Incoming Senate Majority Leader Reid says U.S. troop surge OK, but only for a few months

[Junkdrawer]

WASHINGTON: Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he would support a temporary increase of U.S. troops in Iraq only if it were part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by early 2008.

"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said the Democratic senator, citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.

"The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically," Reid said. "We have to change course in Iraq."

President George W. Bush is considering several options for a new strategy in Iraq, such as a proposal backed by Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen.Joseph Lieberman that would send tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite period to quickly secure Baghdad. There are presently about 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

That plan would run counter to recommendations by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which set a goal of withdrawing combat troops by early 2008 in support of more aggressive regional diplomacy.

....

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/17/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq.php

[AzDar]

1. Oh. Dear. God. n/t

[bahrbearian]

2. I Guess we haven't distroyed enough Cities in Iraq,

Falluja, Haditha, Tikrit, Haditha now if we can bring Baghdad down that will stop the insurgency.

[PSPS]

3. In other words, Reid is OK with more useless and unnecessary death.

Merry Christmas (2007), Mrs. Jones.

We're sorry to inform you that your son John was killed in Iraq. He'd be home alive were it not for the democrats' decision to "go along" with our glorious leader's decision to continue to illegally occupy a country that doesn't want us there. But it's the least you can do to allow the commander in chief to save face.

Have a nice day.

[still_one]

56. I am not particularly happy with Reid's position, but it is also being distorted

He has made it very clear that this could only be part strategy to get us completely out of Iraq:

"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said."

The administration through the military has already said that Reid's comments are not acceptable

Again Reid has made it VERY CLEAR, that the people in the U.S. want us out of Iraq, and nothing less is acceptable

In my view the way this is getting reported is to try and divide Democrats. Let's see what happens when we take over in a few weeks. Actions always speak louder than words

[PSPS]

68. Distorted? He said he wants us there another two years. That's criminal.

Then what? "Well, we're almost there. Just a little longer, maybe another two years." Before you know it, it will be 2010 and Reid will be up for re-election. By then, he can run as a republican.

[still_one]

80. I agree with you, as I said in my post I do not agree with Reid's position

I just think that they are trying to stir things up between the Democrats

The midterm election was very clear, we MUST get out of Iraq

In fact, I do not believe anyone who voted for the IWR deserves to be President

[Zhade]

82. How does "adding more troops in order to remove troops" not sound insane?

It's like adding more gasoline to the fire to put it out.

Senseless. And it won't lead to anything except more death.

[still_one]

108. On reconsideration, you are absolutely right. Reid is inane to propose such a thing

even a temporary increase. What for? So more targets and deaths will be available

[Zhade]

111. You mean...my words actually did some good?

Yeah! Nice to hear!

[still_one]

113. It absolutely did. Thanks

[pokercat999]

127. Actually you may have hit on the real plan.

Pouring gas on a fire might help it burn out faster as the additional quick heat burns more fuel faster thus decreasing the longevity of the fire. Just replace the fuel in your fire with the American troops in Iraq and you get the idea, the sooner we "use them up" the sooner they will come home. That is those few left alive.
:sarcasm:

On edit I wanted to add: FUCK YOU harry reid I just added you to my War Criminals list.

[TankLV]

90. Just like Johnson did in Vietnam - greatly expanded the war...

and all it did was contribute to more deaths over a longer period of time...

We should pull out NOW, not two days from now...

The result of postponing it will only be MORE DEATHS. PERIOD.

Pull out now or later or gradually - the result will still be a raging chaos and violence and death...

Only the Iraqi People can determine their fate now, unfortunately...

[boot@9]

109. Amen...

just like Vietnam! When will we ever learn.

[babylonsister]

4. What is he thinking? I'm beyond disappointed. nt

[INdemo]

32. More targets and more deaths

Harry Reid needs to review some history about the Vietnam war..We could have the same end result in 1969 as we did in 1975 except it would have saved 38,000 lives..How many of our young men and women have to die because politicians want it their way..Listen to the people and get the hell out of there...

[babylonsister]

35. We know that; why doesn't he? He's just pandering to the admin

instead of stating unequivocally that we need to get out, not add more human targets.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

49. He is advocating withdrawal by 2008.

I thought that was pretty clear from the article, but I guess not.

[orleans]

99. he is advocating more death by putting more troops in. and if he

really believes bush then we're all in big trouble.

"Stephanopoulos asked Reid how he would know such a surge would be temporary.

