Thursday, August 31, 2006

Casey Reaffirms Troop Redeployment Plan For 2007. Will Cheney Claim Plan Shows Terrorists Are Breaking Will Of American People?

Gen. George Casey, our top man in Iraq, reaffirmed yesterday that he believes Iraqi security forces are progressing to the point where they can take on the bulk of the security responsibility, perhaps in the next 12 to 18 months.

"I don't have a date, but I can see over the next 12 to 18 months, the Iraqi security forces progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibilities for the country, with very little coalition support," Casey said.

Casey's comments -- a follow-up to a June briefing of the same plan -- pays tribute to President Bush's oft-repeated statement that as Iraqis "stand up," the U.S.-led coalition will stand down. Casey's suggestion that if things progress, the Iraqis will need "very little coalition support," would certainly suggest that if things go as expected, the U.S.-led coalition can in fact being troop redeployment in 12-18 months.

So my question is: how quickly will Vice President Cheney suggest that Casey's comments "embolden" Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency?

***

You'll recall that Cheney, folloiwing Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic Senate primary, said

CHENEY: The thing that's partly disturbing about [Lieberman's loss] is the fact that our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the Al Qaeda types -- they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.

Lamont favors beginning troop redeployment in 2007, a position held not only by most Democrats, but by a majority of Americans.

When can that troop redeployment begin? As the Iraqis show that they can accept additional responsibility, most notably to control the turf battles in Baghdad and other cities between Sunnis and Shiites.

***

This is the latest chapter in a hypocritical game of semantics. When Democrats suggest that the U.S.-led coalition should begin troop redeployment in 2007, Republicans label it "cut and run." In fact, Senate Republicans continued to blast legislation from Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) even after they knew about Casey's similar gameplan.

But what happens when a Republican like Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut suggests setting a timetable for troop redeployment? The Republican leadership goes out of its way to denounce anyone -- namely Democrats -- who suggest that Shays is in agreement with the Democrats or the majority of Americans.

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican Naitonal Committee, played the semantics game yesterday with guest host Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC's Hardball.

MEHLMAN: Well, I saw Chris — I saw him interviewed on this show, Chris Shays, and he, in fact, said something very different than what the Democrats say. What he has said is we need to make sure that there are benchmarks established for the Iraqi people to stand up.

In other words, Shays wants to have a timetable for Iraqi troops to stand up, so the U.S.-led coaltion can stand down.

***

Listen to conservative talk radio -- that bastion of honest interpretation -- and you'll hear the gibberish that Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq immediately, while Republicans have the cajones to fight the war on terror (there, so we don't have to fight it here.)

The truth is that Gen. Casey, some Republicans, most Democrats and a majority of Americans want to see troop redeployment begin next year. Are the various plans identical? No. But the concept is the same.

The only people not willing to admit that are hypocritical Republicans looking to divide the nation, and try to convince a majority of Americans that wanting troop redeployment to begin next year is some sort of fringe liberal, un-American belief.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets see, who might have a better grasp as to when the troops can start coming home. Nancy Pelosi or General Casey. Hmmm...thats a tough one to figure out.

10:17 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Anonymous said...
Lets see, who might have a better grasp as to when the troops can start coming home. Nancy Pelosi or General Casey. Hmmm...thats a tough one to figure out.

I would also ask who had a better grasp of the case for going in at all - the military or GWB? So why did Bush not listen to the military in the beginning? But now he wants to let the military make the case for leaving - that way he can not be blamed if it goes bad. And it is not written in future history books that he screwed up in the entry, the middle and the exit of the war. Since he is a baseball fan, that would be strike 3 and he would be out!!

10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but does JABBS mention Nancy Pelosi?

Blinders are such tough things to look past, huh?

2:01 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

I've no doubt that Whoop will be among those individuals who will be very surprised to see how kindly history will treat this president.

President Bush is one man who at least is doing his utmost best to take on the problem of global jihad. He understands the scope of the threat we're facing, and is willing to do the unpopular thing in an effort to find a solution to it, rather than kick the can down the road to a future administration.

4:49 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said... President Bush is one man who at least is doing his utmost best to take on the problem of global jihad. He understands the scope of the threat we're facing, and is willing to do the unpopular thing in an effort to find a solution to it, rather than kick the can down the road to a future administration.




Trinity - I have never said that Bush does not understand the scope of the threat we are facing from the "terrorist"(jihadist). I really believe Bush understands the threat. Contrary to what you and a lot of your repuke friends think,so do 99.9% of Americans( the ramaing .1% are too mental loss to understand).

The difference is the fact that Bush and his cronies ( and his repuke sheep)want to use the "war on terror" to consolidate their power, to take control of the masses, to consolidate power to the wealthy, consolidate power to Big Business instead of making the "war on terror" a true American problem. If this were not true, he would be doing things like protecting our borders, protecting our ports, protecting our environment, protecting our transportation system, protecting our ports, protecting our food distribution system, protecting our electrical grid, protecting our health care system (primarely our first responders)(healthy people make better soldiers), protecting our education system from complete failure( educated people make better soldiers), etc and etc. All of the former takes money which we no longer have because we are throwing it down a sink hole called "Iraq", which we went into so he could procure the oil for his big Republican Oil Company donors. A good reference for an agreement of the last statement is "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips, a former Republican front man.

Since Bush is doing a real lousy job of protecting us ( Iraq is not part of "war on terorism" and he left Afghanistan to the UN and has given up on OBL) he is literally kicking the can down the road. I know you are going to repeat the repuke spin "Well, we have not been attacked since 911". That is correct, but Bush and his cronies continue to frighten us with statements that it may still happen since OBL is still free. Also, Al Qaeda plans on their terms and does it slowly. Besides, they do not want to do anything now that might cause Americans to want to get rid of Bush because he is the best recruiter Al Qaeda has at present.

trinity said I've no doubt that Whoop will be among those individuals who will be very surprised to see how kindly history will treat this president.


Trinity - I hope you are correct. I do not want him to go down as the dumbest, the most inarticulate,the most power hungry, the least caring person, the biggest liar and the most corrupt president that we have ever elected. It would continue to erode our standing in the world as one of the most intelligent nations on earth. I hope I am surprised how kindly history treats him.

The one thing that may make his history not so good is how many people tell some truths (or lies) about him after he no longer has his current power. His saving grace may be that he has surrounded himslf only with totally loyal subjects who may not want to impugn Bush because it throws dirt on themselves as well, just like those that are still loyal to Nixon from his Administration.

12:33 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares