Dems repeating history? Friday's waste of time.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It's on the NYtimes.com website genius. Look under opinion, then letters.

 

Fuck you, asshole.

[Weekend_Climberz]

It's on the NYtimes.com website genius. Look under opinion, then letters.

 

Fuck you, asshole.

 

Whoa, horsey.

 

linky

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It's on the NYtimes.com website genius. Look under opinion, then letters.

 

Fuck you, asshole.

 

Whoa, horsey.

 

linky

 

Oh well, there wasn't much to the letter.

 

I'm more cynical about the timing of the withdrawal - 18 months puts us when? That's right, immediately before the 2008 elections. It's all political bullshit. The Democrats had a mandate to get us out of Iraq; they don't want to be decisive about it for fear of political backlash or what will happen - civil war and the blood that might be on their hands. So, they will be indecisive through the next election season, blame all problems in Iraq on Bush to maximize political hey, and then do something about Iraq with Billary in office... maybe.

 

Bush on the other hand will keep the status quo and change nothing for the next 18 months.

 

What's the difference again?

 

 

[Toast]

I think Tom Friedman nailed it,

 

The Troika and the Surge

 

Basically, a specific date puts heat on the locals to get their shit together. It gives us time to help them get there. It gets us out of this mess that we should have never caused.

 

[chucK]

The new Senate version has a withdrawal date of March 2008. Does that mean everybody out by then? If so, that seems good. Give the surge time to work or fail. If no good progress made by end of summer, time to start bringing them home. I like making the bring 'em home the default that this bill does. If Bush's surge does miraculously provide results, I'm sure there'd be ways of delaying withdrawal that could be accomplished with the executive branch behind it and only a slim minority in the senate.

 

[Weekend_Climberz]

I think Tom Friedman nailed it,

 

The Troika and the Surge

 

Basically, a specific date puts heat on the locals to get their shit together. It gives us time to help them get there. It gets us out of this mess that we should have never caused.

 

Hey Toast

 

Funny how they never teach you this shit in American Government classes

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think Tom Friedman nailed it,

 

The Troika and the Surge

 

Basically, a specific date puts heat on the locals to get their shit together. It gives us time to help them get there. It gets us out of this mess that we should have never caused.

 

And if they don't get their shit together, or we get out and out civil war? Reengage? Or support a dictatorship-style smack-down? I'm starting to think that's what will have to happen.

[mattp]

Good on ya Matt, but I still think they oughta just say bring 'em home now. That's basically what they're saying. Out in 18 months means, OK kids, time to start packing up, NOW! If you consider NOW to be arbitrary, I'll have to settle for arbitrary.

 

Fair enough, ChucK. The Times cut 2/3 of my letter where I wrote that I'd like to see the Democrats draw attention to what they might want to see done - like maybe they should push for REAL homeland security rather than making your grandmother take her shoes off when she boards and airplane, or maybe they should push Bush to actually try to involve all the regional powers into a discussion of Persian Gulf or Middle East regional issues, and that bringing the troops home is just one part of this playbook but the actual withdrawal date they selected makes it look like they are targetting - guess what - the 2008 election (on this point, I may agree with KK). My MAIN point was not that this was a bad move, but that it might be a bad FIRST move unless they follow up with something a little more visionary as in forward looking. I'm sorry they cut my letter without giving me a chance to take a second look, but they did at least print it.