"I mean, even if that condition is set, even if the president says we'd like them to come home in two or three months, there's no way you're going to know that they're going to be able to come home, is there?" Stephanopoulos asked Reid."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Reid_Sure_Ill_go_along_with_1217.html

[Warren Stupidity]

5. It is ESCALATION it is not a SURGE

The war is being escalated. Our duplicitous leaders use language to confuse and befuddle us. Senator Reid is either a fool or part of the problem.

[Junkdrawer]

7. The three greatest lies of all time...

#3: I'll respect you in the morning....


#2: The check is in the mail....

---- AND -----

#1: This is only a TEMPORARY Escallation....

[hang a left]

15. He is definately part of the problem!

Guess there were some deals cut. Nice land grab snuck into the last bill Harold.

[INdemo]

37. Someone needs to remind him that voters

elected a Democratic majority to end the war and not to have a "surge" of troop levels.......

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. Is he advocating a surge of troop levels?

No, he is not. Is he advocating withdrawl by 2008? Yes, he is.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Well I guess it depends on how you interpret it.

"Reid said Sunday he would support a temporary increase of U.S. troops in Iraq". Seems to me that is yes to escalation and yes to out by 2008.

As for the ISG, if they did indeed put in support for escalation, as they seem to have done, I am against that too. There is much in the ISG report that appears to be 'stay in Iraq until 1-20-09 and then blame a Democrat'. The war is wrong. Our presence there makes our crimes worse and prevents any resolution. We cannot win. Escalation will not work but it will increase the number of dead Iraqis murdered by our criminal invasion of their country.

[Zhade]

83. In what world does an addition of troops not equal an increase in troop levels?

And since when did a quick addition of anything to an amount already in place not equate to a surge?

What dictionary do they use on your planet?

[timetoleave]

116. We don't need to escalate,

We Dem's have forgotten we won, we still seem to be reacting like we are afraid that if we do not do what they want they can make us look like little pansy boys, but we won and the message was clear, big mistake to not fight back

[Junkdrawer]

6. This means that there's "moderate" Dem support for Surge so....

Surge it is.

And you thought the voters had spoken... :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

24. ESCALATION: it's Meme Warfare and we have to Fight Back.

ESCALATION not 'surge'.

Everytime somebody uses that word we need to correct them. We cannot allow the liars to get away with their deliberate obfuscation.


ESCALATION not 'surge'.

[blm]

69. Let's be really honest - wanna bet Bill Clinton is the one who has 'spoken' on this

to certain senators?

[Junkdrawer]

70. As in: Which is more important?

Getting out of Iraq.

--- OR ---

Making sure Iraq remains a Republican problem.

[blm]

75. If Dems support this military policy it will be portrayed as bipartisan failure

yet again by those who control the corporate media.

[Junkdrawer]

77. I agree: we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't...

so why not do the right thing? The thing the people voted for?

[Zhade]

84. Well, if they support this illegal war, then it WILL be a bipartisan crime.

Not a failure - this was never a mistake, but a premeditated criminal enterprise.

[Freddie Stubbs]

105. If so, he has not convinced his wife

Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services committee, said she was not in favor of a proposed "surge" of some 20,000-40,000 American troops into Baghdad to quell the sectarian violence there. President Bush is reportedly considering such a move as one of many options to improve the situation in Iraq.

http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_352095402.html

[blm]

107. She qualified that just like Reid did - she'd support it as part of a larger plan.

Wiggle. Wiggle.

[jus_the_facts]

76. Indeed....

....it's all an illusion of separate *parties* and fair elections..and as usual the joke is on all of us once again. :evilfrown:

[Oleladylib]

8. So, Reid's an idiot..join the bunch.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

9. Reid is now an even bigger embarrassment to the Democratic Party, just another corp hack sell-out

[itsmesgd]

10. wow, one month and the dems have forgotten us already

This only feeds my belief that the dems are in cahoots with the repukes and that they are all bought off by the corporations and the military industrial complex. Sure, they will be sent over under the pretense of a "short tour" then they will be kept over there indefinitely.
Another question that I have for the gov is where do they hope to find another 30- 50 thousand troops?

They are all just sick and need to be thrown out of the government. We need a complete changing of the guard. We need to install the next generation, our generation to replace these evil, aging bastards. It's troops from our generation that are being killed and bankrupted by the "old guard". We need to take our place at the head of the table.

