BUSH: "Timeline will give enemies victory"

[Mephisto]

I personally see Bush's (and his staff's) tactic as basically the return of the "Stabbed in the Back" excuse. It's based on a self-fulfilling "Heads I win, Tails you lose" approach to conceptualizing the war.

If the Iraq invasion had turned out well Bush and Co. would have spent every moment since then patting themselves on a back for supposedly proving their ideological notions correct. However, since things are turning out badly they are instead going to plan B -- arguing that they didn't fail, but that assorted opponents here at home sabotaged their efforts and let the terrorists "win." Thus they were "stabbed in the back". The result is that no matter what they can claim ideological victory. Seen more cynically, it's just a technique for trying to weasel out of responsbility (and the political cost) for failing.

I agree, and with some people stupid enough to continue supporting him it's a winning situation for them (as far as those people go). The problem is; there are still many of us who remember saying that invading Iraq was a stupid idea and would prove to be a costly mistake.

There used to be a credibility gap during the Vietnam war, but this administration has gone one better and created a credibility chasm.

(edited to add) Welcome to the forum.

 

[Mephisto]

The reason why there is not a hue and cry from Canada to get out of Iraq is because Canadian forces are not in Iraq.

While there are some Canadians that are working for the UN in Iraq,
and there are some Canadians that are embedded with US forces in Iraq,

never the less, Canada is not now, nor was in the past, a part of the Iraq Coalition Forces.

I might also add that Canadians, who were smart enough to stay out of the coalition of the befuddled, took plenty of heat from idiots like Bill O'Reilly for their decision:

A Canadian Look at Bill O'Reilly
A blunt guide to the L. Ron Hubbard of cable news


July 18 2005
Counterbias.com
Robert Furs


Bill O’Reilly doesn’t like me. Not at all. I’m an elitist secular socialist educated to hate America—for I am every Canadian in Bill O’Reilly’s world. Therefore, what I am about to write is of no consequence.

In O’Reilly’s world, criticism of America’s top-rated cable news personality is the work of Canadians and/or anti-American leftists, and isn’t worth responding to. That is, until an opportunity arises in which he can open his mouth or flex his writing muscles—an opportunity that comes often, whether on his TV show, his radio show, his books, his website or his columns.

http://www.counterbias.com/344.html

And of course:

Bill O'Reilly Threatens Canada with Sanctions for Harbouring Peace-Loving American "Deserters"

This man must have balls the size of Texas. Bill O'Reilly is actually threatening to lead a national boycott of Canadian products just because two Americans have chosen to flee the "undeclared war" in Iraq (Mr. O'Reilly readily admits that the war was undeclared himself, meaning it violates international law).
He even goes as far as spewing some thinly-veiled threats that will most likely ring hollow if cooler heads prevail:

"We respect honest disagreement, but undermining our military in the middle of the war on terror by providing sanctuary for deserters, lawbreakers is a hostile act.

Canada is totally dependent on the USA for its economic well-being. It best remember that in this very serious situation."

Mr. O'Reilly, I agree with you. We do depend on you to a maddening degree, but you must not forget that You depend on Us too. It is a two-way partnership and we are your largest trading partner. We share the world's longest undefended border; we signed on to your Free Trade Agreement and your NAFTA; hell, we're even willing to agree to the questionable FTAA, an accord chock-full of corporate loopholes that will decimate the environment and set human rights back a hundred years all the way from Alaska to Chile.
I appreciate the fact that you respect our right to have an opinion that runs counter your neoconservative Perpetual War Theory, but why can't you just leave us be? We're a sovereign nation and we have a great tradition of peace. When we send troops into a country, they're wearing the blue helmets of the United Nations, and we're damned proud of that. We don't just summarily invade places to forcefeed Democracy down their throats. We're a peaceful lot.

http://jeremybrendan.blogspot.com/2004/05/bill-oreilly-threatens-canada-with.html

If there had been such a food as Canadian fries - we would have patriotically changed them to Freedom Fries.

