The New Definition of “Stay the Course”

About this time last year:

October of 2005

“Kerry is not the first Democratic senator to call for a phased pullout. In mid-August, Russell Feingold (Wis.) set December 2006 as the end date for a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq. Both Kerry and Feingold are weighing presidential runs in 2008.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, recently suggested developing a timeline for a contingent withdrawal plan designed to give Iraqis more incentive to take control of their country. His counterpart on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), has similarly suggested bringing U.S. troops home as Iraqi forces build.”

And in November of 2005:

Today, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Backed The Call For Withdrawal Of Troops. "'I will be supporting the Murtha resolution,' Pelosi said of Murtha's resolution calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq at the earliest practicable date." ("Pelosi Backs Murtha's Call For Withdrawal From Iraq," Reuters, 11/30/05)

Today, Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) Reiterated The Call For An Artificial Timetable. "'We need leadership, and we need a policy on Iraq that includes a flexible timetable for completing our military mission there, so that we can focus on our national security priority - defeating the global terrorist networks that threaten the U.S.' ... In August, Feingold put forward December 31, 2006 to help jumpstart the discussion of a target date to complete the military mission there." (Sen. Russell Feingold, "Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The President's Speech Today," Press Release, 11/30/05)

Representative Murtha (D-PA) Has Said There Must Be An "Immediate Redeployment Of U.S. Troops." REP. MURTHA: "My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq." (Rep. Murtha, Press Conference, 11/17/05)

To which Bush responded:

"Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies - that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder - and invite new attacks on America." (President Bush, Remarks On The War On Terror, Annapolis, MD, 11/30/05)

Well, folks, guess what?

Yesterday, it was leaked that the White House was going to set an "artificial timetable" for the Iraq people to achieve sectarian peace.

That’s right folks, it took them 3 years to come up with a plan to stabilize Iraq.

“Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.

Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it.

A senior Pentagon official involved in drafting the blueprint said Iraqi officials were being consulted as the plan evolved and would be invited to sign off on the milestones before the end of the year. But he added, “If the Iraqis fail to come back to us on this, we would have to conduct a reassessment” of the American strategy in Iraq.

Mind you, they are not threatening troop withdrawal…yet, so the Iraq Government has no reason to actually do this because they can rely on American troop presence to maintain their own safety, but hopefully it will help the GOP in the polls in a couple weeks, right?

I mean, sure the American Republicans will look great for asking the Iraq Government to disarm all the sectarian militias with a tiny police force that is either in collusion with militia groups or constantly under threat for their lives. That way if Bush pulls the troops out, it’s not his fault for getting us into this mess with no fucking clue, let alone a plan, on how to conduct a peaceful reconstruction of Iraq….

It’s the Iraqi’s fault for letting him down.

Love the way the administration passes off blame while taking credit for someone else’s ideas, don’t you? I mean, it’s elegant in it’s weaseling hypocrisy as the Bush adminstration desperately tries to squirm out of admitting they were wrong.

(No, Bush can’t do anything right when it comes to Iraq because this should have been done at least two years ago,. Actually it have really been done before we even went in.)

“The plan also moves the administration closer to an idea advocated by many Democrats, who have called for setting a date for beginning phased withdrawals of American troops from Iraq as a way to compel Iraq’s government to resolve its internal divisions and take on more responsibility.”

Would this be the “Cut and Run” plan Bush likes to reference so often?

This is one of my favorites:

“But the surge in violence in Baghdad and other places recently has prompted consideration of even more far-reaching steps. An American official said that one proposed plan was to give the Iraqi Army the lead role in domestic security, downgrading the role of police units.”

Kind of like when Saddam was in power.

“Officials are also considering a timetable for the Iraqi Defense Ministry to have in place systems for paying, feeding and equipping its units, jobs that are still overseen to a large degree by American advisers and by contractors, some of whom have not performed well, officials said.”

Y’know, barring an accidental nuclear weapons drop, I don’t think it is possible for the U.S. to have fucked this up anymore we have.

So let get out of there and deal with some real threats/issues.

Iran

North Korea

(I don't know about Y'all, but I was vastly relieved to hear China sided with us on this. That was, I think, one of thew few non-vioolent options for getting Kim Jong Il to back down.)