[lebkuchen]

11. Members of the V Corp are returning from Baghdad to Heidelberg

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=42209

A friend of mine spoke w/one of the returning V Corp soldiers, who had been involved in the initial assault and had just completed his second tour. This time around he had been stationed in one of Saddam's palaces. He said that during the first tour, coalition soldiers had been able to go from place to place in Iraq with relative ease. During the 2nd tour, freedom of movement was no longer possible. There were landmines/IEDs everywhere, and soldiers were kept at the palace with little movement beyond the perimeters for fear of losing life or limb. While the soldier spoke of the ordeal of his second tour, and his sincere hope that he wouldn't have to do a third, his voice quivered.

While US soldiers are quarantined to base/palace, what are the Iraqis doing? Laying more mines, perhaps?

Increasing troops levels to any number will serve no purpose other than to create more targets for the local nationals sick of seeing the occupiers in their country.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. Y'all need to relax.

What's going on here is simple: Nobody in a position of serious power on our side of the aisle is going to disagree with the ISG's reccomendations. He is effectively stating the ISG's position. That's all that is going on here.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Lieberman. And there will be others, Reid wouldn't say that...

unless there was majority (Republican + "moderate" Democratic ) support for a temporary escalation.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Lieberman is the exception, not the rule.

And I suspect there is bipartisan support for "temporary" escalation, but only within the context of implementing the ISG plan.

If you look at what Reid actually said, it's that Bush could have his escalation only if it was in the context of withdrawl by 2008, which is exactly what the ISG report says.

[Junkdrawer]

19. "Honest, I'll stop drinking tomorrow. So tonight I'm really going...

to tie one on."

If we send more troops every time there's an uptick in violence, we'll NEVER leave.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. I don't think that's what is being discussed here.

Reid is stating the ISG position, which is that a short-term deployment of more troops is acceptable, but that any long-term increase, or even keeping the current numbers, is wrong.

[DeepModem Mom]

18. Did the ISG call for an increase in troops? nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. Please see my post #25 downthread. n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

31. Thanks, y! nt

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Bullshit. Where did the ISG say "escalate the war"?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. It says what Reid said.

On page fifty:

Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight
against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000)
in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the
needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops
could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the
U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term “occupation.” We could, however, support a shortterm
redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the
training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would
be effective.

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf

[rodeodance]

46. thanks.

[SOS]

52. Too bad Reid isn't on page 30 instead of 50...

3. More Troops for Iraq
"Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in
Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that
adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However,
past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are
moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not
make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile,
America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a
substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also
necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or
respond to crises around the world. "

On edit: Neither your quote from the ISG (or mine) are actual recommendations, but rather quotes from the background pieces accompanying the numbered recommendations.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

64. There's no ambiguity between those two passages.

"Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in
Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation.

Reid's remarks explicitly state that he does not support any sustained increase in troop levels, and that any increase would only be considered if accompanied by a plan for withdrawal by 2008.

Now, I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the difference between Bush's intentions and what
Reid actually said. No doubt Bush is pushing for a sustained increase in troop levels. Really, that's the only card he's got left to play. My primary point is that Reid's statement doesn't amount to a blanket endorsement of Bush's lunacy, and in fact amounts to little more than a near-verbatim rehash of something that the ISG report already says. I personally don't support "the surge." I do, however, object to this crucifixion of Reid for his statement.


On edit: Neither your quote from the ISG (or mine) are actual recommendations, but rather quotes from the background pieces accompanying the numbered recommendations.

Thanks for catching that. You are correct, and I should have made that clear in my first post.

[Zenlitened]

22. I'm glad he thought to say, essentially, "This is what the generals want."..

"At this moment we're not going to undermine and second-guess the generals."


But I sure hope -- and have some confidence -- that he and our Dem leaders will hold the generals' feet to the fire:

"It's been three weeks. Are you getting the results you want yet, General?"

"Uh, no Mr. Senator, but..."

"Times up, General. No more 'buts.' Now you and I and this committee are going to put together a plan right now, for bringing this all to a safe and sane halt.

"And while we realize that you take orders from the Commander in Chief, not directly from Congress, you have to recognize that we have been told -- in very plain, direct language -- by the American people that we must end this, and end it now. We're are going to use the many tools at our disposal to do exactly that, and we hope and expect that you'll be a partner in this process now that the civilian leadership's decision has been made.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. I think that's pretty close to what will happen.

Politically, it needs to be a bipartisan intervention to stop the crazy man in the big white house from repeatedly shooting himself, and several hundred thousand more innocent people, in the foot, head, or abdomen.

[Zhade]

85. The generals seem to be forgetting that they are prosecuting an illegal war.

NT!