 

[Mephisto]

Which in that case, makes both situations alike.

Are we going to stay in Afghanistan forever too?

Now you're thinking! All the Taliban has to do to regain Afghanistan is to go into hiding and wait you out.

 

[Daylight]

If the troops are pulled from Iraq, won't they go to Afghanistan?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If the Iraq invasion had turned out well Bush and Co. would have spent every moment since then patting themselves on a back for supposedly proving their ideological notions correct. However, since things are turning out badly they are instead going to plan B -- arguing that they didn't fail, but that assorted opponents here at home sabotaged their efforts and let the terrorists "win." Thus they were "stabbed in the back". The result is that no matter what they can claim ideological victory. Seen more cynically, it's just a technique for trying to weasel out of responsbility (and the political cost) for failing.

The corresponding technique to that is to blame the victims. See, the reason things aren't going "swimmingly" in Iraq is that the Iraqi people don't appreciate the gift of freedom we've graciously given them and they just aren't willing to stand up and fight for their own country like we selfless Americans are willing to do. They just don't appreciate what we've done for them... just like those Old European French ingrates.

Here's an example of what I mean from Sundays Dallas Morning News.

Allawi comments improper

Re: "Iraqi insider slams U.S. occupation as mismanaged," Monday news story.

It was highly inappropriate to print the comments by Ali Allawi on the competence of President Bush in the occupation of Iraq.

Being an insider, Mr. Allawi was fully aware that American troops were withheld from Sadr City in an attempt to placate Muqtada al-Sadr and gain his cooperation.

Of course, President Bush should have known from experience with the Democrats over the past six years that it is impossible to gain any cooperation from idiots by trying to placate them.

Furst Moore, Hallsville

 

[Azure]

You know, I'm not going to argue a point with someone who sees no problem with millions of innocent people dying when the US pulls out. It happened in Vietnam, and it WILL happen again in Iraq.

Its not like the US sits on their ass all day long. The Iraqi forces ARE getting stronger each day, and the only plausible choice they have is to take over the security of their own country.

Yes I know it was a mistake to invade, blah, blah, blah....but saying that doesn't change anything.

 

[Azure]

Now you're thinking! All the Taliban has to do to regain Afghanistan is to go into hiding and wait you out.

Hey, now you're acting even more dumb.

Too bad the Taliban knows Canada won't cut and run like you want the US to do, so there is no timeline on the table, nor is Canada going to leave anytime soon.

They can't wait forever to retake the county.

I'm glad our politicians have the balls to see the job through, until some sort of government can be set up to run the country.

The strange thing is, if the US does withdraw from Iraq, what message does that send to the terrorists already there? That the US gives up?

Oh but who cares, as long as the troops withdraw. It doesn't fking matter if millions of innocent people die.

 

[Azure]

The corresponding technique to that is to blame the victims. See, the reason things aren't going "swimmingly" in Iraq is that the Iraqi people don't appreciate the gift of freedom we've graciously given them and they just aren't willing to stand up and fight for their own country like we selfless Americans are willing to do. They just don't appreciate what we've done for them... just like those Old European French ingrates.

Here's an example of what I mean from Sundays Dallas Morning News.

Well all know the war has been brutally managed from the get-go.

And seeing how the credibility of the US has already been ruined enough, what will it do to your reputation if you leave Iraq alone to crumble?

I mean, by all means pull out, I really don't give a ◊◊◊◊...but then again, I don't have to deal with the backlash...nor will I be part of a country whose government first invades with little reason, and withdraws because, well just because.

Who really cares about Iraq? Let it all go to hell.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You know, I'm not going to argue a point with someone who sees no problem with millions of innocent people dying when the US pulls out. It happened in Vietnam, and it WILL happen again in Iraq.

If you think you have psychic powers you need to fill out a formal application for the million rather than just post to the forum.

