troops in iraq

After The Combat Troops Leave Iraq, Mostly Silence On The Right

Face it – the right hate seeing combat operations come to an end. Their silence on the milestone being reached last night in the 7 year war proves the claims the left has made for years; the right loves them some war.

For example, how do you think the champion news site of the right, Drudge, promotes the story?

Yup – nothing but a little blurb 1/2 way down the page on the third column. Way to celebrate our heroes their Matt!

But someone on the right did notice:

John McCain wants to thank George Bush, the guy who got us into this war with no plan for exit or victory. The same George Bush who sat by like a deer in the headlights as the insurgency many warned about came to fruition and killed thousands of our young troops.

Of course if John McCain would have won in 2008 we wouldn’t be at this milestone today. He was all set to keep combat troops in Iraq another 10 years and not think twice about it.

For us on the left, today is a day to celebrate the start of the end of this war. For the right, it’s a sad day in which their favorite national pastime is coming to an end.

National Security

The Final Combat Troops Are Leaving Iraq Tonight

MSNBC has been covering this all night. Two weeks ahead of schedule, the final combat troops in Iraq are crossing the border into Kuwait.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Of course 50,000 troops will remain indefinitely in a non-combat capacity. Despite that number, this is still a huge accomplishment for President Obama and our troops. Congratulations.

I Really Hope Our Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan Fail

Without reading past my headline, I wonder how many on the right would quickly see that, especially if it appeared on a site like DKos or Huffington Post, and start yelling calling me an America hater?

Well I don’t wish for our troops to fail in the least. That’s why I never said things like “I hope George Bush fails”. I did call him a failure, but I never wished him to fail.

So why is it fine and dandy for Rush Limbaugh to declare his desire for the failure of our commander in chief? At a time when we are at two wars, with the end to one in site, shouldn’t he be hoping our President is a success? No. Instead Rush has now twice declared his desire for our President to fail since Inauguration Day.

We can quickly say he is wanting to see our economy tank, but Rush isn’t being very specific by saying “I hope he fails”, so we must also assume he is making that wish for Obama’s constitutional duty as commander in chief, which means Rush is hoping our troops fail.

That is a new low, even for Rush Limbaugh.

Iraq Wants The Terrorists To Win!

Or as the educated people might call it, a time table:

Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country is now proposing an interim deal with the United States on the presence of American troops instead of a more formal agreement — and wants to include a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

Some type of agreement is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end. But many Iraqi lawmakers had criticized the government's attempt to negotiate a formal status of forces agreement, worried that U.S. demands would threaten the country's sovereignty.

So will the Republicans bash Iraq's government as terrorist appeasers? Or will we ignore this request, thus negating any sovereignty of the nation? It should be interesting to hear the talking points this generates.

Reality?

At first it sounded like it, but then John McCain retracted his statement that if he can't convince the nation Iraq is succeeding he will "lose". It is a turn around from a couple of months ago, when McCain said the country would be fine with our troops in Iraq for 100 years. Of course I can't help but think he still believes that.

Give Me A Break!

On CNN, John King just played a clip from this week's debate when Clinton said, "John McCain said he would keep troops in Iraq for 100 years". King just said that was "hyperbole" and McCain said "he would keep troops there as long as it takes". Why don't John King look at what McCain did say. It's right here on YouTube:

It's no secret John King loves John McCain, but if he don't like people pointing it out then don't say stupid shit.

Surgenius!

What a way to silently increase over all troop presence in Iraq. Send in a 30,000 as part of a "surge" and then when you declare it a success, only pull out 20,000. This leaves you a net gain of 10,000 troops:

The United States will probably have more troops in Iraq this summer than it did before pouring in forces last year -- even after a planned drawdown, a U.S. general said on Friday.

There were some 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq before President George W. Bush ordered a surge of about 30,000 more to curb rampant violence that threatened to plunge the country into all-out civil war.

By summer, U.S. commanders plan to have withdrawn more than 20,000 combat troops deployed as part of the surge. But officials indicated some support units sent around the same time would remain or be replaced.

I bet a President McCain, lover of the surge, would implement this plan a couple of times throughout his presidency. Hell if we keep doing this then we could end up just moving all our bases into Iraq. Now that would be a neo-con wet dream.

Doubting Petraeus

This comes as no surprise. A new poll shows a majority of Americans believe Petraeus won't be give a factual view of Iraq:

Most Americans think this week's report from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus will exaggerate progress in Iraq, and few expect it to result in a major shift in President Bush's policy. But despite skepticism about the Petraeus testimony and majority support for a U.S. troop reduction in Iraq, there has also been a slight increase in the number who see the situation there as improving.

The findings, from a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, underscore the depth of public antipathy toward the Iraq war, the doubts about the administration's policies and the limited confidence in the Iraqi government to meet its commitments to restore civil order.

Fifty-eight percent, a new high, said they want to decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. And most of those who advocated a troop reduction said they want the drawdown to begin either right away or by the end of the year. A majority, 55 percent, supported legislation that would set a deadline of next spring for the withdrawal of American combat forces. That figure is unchanged from July.

Add Two More Senators To The List

These Republicans, which are up for re-election, are starting to get scared:

The tide of Republican defections from President George W. Bush's camp swelled Saturday when two more US senators joined the chorus of critics of his Iraq policy, demanding change.