[rodeodance]

14. oh drats!

[DeepModem Mom]

17. Not only is this not what Reid's base wants, it's not what the "independents"...

and even Republicans who voted for Democrats want -- quite clearly. This is a mistake. Stop this madness.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Every person I talked to in October/November

for GOTV wanted to get us out of Iraq. It was their #1 issue, even if they weren't convinced to vote Democratic. Escalation is a slap in the face of the citizens of this nation by an arrogant irresponsible criminal ruling elite.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Why are we afflicted with spineless idiots?

[ninkasi]

28. I'm not a military expert

I have zero experience in the military. It seems to me, though, that placing additional troops in Baghdad will only cause the Sh'ia and Sunni factions to stop their slaughter of each other long enough to concentrate on getting rid of us. I think we should get out now. I'm afraid that, in addition to the many losses we will sustain, an increase in our troops, if it doesn't work, will only make Bush more stubborn, and will lead to further escalations. In addition to our losses, innocent Iraqis will get caught in the violence.

[treestar]

104. Good point, debating this with right wingers, we will only get

"you aren't a military expert, so you don't know what you are talking about."

But since our presence is the problem, our non-presence could solve some of it by itself. It is good to look at the claim that our withdrawal causes a civil war and general mid-east conflagration as possible military-industrial complex/Halliburton inspired propaganda. They try to convince us, we got you into this, now you're stuck with it.

[leesa]

29. Yup.. The wars continue unabated. Congress remains neutered.

[Malva Zebrina]

33. Chumps--we are being played for chumps--held hostage by this

Iraq study group, a bunch of old men dedicated to the Bush family--and oh--Sandra Day O'Connor. Chumps is what we are--and the two party system, where we all go out a vote based upon nothing but glorious hope, sometimes holding our nose, are nothing but Chumps to these polilticans. Does this look as if they are on our side--we work, we pray, we vote and we are jerked around like this by the party we THOUGHT would at the least, seek to right the wrongs of this invasion and occupation. Yes, dear Harry, this is NOT a WAR!! Yes, send in a "surge" of troops--how many? 30,000? Why that would just about replace the almost three thousand dead and 22,000 or more wounded. Send replacements--don't stand up to Bush--he is not losing sleep over it.

Chumps, that's all we are to hang our hopes on any one in this government. And all of those whose first concern was the situation in Iraq--are now slapped int he face by the people they thought would take some reasonable action--Reid--believes the Bush administration--it will be "temporary"? By now, this man should have wised up to the methods employed by a liar--and he now trust him and his "surge" approach to this horrific slaughterhouse?

Chumps all of us.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

44. Vernon Jordan is dedicated to the Bush family?

Leon Panetta is a bushco shill, too? Geez, I learn something new every day.

[Zhade]

86. Exactly - you'd think Reid would know better than to trust a proven liar by now.

NT!

[Individualist]

34. Reid to voters: I don't give a damn about your anti-war vote

in November.

[leftchick]

36. wtf is wrong with him??

doesn't he know where this stupid ass and dangerous surge idea came from? Our always a failure foreign policy team at AEI!!!! Why the fuck isn't he denouncing this insanity???

:argh:

[Nite Owl]

38. It's time for those commanders

on the ground to listen to the people not the White House, they messed this whole thing up by not being honest to begin with and not speaking out about the number of troops that would be really needed. The ones that did were fired because they were brave enough to stand up to power. Early 2008 is too long to wait to bring them home, that's over a year more for more to be killed.

[ananda]

39. I do not get it!!!

What the fukk. The people spoke their disagreement with the war and politics as usual in November... and now it's as if those elections never took place.

I DO NOT GET IT!! Screeeemmmm.

Why do the Dems just go along? Why is the date for even beginning to reduce troop levels moved back now to 2008?

What the hell is going on? Oh wait... could it be that Iraq needs more USA war profiteers and corporate backing of the war?

Profit and corporatism, with a spineless Congress and a complicit media... same ole same ole.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. They are just going with the ISG's reccomendations.

I don't think you'll see Reid disagreeing with the ISG's reccomendations, because it validates Bush's piecemeal approach to the ISG report.

[VegasWolf]

42. You are right. That would be my take. Looks like we have a new rubber stamp

congress!

[The Count]

41. After a few months, we resurrect the dead (Reid's dead).

:sarcasm:

[NVMojo]

43. Harry Reid - DLC - one foot in the GOP!

It's a Mormon thang. You have to live out west to understand.

