The Detestable Carl Levin

Someone really should smack this detestable mutt, Levin up side of his fat head. Maybe then he'll be able to get his mind around the fact that he isn't the President aka the Commander-In-Chief.

He has no authority to order troops in or out of anywhere. If the spineless coward wants to move to cut off funding while our troops are in the field, let him do it. He can go down in history like the un-American disgrace he actually is.

Until then, he should shut his despicable little yap. This is what we get with Democrats. Ugh! His variety disgusts me.

The Bush administration must tell Iraq that U.S. troops will begin withdrawing in four to six months, the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Wednesday, as Congress began re- examining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's Democratic election victory.

"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said at the outset of a hearing featuring the top U.S. commander in the Middle East.

Comments

[Ed Muntin]

I don't see where he thinks he has any authority over the troops.

Though it does look like he's playing at Blame-the-Iraqis.

"Lookit everything Murka has done for you,
and this is how you thank us?"

[Rhod]

I loathe Levin, for this reason and others, but I'm going to take the contrary position here on part of what he said.

Here's the issue that will occupy us for the next year or so.

Conservatives view a timetable for withdrawl as a cretinous strategy, and they're right if something ELSE is right, which is that Maliki has genuine intentions of dealing with Al Sadr and the aligned militias who number in the thousands.

A timetable of some kind, even in the back channels, must press Maliki, not to demonstrate his competence to deal with Al Sadr and Shi'a brutalities, but his willingness to deal with it. That's what's in doubt.

Up until Monday, I had two sons in Iraq and one in Afghanistan; now I have only two. The third, who has returned, had Sadr City within his AO, and saw first-hand the easy invincibility, for political and sectarian reasons, of Sadr and his kind. Maliki himself is a Shi'a at the head of a majority Shi'a government.

If Sadr continues to be a parallel government in Iraq, then we're pretty much done.

[Dan Riehl]

If Sadr continues to be a parallel government

I agree. But I also think it will take an Iraqi force to crush the militias with the required force. So I see the goal as establishing that force so it can be done without the insane political correctness with which we seem to harness our military today.

[Phoenix]

Hear, hear.... Sounds as if Bush and those in the 'back channels' have said to hell with political correctness and are going for it while they can. Maliki has to put on the right face for everyone, but I have no doubt he's with us on the need to get rid of Al Sadr. I don't know how I can so blithely say, "..I have no doubt..", but I just feel it. He looks too haggard to be so sure of himself that siding with Al Sadr is the thing to do.

Every time I see him, I think of the democrats who refused to attend his visit to Congress. Christ, that so infuriated me.