It is apparent they are not taking this seriously."

The Sept. 11 commission also has expressed reservations about the commitment to the liberties panel.

"We felt it was absolutely vital," said Thomas H. Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey who led the commission. "We had certainly hoped it would have been up and running a long time ago."

The inaction is especially noteworthy in light of recent events. Some Republicans joined Democrats to delay renewal of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act because of civil liberties concerns. And the disclosure in December that Bush approved surveillance of certain U.S. residents' international communications without a court order has caused bipartisan dismay in Congress.

"Obviously, civil liberties issues are critically important, and they have been to this president, especially after 9/11," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, adding that the White House had moved expeditiously to establish the board. "We do not formally nominate until we are through the background investigation and the full vetting. It takes time to present those nominations to the Senate. But now that they have been confirmed, that is a good thing."

The board chairwoman is Carol E. Dinkins, a Houston lawyer who was a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was the treasurer of George W. Bush's first campaign for governor of Texas, in 1994, and co-chair of Lawyers for Bush-Cheney, which recruited Republican lawyers to handle legal battles after the November 2004 election.

Dinkins, a longtime partner in the Houston law firm of Vinson & Elkins, where Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales once was a partner, has specialized in defending oil and gas companies in environmental lawsuits.

Foremost among her credentials, she told Senate Judiciary Committee members in a response to their questions, was the two years she spent as deputy attorney general in President Reagan's Justice Department. There, she said, she had to weigh civil liberties concerns while overseeing domestic surveillance and counter-intelligence cases.

The board vice chairman is Alan Charles Raul, a Washington lawyer who first suggested the concept of a civil liberties panel in an opinion article in the Los Angeles Times in December 2001. Raul, a former Agriculture Department general counsel currently in private practice, has published a book on privacy and the digital age and is the only panel member with apparent expertise in civil liberties issues.

The panel's lone Democrat, Lanny J. Davis, has known Bush since the two were undergraduates at Yale. Civil liberties groups regard the Washington lawyer, who worked in the Clinton White House, as likely to be a progressive voice on the panel.

The board also includes a conservative Republican legal icon, Washington lawyer and former Bush Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, whose wife, Barbara, died in the Sept. 11 attacks. The fifth member is Francis X. Taylor, a retired Air Force general and former State Department counter-terrorism coordinator, who is chief security officer at General Electric Co.

The board members declined to comment for this article. Three referred calls to Dinkins, who referred calls to the White House.

The idea of such a watchdog agency was broached almost immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, as conservatives and liberals alike saw a need for the government to consider the implications of new and growing anti-terrorism measures.

Source

When both parties get their collective heads of their arses, they might actually do something. Someone needs to take a stand against the administration's continued power grabbing. 5 years after September 11th, our democratic institutions are being deliberately eroded to support a war that many americans don't understand, and simply don't want.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Fishdude