[VegasWolf]

45. Seems like its contagious though, Hillary is apparently a carrier also!

:toast:

[rodeodance]

48. The Dem strategy is to put the ball (war) in Bush's court.

[VegasWolf]

50. Yes, as opposed to having a backbone and standing up to Bush! Political

cover seems more important to these politicans than American boys and girls dying for an oil war. Besides Hillary, actually seems bought off by the mega-war-corporations at this point.

[Vidar]

61. It's been there for five years. Democratic response:

a left jab with the eye to the Republican fist.

[Placebo]

51. The vast majority of Democrats AND Americans disagree.

There is like zero public support for sending more troops to Iraq in the polls. Politicians really are oblivious sometimes, I guess.

[VegasWolf]

53. Doesn't take much for the mega-corporations to buy congress-critters anymore. nt

[gulfcoastliberal]

131. Oblivious to the electorate, not the lobbyists for the defense contractors...

[RamboLiberal]

54. It's a political move to shut McCain and The Neocons up

Actually it may be strategically the best move. Like it or not Bush is going to do what the hell he wants to anyway. If the Dems pull the plug now the f'ing propaganda machine the RW have could paint the Dems as the ones who lost Iraq, leading to McCain's election and a continuation of these stupid policies.

Give them this short leash now, then you have evidence in the spring/summer to damn well pull the finanacial plug on this debacle and force the Repubs to bring the troops home.

I know, it's a damn Faustian bargain with the lives of our troops. Don't think I take this lightly. All weekend I've been agonizing over the death of a 22 year old Marine I had grown to know through the talk of liberal talk host Lynn Cullen and her sister Susan(Susan's daughter Leah was dating this young man).

From polls I've seen I don't see an immediate but more of you've got 6 months.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. The usual defeatist rational for going along with the war crimes.

Your same thinking got half of our senators voting for the war to begin with, and many supporting the war through the 2004 election. It is really simple: cut the funding.

[RamboLiberal]

94. Don't call me defeatist - I wanted the SOB's in the Senate

to vote against the damn war. And to not pass the Patriot Act w/o even reading it. They were political cowards.

But I do think if Dems vote to cut the funding immediately we will suffer defeat at the polls in 2008. And guess what, Joe Lieberman will vote with the Repubs for funding - 50/50 tie if Johnson makes it back to the Senate 49-50 if he doesn't with Joe on Repukes side, and I bet even a few more Dems will vote for the funding. We still don't have enough of a majority to stop funding yet in January.

As I said Bush is going to do what he damn well pleases any way. No way in hell can the Dems control the # of troops in Iraq in January. In all probability Bush and McCain's strategy will continue to be a failure and in the spring the Dems position will be very strong to cut funding and demand the troops come home.

[BenDavid]

55. Well, Bart Cop will

have Reid in a "pink tutu" my late Monday afternoon with his stance on sending more troops....You know, maybe Reid should have said, " We will have hearings on this, and call in the Generals on the ground and see what they really think and ask them the 64,000 dollar question, "do we need more troops? And, since bush says he relies on the Generals for their imput, then we will just have to see what they, the Generals have to say...."
But no Reid, has got to go ahead and make this silly ass comment. For whatever the reason, oh maybe it was to make him look like he was going to work with bush....

what we have in Iraq is not a clusterfuck, it is a custerfuck.....

[VegasWolf]

57. Exactly, Reid "could have" said we'll hold hearings and consult the generals, but no,

Reid simply rubberstamps what Bush says.

[Kagemusha]

58. People. It's a false conditional statement.

He's saying he would support a temp increase if it were part of a broader strategy to bring forces home by early 2008.

GUESS WHAT. IT'S NOT.

[VegasWolf]

59. That is what he said. Many people here simply think throwing more troops

into harms way is a worthless option at this point. Maybe early on in the war, not now. Deja vu, Vietnam!

[Warren Stupidity]

74. No he is going along with escalation

and providing cover for it by allowing the claim that it wiil succeed and end the war. It will succeed in killing more Iraqis. It will not end the war.

[MasonJar]

60. This will never abate until we leave. I would be right in the middle

of any insurgency if some foreign power were occupying the US.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

66. It won't abate when we leave either.

There's going to be a bloodbath. We caused it. There is no storybook ending to this war.

[RedSock]

62. ah yes -- there's the opposition party! (eom)

[ArmchairMeme]

63. Ongoing Insanity!

I am not military and I am not knowledgeable about war strategy.

The U.S. has been in Bagdad for several years bombing and killing "insurgents" and it has not "won" yet. To continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is INSANITY!