 

[Azure]

If you think you have psychic powers you need to fill out a formal application for the million rather than just post to the forum.

Who needs psychic powers when I can just look at history?

Iraq is already on the verge of civil war....pulling out will ensure that...and ensure people dying.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well all know the war has been brutally managed from the get-go.

No, it's been incompetantly managed. You might have mushed together "bungled totally" when you wrote brutally.

Who really cares about Iraq? Let it all go to hell.

What do you mean let it go to hell? Haven't you been reading the headlines? It already is hell.

And no one seems to tell me why we should care particularly about Iraq? There were plenty of other countries with brutal regimes we could have toppled, many without the populations in natural conflict with each other like the Kurds, Shia and Sunni in Iraq. Why should we care especially about Iraq? What gives you reactionaries such a hardon for bringing freedom and democracy to them (especially when it seems large numbers of them a) don't want it or b) don't know how to deal with it?)

 

[Azure]

No, it's been incompetantly managed. You might have mushed together "bungled totally" when you wrote brutally.

Sure.

What do you mean let it go to hell? Haven't you been reading the headlines? It already is hell.

I mean totally go to hell. Pull out and let the dumb asses kill themselves.

Who cares about them?

And no one seems to tell me why we should care particularly about Iraq? There were plenty of other countries with brutal regimes we could have toppled, many without the populations in natural conflict with each other like the Kurds, Shia and Sunni in Iraq. Why should we care especially about Iraq? What gives you reactionaries such a hardon for bringing freedom and democracy to them (especially when it seems large numbers of them a) don't want it or b) don't know how to deal with it?)

Because the US is IN IRAQ. Because the US owes the Iraqi people stability...not this pulling out running between your legs coward **** you're advocating.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Who needs psychic powers when I can just look at history?

Iraq is already on the verge of civil war....pulling out will ensure that...and ensure people dying.

So we, meaning the U.S. and U.K., need to sit fast in the middle of a civil war? Sorry man, as you said, one only need look at history and I have. We either need to send 100,000 more troops in or pull out completely (assuming my time machine option isn't feasable). Your not going to be paying the taxes on the $1,000,000,000,000 this [rule8]ing boondogle is going to cost us. Your neighbors aren't going to come home in body bags like ours. So feel free to keep espousing your opinion as you are free to do so, but I'm also going to feel free to tell you to STFU about something that's not going to effect you.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Because the US is IN IRAQ. Because the US owes the Iraqi people stability...not this pulling out running between your legs coward **** you're advocating.

So we should simply just stay until the Shia and Sunnis reconcille their differences? That should only take what... centuries? And spare me the coward rhetoric. I'd rather be called a coward by a buffoon who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about than someone who had a sense in them. Then it might sting.

 

[Azure]

So we, meaning the U.S. and U.K., need to sit fast in the middle of a civil war? Sorry man, as you said, one only need look at history and I have. We either need to send 100,000 more troops in or pull out completely (assuming my time machine option isn't feasable). Your not going to be paying the taxes on the $1,000,000,000,000 this [rule8]ing boondogle is going to cost us. Your neighbors aren't going to come home in body bags like ours. So feel free to keep espousing your opinion as you are free to do so, but I'm also going to feel free to tell you to STFU about something that's not going to effect you.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

I have already lost a brother to the war in Iraq, so don't give me this BS about it not going to affect me. It already has.

In other words, I had family members come home in a body bag, as well as neighbors.

 

[Azure]

So we should simply just stay until the Shia and Sunnis reconcille their differences? That should only take what... centuries? And spare me the coward rhetoric. I'd rather be called a coward by a buffoon who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about than someone who had a sense in them. Then it might sting.

Well pull out.

See if I care....or better yet, see if anyone cares about the US after that.

At least all my relatives and friends from Fort Lewis will come home then.

