Pelosi: "Impeachment is off the table ... making them lame ducks is good enough for me"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't cut and run, says Iraq chief Monday October 23, 05:44 PM

Iraq's deputy prime minister has urged the international community not to "cut and run" from his country.

Barham Salih was speaking after talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair, amid growing controversy on both sides of the Atlantic over how long coalition troops can remain in the country.

He told reporters in Downing Street: "We do believe there is no option for the international community to cut and run, the future of Iraq is vital to the future of the Middle East and the world order."

For one, this term "cut and run" is misleading and inaccurate. Troop withdrawal is what people are talking about, but it seems to be psychological war of words when people mess around with terminology...like the term, "anti-American".

But anyhow, here's what the Iraqi leaders are saying about troop withdrawal...

Iraqi leaders want a timetable for US withdrawal

Group condemns terrorism, but also acknowledges 'legitimate right to resistance.'

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Putting aside numerous differences at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable to be set for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The Associated Press reports that the gathering of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders (under the auspices of the Arab League) also said that Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right to resistance."

The communique – finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday – condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The Los Angeles Times reports that while the document called for a withdrawal timetable, it didn't give any specific dates. Most Shiite and Kurdish members of the government have echoed the US position that setting a definite date would "encourage the terrorists." But recently President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said that foreign troops could start leaving in 2006 or 2007.

The final statement also called for the release of all "innocent detainees who have not been sentenced by a court" and an investigation into claims of torture by Iraq's Shiite-led police forces. And it denounced attempts by insurgents to label some Iraqis as infidels, saying that contradicts the teachings of Islam.

[GaryC 7]

Don't cut and run, says Iraq chief Monday October 23, 05:44 PM

Iraq's deputy prime minister has urged the international community not to "cut and run" from his country.

Barham Salih was speaking after talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair, amid growing controversy on both sides of the Atlantic over how long coalition troops can remain in the country.

He told reporters in Downing Street: "We do believe there is no option for the international community to cut and run, the future of Iraq is vital to the future of the Middle East and the world order."

For one, this term "cut and run" is misleading and inaccurate. Troop withdrawal is what people are talking about, but it seems to be psychological war of words when people mess around with terminology...like the term, "anti-American".

But anyhow, here's what the Iraq leaders are saying about troop withdrawal...

Iraqi leaders want a timetable for US withdrawal

Group condemns terrorism, but also acknowledges 'legitimate right to resistance.'

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Putting aside numerous differences at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable to be set for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The Associated Press reports that the gathering of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders (under the auspices of the Arab League) also said that Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right to resistance."

The communique – finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday – condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The Los Angeles Times reports that while the document called for a withdrawal timetable, it didn't give any specific dates. Most Shiite and Kurdish members of the government have echoed the US position that setting a definite date would "encourage the terrorists." But recently President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said that foreign troops could start leaving in 2006 or 2007.

The final statement also called for the release of all "innocent detainees who have not been sentenced by a court" and an investigation into claims of torture by Iraq's Shiite-led police forces. And it denounced attempts by insurgents to label some Iraqis as infidels, saying that contradicts the teachings of Islam.

My quote was from the Iraq government. Your quote is from "leaders". We can't go by what they say. Only what the government of Iraq says.

That would be like the government of Japan going to a senator to make policy rather than going to the president.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[yogib37 3]

My problem is their ideas seem more American dominance over the world then American participation within the world.

If you think that is ok, remember the Soviet Union had plans for a Soviet World and even the Nazi's had an idea of a Nazi controlled world.

Yes.. And when did Pnac start happening? when the Soviet Union was no long a world threat since they disarm their nukes and we became peace with them.

Thanks for backing me up.

[kaydee457 13]

For one, this term "cut and run" is misleading and inaccurate. Troop withdrawal is what people are talking about, but it seems to be psychological war of words when people mess around with terminology...like the term, "anti-American".

Iraqi leaders want a timetable for US withdrawal

You're correct, "troop withdrawal" is synonymous with RETREAT, or surrender....

Is that more to your liking?

Semantics...Democrats want to surrender by retreating.....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAGCgY4PDNA

If that is taken in the context of the 40 million dollar witch hunt Kenneth Starr did against Clinton, I can understand her sentiment. It could be perceived by the public that both parties are more interested in doing each other in, than taking care of the business of running this country.

On the other hand, if an independent counsel could put together enough incriminating evidence to impeach Bush, and do so in a decisive and timely manner, I don't think Pelosi or any other Democrat should boldly say that Bush will never be impeached.

That's the issue - the reason that impeachment is "off the table" is the result of the practical recognition that getting together testimony and putting a case together will take so long that it likely won't even reach the hearing stage until sometime in the next presidential term, after which time too much water will have passed under the bridge and people (with their short attention spans will have ceased to care and will have moved on to other things). From a partisan point of view, it makes sense.

Of course it doesn't imply that there isn't a case for impeachment.