A child could make better decisions than these supposed knowledgeable adults. If a child runs their bike into a wall and it hurts they don't do it again and again!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

65. See, that's the problem with Bush.

He's run his bike into the wall, and then blamed the wall for the crash. The wall is not with you or against you, dubya. It is an inanimate object. It does not care for your politics. Masonry has no point of view.

[bunny planet]

67. No, no, no, no, no, no, no

NO!!!
Did they harvest his brain overnight or something. They must not be allowed to escalate this war. When the inevitable happens, and there are more unnecessary deaths of US troops and Iraqi civilians, now the Democratic party will be characterized as just as responsible as Republicans for this mindless escalation. That is just what Republicans would like, and it is the polar opposite of what the American people voted the Dems back to power for. 2008 is way too long, bring them home in 2007. NO MORE TROOPS.

[calimary]

71. Well, I know what I'm doing, first thing in the morning.

I'm calling his district offices as an interested "next-door neighbor" (from California), and reminding whoever answers that THIS. IS. NOT. WHAT. WE. JUST. VOTED. FOR.

[midnight]

78. NO SURGE. NO SURGE. BRING THEM HOME. THATS

WHAT WE VOTED FOR. THAT AND IMPEACHMENT.

[truthisfreedom]

79. No Democrat should be supporting any suggestion that we send MORE troops to Iraq.

That's simply insane. Completely and totally insane. Ultimately, the outcome from this tragic decision is that they will INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DEATHS BY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TARGETS.

bush/cheney just want to hold onto the oil.

It's not our oil, bush. Let it go. Spend the $100B on alternative energy and save the world if you want to save your "legacy."

[Zhade]

81. Thanks for not listening, Reid.

What part of "no more troops for this illegal war" don't they get?

[dpbrown]

87. New boss...same as the old boss?

This is not a good start to the Democratic Congress.

[lovuian]

88. Harry it NOT OK

obviously you want to be part of the escalation

Get TOUGH HARRY Get TOUGH

[EndElectoral]

89. Harry..as Nancy Reagan said..JUST SAY NO!!!!

[goforit]

91. Yah give an inch to take a yard. Give up those OIL GODS!!!

[diamidue]

92. Well, I guess the argument that the Democrats

were silently & wisely holding their cards close to their chest until they gained power, has been put to rest.

There is no reason they cannot lay their cards on the table & speak up for their beliefs at this time. And what do they do? Nothing.

Very disheartening.

[dos pelos]

98. It makes one wonder.....

Just what is the difference ,in effect, between the Republicans and the Democrats?They both support the same bad policies,they both allow Bush to pour more troops into this disaster.They both vote for the Iraq War,the Bankruptcy Act ,The Military Commissions Act.THEY BOTH IGNORE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

[Jennicut]

93. Is this really all that surprising? Harry has never been a good Dem.

He slips pork barrel money right into the budget at the very end of the congressional session, at the last minute, overnight. He is anti-abortion. He is DLC. I think Nancy is much more against the war then him and has more power to control the agenda as the House controls the purse strings. Enough with this talk that there are not two parties in Washington, only one. Tell that to those who voted for Nader and regret it now. Remember, we just elected Jim Webb, a very anti-war candidate. Harry is unnfortunately truly embedded in the system and is a corpracrat. Just like Hillary, Steny Hoyer and other members of the DLC. I think there may well be a clash between newly elected Dems of the House and Senate and the old school, been there forever, go along to get along Dems. The right wing media had it wrong saying the new members were more conservative. Not when it comes to Iraq. My dislike for Reid is growing.

[nebula]

95. Fuck Reid that mealy-mouth two-faced motherfucker

I hope he gets run over by a truck.

[Freddie Stubbs]

103. Apperently the Democrats in the Senate like him

Why else would they keep electing him to leadership positions for the past eight years?

[w4rma]

96. Good. Sen. Reid is setting a plotline for a pullout. (nt)

[rollopollo]

97. Duration

>"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said the Democratic senator, citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.

It sounds like the upper bound here is 18 months for additional troop deployment. But aside from the time, I hope they realize that once you deploy troops, generals are often unwilling to send troops back; instead opting to increase their resources.

[nebula]

110. It doesn't matter what the generals say

The generals could request 30,000 or 50,000 troops.

It's not up to them to decide how long the troops can stay.