 

[FarmallMTA]

He can't define what constitutes victory for our troops in Iraq, but apparently knows that the Dems plan to withdraw constitutes victory for "our enemies."




Let's see, attacking with relative impunity, choosing when and where to attack, using improvised explosives and small arms to hold off one of the world's most technologically-advanced militaries, making it through various levels of the most stringent security to hand-deliver explosives, recruiting fighters from neighboring countries with ease and taking a costly toll on our military as well as sabotaging oil flow (that was going to pay for the war) seems pretty much to me like our enemies can already claim victory.

It's no secret to them that we can't stay in Iraq indefinitely. It's no secret to them that every day we stay there costs us millions of dollars and all they have to do is "wait us out." Why is our illustrious leader so positive that our continued presence will result in victory for our side?

Yep, W is wrong there. See, we invaded their country, we got to bomb the t!h$ out of it, we got to kill a bunch of the greasy little b@sturds running around in the sand over there, we got to hang Saddam and his henchmen, some of whom got their heads ripped off because the hangman "miscalculated", plus...

PLUS, we've got it now so they'll kill a whole bunch more of themselves, PLUS they're stupid enough to let terrorists and Iran operate there unimpeded, so in 2 years we've got a GREAT excuse to party hardy all over again. Spring Break in Baghdad '09, anybody?

Hell, by any reasonable measure, we've succeeded wildly. Let's come home and kick hell out of the Democrats now. We've earned the right to that much fun, at least.

 

[davefoc]

I thought this editorial in Slate made a good point.
http://www.slate.com/id/2164277/fr/flyout

McCain together with the rest of the Bushco defenders are running around accusing everybody that supports any sort of a time line of not supporting the troops or worse.

McCain says he has no plan B in mind if stuff doesn't work out, but then he says that by 2008 if stuff hasn't worked out and he's the president, in response to the demands of the American people he'd initiate a pullout.

OK, so let's simplify, McCain's plan B is very similar to everybody's plan B. Most Democrats aren't looking for a precipitous pullout and most Republicans aren't supporting an open ended engagement.

So what's the problem? The problem is that the US is led by a mean spirited, self serving jerk (Cheney) and his incompetent doofus. The Iraq Study Group put together a report that outlined what is roughly the widespread consensus about what is required in Iraq. But the Bushco agenda has never been about doing the best thing for the US or Iraq or for anybody else except their fellow partisans and corporate cronies. So the US doesn't change course and Bushco doesn't have to confront the reality of their past disastrous decisions and the only bad things that happen are that thousands more American/UK troops die, tens of thousands more Iraqis die, hundreds of thousands more Iraqis are displaced and the US is weakened by the useless squandering of hundreds of billion dollars.

This doesn't seem to be inevitable and it's reasonable that people should try to infuse Bushco with some sense of reality and responsibility. But I don't think that is possible. If six years of corruption and ineptitude haven't shown us that I don't know what will. So probably the US will live through a lot of partisan name calling for the next two years which won't affect anything significant and eventually the new president, Republican or Democrat will unwind the Bushco Iraq disaster and get the US out of Iraq.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

In other words, I had family members come home in a body bag, as well as neighbors.

So how many more would it take before you think it would be time to pull out? And please, no rhetoric, just a number within a certain time frame (ex. 10,000 over the next 50 years is no biggie, but 10,000 in the next 2 years would be).

 

[Solitaire]

And that bitch Hillary doesn't want to deal with the war either, neither do ANY of the Democrats, which is why they're pulling for a timeline.

Make a pact with the Iraqi government, but don't announce it over the airwaves. But knowing the dumbass politicians in Washington, one of them will.

Hillary is the worst candidate out there. She is stubborn. She refuses to listen to reason. She wants to try diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors while redeploying the troops in Iraq. In other words, four more years of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If she can admit she was wrong on her vote for the war then there is a good chance that she will get off of John McCain's Shady Talk Express. Otherwise don't vote for her and definitely don't vote for him!