But while expressing sharp disagreement with the strategy of "surging" the number of US troops in Iraq, Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire stopped short of backing legislation that would force the White House to begin a drawdown of US troops in Iraq.

"It should be clear to the president that there needs to be a new strategy," said Alexander told The Los Angeles Times. "Our policy in Iraq is drifting."

I think back to the day when it wasn't cool to oppose this bullshit war. The Democrats who tried to get the course changed were accused of playing politics with the lives of our soldiers. So then what is this?

5 Soldiers Killed In Iraq

Which brings the monthly toll to 42. This is a little better than last month, but of course that is due in a large part to Iraqi's targeting each other again.

The surge is also now complete. Ironically it is complete with an additional "28,500 troops" in Iraq. Wasn't it supposed to be 21,500? That's what Bush told the country in his big address back in January.

You wonder why the American people are fed up with this war? Perhaps a large reason for that is the fact that you can ask 10 different leaders the same question and you get 10 different answers. The is the George Bush "cluster fuck" administration. Nothing but incompetence, liars and crooks.

Time For Some Catch-Up

I swear there are just not enough hours in the day, so let me do a quick catch up.

First we have the Senate Judiciary Committee issuing a subpoena to former Rove aide Sara Taylor, while the House Judiciary Committee is issuing one to Harriet Meirs. Regarding this matter, John Conyers said, "Let me be clear: this subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American people for the White House...to help us answer the questions that remain".

Next up we find out that even with the "surge", we still don't have enough troops in Iraq and might need yet another surge. This came from Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey as he was testifying before the House yesterday. Oh and let's remember that this was yesterday, before our next item of:

In the early morning hours Sunni insurgents blew up the Askariya Shrine. This is the same shrine that was blown up last year and caused the sectarian violence to explode. Before al-Maliki could issue the new "indefinite curfews", arsonists set fire to a Sunni mosque in western Baghdad. a Shiite shrine was blown up north of Baghdad and two Sunni mosques were bombed south of Baghdad.

To make matters even worse, al-Sadr and his bloc of 30 members suspended its membership in Iraq's parliament. Yes al-Sadr is a bad guy, but now he is that much worse.

Hey John McCain - is this still like a stroll in any American town? What say you Joe Lieberman or Mike Pence?

7 More Soldiers Killed

Thanks Bush! Thanks Democrats!

Seven U.S. soldiers were killed in six separate attacks across Iraq on Saturday, the U.S. military said on Sunday, days after it recorded its deadliest monthly toll in more than two years.

All but two of the soldiers were killed by roadside bombs, by far the biggest killers of U.S. troops in Iraq.

In the worst attack, two soldiers were killed when their patrol was hit by a roadside bomb in Nineveh province, northwest of Baghdad.

Two others died in separate bomb attacks in volatile Diyala province to the northeast of the capital, where 3,000 extra U.S. troops have been sent to combat a rise in violence.

And according to Bush, he is planning on 50 more years of this.

Surprise! Terrorist Attacks Up

Another "war" we are losing thanks to George Bush:

State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.

The annual report's release comes amid a bitter feud between the White House and Congress over funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and a deadline favored by Democrats to begin a U.S. troop withdrawal.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top aides earlier this week had considered postponing or downplaying the release of this year's edition of the terrorism report, officials in several agencies and on Capitol Hill said.

The last paragraph really gets me. They were going to "downplay" or "delay" this report. Why - because it proves that this administration is still failing? That would be the only answer I can think of.

Switch Joe! It Doesn't Matter!

The media was reporting yesterday that if Lieberman switched parties it would throw the majority control into the Republicans court. Now we find out that this is actually wrong. The Democrats will retain control of the 110th Senate until the 111th Senate is convened:

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

It sounds like the Democrats had a feeling Joe would end up pulling this stunt and decided to add a little bit more protection into their slim majority. What a sweet move.

Now this doesn't say that the Majority Leader, Harry Reid, can't restructure committees. As a matter of fact that is exactly what I am expecting to happen if Joe does switch. The committee to be restructured? Homeland Security, currently chaired by the back-stabbing Senator from Connecticut. Yup - this would get Joe out of his dream chairmanship. Of course it would also mean a real Democrat chairing the committee and perhaps looking into the Katrina failures, something Lieberman promised to do on the campaign trail, but quickly showed his false promises and hate to the people of New Orleans.

Sentiment is growing around the blogosphere for Joe to leave. Howie has this to say:

Democrats Refuse to Bow to Terrorist #1

And by terrorist #1 I mean Joe Lieberman. He is trying to hijack the Democrat's majority by threatening to switch sides if the Democrats try to restrict funds to the war. Well the Democratic leadership in the Senate is going a step further. They are now working on legislation to re-examine the 2002 authorization to go to war:

Determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002, officials said Thursday.

While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

As I said in my earlier post - good riddance Joe. If the Republicans want to filibuster everything then we don't need the majority. Actually this could become a blessing to the Democrats in 2008. Let the Republicans regain control of the Senate this year and screw it up even more and we got a new campaign motto in 2008. Hey - we only need to pick up 1 seat, and considering most seats up are Republicans we should have no problem with that.

Around the blogosphere Taylor, Howie, Jane, Chris and Nichole all weight in on this.