As commander-in-chief, Bush is the one who gets to decide how long these additional troops stay in Iraq. And you can bet your ass it won't be 3-4 months. Bush would in all likelihood keep them there INDEFINITELY to man the numerous permanent US bases already in Iraq!

Reid is a worthless fucking idiot if he can't understand that simple fact!

[rollopollo]

114. That's not my point

My point isn't that generals, by statute, can dictate military policy. But at the moment, both Bush and Reid are basing their military policy decisions on what the generals have decided is the right course of action. They both cited the general's request as the justification for their decision. If that decision-making methodology doesn't change, then what I am saying is that when they revisit this decision months from now, and assume that the generals will request that the troops return, they are making a mistake. I think that they shouldn't be basing decisions exclusively on what the military generals advocate, but that is what's happening and unless Reid and others are willing to be courageous enough to stand up to them and disagree with their leadership, we will likely see a protracted war.

[timtom]

100. Kinda like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown...

"No! THIS time I PROMISE I won't move the football, Charlie Brown."

More likely is that we've been trick-bagged once again.

[bklyncowgirl]

101. Note to Senator Reid--Bush is a liar. He cannot be trusted.

This "temporary surge" thing you say you'd support sounds like a Trojan horse to me.

What happens when we send in the extra troops and they take heavy losses in street to street fighting in Baghdad along with thousands of civilian casualties as the insurgents and militias melt away as they did in Fallujah?

The answer from the "Decider" will be what it always is. "When you get stuck in a hole--dig faster." Democrats will be forced to continue to support this madness because to not do so would to be to fail to support the troops.

[NotGivingUp]

102. GO TO HELL, HARRY!

[Norquist Nemesis]

106. Still keeping the powder dry

The thing about "his" limitation of only a few months is that it's been widely reported they can't sustain a surge level. It's near broke and will be completely broken within two or three months at those levels.

[Doctor_J]

112. There won't be any reason for Dems to go to the polls in 2008

Smirky knew this was going to happen. He knew that they would piss all over the 56% of the people who voted against his illegal war last month. First the Gates confirmation 95-2, now this, and soon a thumbs-up on the 100,000,000,000 dollars so keep the blood flowing.

Look for a GOP landslide in 2008. I am done sending the Dems money.

[QuestionAll...]

122. I'm beginning to believe that treasonist 'ignoramous' Nader may have been right. nt

[torrentprime]

115. I'm just going to say it

We have to do something besides withdraw. We can't just leave. I know everyone here will slam me, and make lame, immature chickenhawk comments, and hurl all sorts of invective at me, but the simple fact is nearly every single analyst on all sides of the spectrum agrees: Leaving Iraq will cause a disaster of near Darfur-level proportions, and politically, pragmatically, and morally harm the US. If it makes it easier to swallow, look at it this way: Bush has done so bad a job, caused such a disaster, laid such fertile terrorist-spawning groundwork in Iraq that a withdrawal now will do what the terrorism groups couldn't do before: take over Iraq. They weren't there before, but they are now, and if we leave they can run the damn place. With the Saudis already threatening to support the Sunnis, we can see where this will go.

I have never seen a single argument as to why or how leaving would be the right thing to do from ANY perspective other than stopping American losses. As great and powerful a motivator as that is, it's not enough, and I think leaving will harm Iraq beyond belief now and most likely us in the future.

[bemildred]

117. The problem is that not everything can be fixed.

It is much easier to make a mess than to clean it up. And that is why we have to just leave. It is NOT IN OUR POWER to make it better, especially not by the use of military force.

[torrentprime]

118. (wow, a real response)

I thought I would get nothing but flames. Kudos and thanks to you for a rational post.

I completely agree that Bush's dream of just bombing them until they become Republicans is a farce, but a military solution is a necessary component of the prescription for Iraq, and in many ways is needed now more than before we went in the first time! Again, things are so bad there now that we cannot rely on or expect a diplomatic, financial and educational push to be enough. We have created a state where armed and attacking militias are active and recruiting and conducting operations. Iraqi "policemen" and diplomats can't stop that on their own. Military force will be needed.

[babylonsister]

120. You're accusing DUers of making lame, immature CHICKENHAWK

comments? Give us some links, if you will, on why leaving Iraq will be as cataclysmic as you suggest. Who said it, why?
And dead Americans aren't enough for you, when this war was an immoral and illegal travesty to begin with?
Finally, the majority of Iraqis want us out AFAIK. We should oblige them.


