NO!

[averygoodun42]

So, if the Senate doesn't show some sense (and Bush doesn't veto that), we're effectively pulling out of Iraq next year?

This is wrong! This isn't dealing with the problem, it is avoiding it! No, I don't want any more troops injured or dead. No, I don't think the war has been anything but an unqualified disaster. No, I don't think Bush has a clue about what he's doing, and that is highly dangerous and irresponsible.

But just pulling out and leaving the mess WE MADE is possibly as dangerous and irresponsible as anything Bush has done so far. (possibly)

This is an immoral decision. Not only is it most definitely taking the easy way out, but it's doing so just to thumb their nose at the President, which is what makes it truly stupid and reprehensible.  This may be about politics, but it's not about your fricking political careers, idiots!  There's a much bigger picture and you've gone very, very near-sighted.

No, there isn't any clear path, but wouldn't it be better to actually get together, put differences aside for the moment and try and get these supposed leaders of our nation (and wouldn't it be grand to reach out and ask for help from the world's leaders) to think out some options? No, there might not be, hell, there probably isn't a good solution to this mess, but not even looking past our own egos and arses to try is... it's WRONG!

I hate politics and their players.  They always managed to crush my inner optimist.

EDIT:  Thinking about it a bit more, what makes this so disgusting to me is that they KNOW it's not going to go further.  This is just to show Bush that he's in the wrong.  It's wasting time, energy and tax-payer dollars doing something that, in the end, is nothing more than a slap on the wrist.  It's petty and mean, and we aren't going to get anywhere if we resort to these tactics.

I still hate politics. 

Comments

[timestep.livejournal.com]

I agree we made this mess - we (and I use that loosely) invaded a country with no understanding of its dynamics and how close to a civil war this would take them.

My thought is, how long do we need to stay? I'm not saying a quick withdrawal is in order, but at what point are we enabling the Iraq government? They haven't made many strides towards independence in the past four years.

I'm not sure the answer, but like when my 50 year old uncle would live on my grandma's couch, letting him do her laundry, and cook his meals - at what point should she have said "you have 3 mos to find a place to live and by the way, here is the kitchen and the laundry room."

I think that what we need to do is set milestones for the Iraq government to meet if they want our support. There is no plan - just a promise from the president that if we leave the terrorist will invade our country. I don't believe that, but my freshman have used this as a reason for us to continue to be there. I think that in the checks and balances of our country, we have a right to have our legistatures say that we need a plan or we need to do something to change because we are not going to keep spending money and troops for an indefinate status quo. (but I will admit that the day Sadam fell, DH and I predicted that we would be in Iraq for 10 years. We are almost halfway there).

Congress didn't declare war and presidental conflicts shouldn't last indefinately.

I just want to see foward motion towards Iraq independence and all I see is that the only thing stopping a full out civil war is our troops in-country - but no plan for how they start to govern themselves. I don't see the Iraq government wanting us to leave because then they would have to manage this conflict.

JMHO (I hope this didn't come off rambling)

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

When I want to be very cynical, I think we invaded knowing exactly how precarious a position the region was in. I try to curb that kind of cynicism, but...

At this point I don't think we are enabling them, because the country is too divided and there wasn't a strong leader at the outset to guide the forces. But on the other hand, we aren't helping them proceed, either... It's so messed up.

Frankly, I think we've got to stop focusing on unity and just divide the country into three and let them quibble over the boundaries for the next thousand years or so. I think that's the only way we'll get out of there with any modicum of stability in the region, and the region will not be able to start healing until we are out of there.

It's so confusing. There isn't a right way for doing anything, I don't think.

[timestep.livejournal.com]

So, what do you think should happen? Just curious?

[mundungus42.livejournal.com]

I've been reading Tom Freidman for long enough that I don't see it as a categorically bad thing that a timetable for withdrawl has been set. In fact, arguments of the same sort, namely, that when the failsafe disappears people become more conscientious about ensuring their own well-being, were very popular among conservatives during welfare reform attempts in the 80s and early 90s. However, I'm not saying I buy these arguments entirely in either situation, simply stating what I believe is the rationale.

That and the ridiculous political posturing, as you pointed out.

What I believe to be the bottom line is that this war cannot continue with the same decision-makers in place, and no amount of surging troops is going to make a lick of difference if the powers that be don't lay out a specific plan for achieving goals. I mean, they've iterated goals, but we haven't met any of them because of all the other crap they failed to plan for. WMD? No, peacemaking! Peacemaking? No! Reconstruction. Reconstruction? No! Squishing militias! Squishing militias? No! Building a unity government! Building a unity government? No! Security! Etc. etc. etc. There's no strategy (and the "surge" is a tactic, not a strategy), and none of the Bushies seem to get the fact that they have no idea what they're doing. No, ma'am, they're the deciders!

Congress has given away so many of its war powers that they no longer have any real say in how the war is run or reconstruction oversight is managed. If they want legislation with teeth, how 'bout repealing parts of the Patriot Act? Like the national security letters that the FBI abused and bungled?

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

One of the things that bothers me about this mess is that Congress is still looking to the president for solutions when it's obvious, and has been for the last 5 years, that he and his administration have no strategic prowess except when it comes to winning elections and ensuring their cronies make money.

It seems to me that they (Congress and the people) are basically saying, "Hey, we need this quadratic equation solved," to the third grader who hasn't mastered multiplication yet. How smart is that? And what's the definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results? Holds true for the Administration, and for Congress if they expect the Administration to grow a brain at this point.

Yes, we need to get out of there, but we need to ensure it's done responsibly. To use the welfare rollback of the 80's and 90's, it shows that it doesn't work when people don't have the resources to fend for themselves. I don't think the Iraqis have the leadership and financial resources available to even begin fending for themselves. Not that we are in a position to provide the resources necessary which is why we need to beg - beg - the rest of the world for their input and help.

Besides, threats just aren't effective. Ghandi and MLK jr showed that quite nicely, I think.

But yes, they need to repeal as much of the Patriot Act as possible (all of it as far as I'm concerned) and take control of the situation themselves.

[mundungus42.livejournal.com]

You're exactly right- if all is equal and good in the world, then perhaps the lack of safety net would motivate. As all is not equal or good...

Still, I wonder what it will take to stabilize Iraq. Russia refusing to give Iran nuclear fuel is certainly a promising step. Saudi Arabia attempting to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is another. I guess the question is, "What can the US do that won't fuck up the situation even more?"

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

"What can the US do that won't fuck up the situation even more?"

Oh, I feel so bad about laughing, but that's exactly right.

Hell freezing over might help... Splitting up Iraq into three nations might help... Getting rid of Bush will help... I don't know. It is such a mess, and I can't think of anything to solve it or even make it better. Maybe introduce them to socialism/communism? Worked in South America and the majority of Asia. And, the best part is, with their oil reserves they'd be able to afford to pull it off once they organized. ;-)

Too bad that's never, ever, ever, ever going to happen.