And also read this; it shows how the US can help 'save' Iraq and the unreal job they've done so far:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2942617

[VegasWolf]

129. You've never seen a single argument for pulling out? Are you deaf as well as you are dumb? nt

[ryanmuegge]

119. Seriously, did you expect anything less from these spineless Clintonoid bitches?

If so, you're a fool.

[babylonsister]

121. What's a Clintonoid bitch, just for the record.

:eyes:

[ryanmuegge]

123. ...

It's a rather caustic term for a so-called "moderate" Democrat, if you need a definition. Characterized by advocating policies that are further to the right of Democrats of the past, this "moderate" approach is embodied in the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton (a two-term President from 1993-2000). While certainly being slightly less extreme than the likes of Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, and Dick Cheney, a "moderate" Democrat is often a supporter of US millitary emperialism and associated bloated spending, so-called free trade, as well as corporate domination of public policy. Often times, these "moderate" Democrats oppose drastic change in favor of maintaining a similar status-quo that has been in place since the Reagan administration. It could be argued that many "moderate" Democrats are not leaders, but mere deal-makers with the universally extreme-right GOP. Hence, many contemporary Democrats are seldom more than an opposition party in anything more than name.

On a personal note, I apologize for being angry about such a serious matter. I'm very frustrated with these weak-kneed Democrats. You're goddamned right I'm angry about stories like this. Nothing is going to change in terms of global trade policy, military spending, taxation, the occupation of Iraq, regulations on business, campaign finance reform, or anything else for that matter; not so long as the same Washington establishment, whether they have a R by their name or a D, stays in place.

I think that's why we come to boards like this, because we want change. It has become abundantly clear that changes we want can't be accomplished with the current group of elected officials.

As Jello Biafra (not exactly an academic or anything, but still) once said, the Republicans are the party that come out and say, "we stand for war, corruption, pollution, and greed." The Democrats are the party that merely pretends to feel guilty about war, corruption, pollution, and greed.

[babylonsister]

125. Thanks for the clarification; I never heard of it, and didn't care for it.

Can you provide a link to your first paragraph? Do you even realize what that says about moderate Dems? So off base! I support Dems while I recognize the mistakes the party makes. You are making stuff up. Corporate domination of public policy? As if! And I think you mean imperialism - or not.

[ryanmuegge]

126. ...

A link for what? I just came up with that. By the way, the "e" in imperialism was a typo. How very observant of you to notice.

Even Clinton himself said something along the line of his biggest achievement was governing like an Eisenhower Republican.

I'm not saying that everything Clinton did was bad or wrong. However, some things are inescapable.

What about the Telecommunications Act of 1996? I think Clinton's support of NAFTA and WTO is pretty well-documented and obvious. What about PNTR with China? The trade and account deficits of the United States have skyrocketed since 2000 due in no small part to "free trade" policies of the Clinton administration. What about Clinton signing the Republican's welfare bill, while continuing to spend $250 billion/year on the military machine? What about the sanctions against Iraq, which led to the death of over 1 million people? Bush and the Republicans certainly wouldn't do this, but a Democrat could have taken big steps to get us out of our entanglement in the Middle East for good by pushing hard and relentlessly for alternative energy. Clinton sent the military into combat situations nearly twice as many times as the previous four Presidents combined had over 17 years. Wage inequality increased sharply during Clinton's tenure, no doubt helped by the Republican-controlled congress. The benefits of the Clinton bubble economy were uneven, to say the least. Both the average wages for non-supervisory workers and the earnings of those in the lowest 10 percent of wage earners not only remained well below those of the Nixon/Ford and Carter administrations, but were actually lower than that even than those of the Reagan/Bush years.

Those are just a few examples that come to my head.

[nolabels]

128. Exactly the point, "Corporate domination of public policy"

Every damned atom or idea on this planet has been or is in the stages of being commodified for exploitation by this herd mentality known as Capitalism. A fact its seems that just about everyone can see

[uppityperson]

124. could you figure out a different way of saying that?

That is quite offensive, thank you.

[gulfcoastliberal]

130. With ideas like ths, dems deserve huge losses in '08

If we keep spending billions per week and thousands of lives on a hopeless conflagration - AFTER THE PEOPLE VOTED TO END IT IMMEDIATELY - the dems may as well not even bother running in '08. Cause they'd be beyond pathetic.

[hayu_lol]

132. Harry needs a spinal implant. He certainly wasn't born with one...

IF we put more troops in, even on a temporary basis, then the funding will continue. This makes Daddy Bush and Cheney very happy. They really need more money.

Stop the war Harry. Stop it now. Don't continue to be the jerk you've been for most of your life.