Cut And Run Harry Reid Back Stabs Troops And Bush

Yesterday Harry land shark Reid was talking about supporting a surge. I imagine he was waiting for the leak today about some allegedly in the Joint Chiefs not supporting that option.

So today we get the unvarnished cut and run program from Harry scumbag Reid. What a posing political piece of crap this guy is.

Frankly, I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It's a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad. My position on Iraq is simple:

1. I believe we should start redeploying troops in 4 to 6 months (The Levin-Reed Plan) and complete the withdrawal of combat forces by the first quarter of 2008. (As laid out by the Iraq Study Group)

2. The President must understand that there can only be a political solution in Iraq, and he must end our nation's open-ended military commitment to that country.

3. These priorities need to be coupled with a renewed diplomatic effort and regional strategy.

I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way to bring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to this goal.

It's been two weeks since the Iraq Study Group released its plan to change the course and bring our troops home. Since then, the President has been on a fact finding tour of his own administration -- apparently ignoring the facts presented by those in the military who know best. The President needs to put forth a plan as soon as possible, one that reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq and that withdraws our troops from the middle of this deadly civil war.

Comments

[Crazy Politico]

Oddly enough, thats almost verbatim what Dick Durbin was saying here in Illinois. My guess is Harry and Dick have given the rest of the Dems in the Senate the same talking points.

[seekeronos]

I am surprised that the Dems haven't all teamed up and threatened to cut all funding for the military, and draft the articles of the United States' unconditional surrender to Iran, and to install Barrack Husein Obama as the Caliph in 2008...

[warrewarrenbnb]

Dan,

And your resolution to the conflict is exactly what?

No don't tell me its the OPPOSITE of what he's saying?

So I guess you "support an escalation of the conflict"?

YOU sir are a MORON (at best)

[Bill Faith]

Excerpted and linked. Actually, Harry was gonna support sending more troops, but then Kerry called from Damascus and told him Assad said that wasn't the answer. He was for it before he was against it.

[Purple Avenger]

"So I guess you "support an escalation of the conflict"?"

FDR supported an escalation of the conflict. Winning sometimes requires that. Defeat not so much...

[silkworth]

oh goodness, here we go again...

can't a blogger state his own opinion w/out these types of comments

dan, i hope you have a merry christmas and take a mental break from all of this.

enjoy the freedoms you have here in this country, relax a little, and be happy
this new year

silkworth

[neve]

Most Americans agree with Harry. Polls have shown that 68% of Americans think we've already lost the war. Only 12% approve of Bush's handling of it and 56% want us OUT in the next year. You'd think that this 12% president would have learned something from Vietnam. Can't win a war without public support. Public support has come and gone.

[Phoenix]

Silkworth,

Exactly. I love spending time here because of Dan. But every now and then I have to take a break. Not from him - from the commenters who drop the level of discourse to just plain ignorant projection.

For instance: "....68% of Americans think we've already lost the war."

So? 50% of Americans can't pick Iraq out on a map. It's a wonder if 68% of Americans *bother* to think much less travel the paths of original thought.

[BCMG]

You took the type out of my keyboard, Phoenix. Libtards don't like war because: a)They're pussies b)they don't know how to win one and c)everything they do, (including - I assume - taking their morning shit) is based on who approves or disapproves d)they don't have the attention span to actually learn, analyze properly or absorb any factual information. They get their news from Jon Stewart, for Chrissakes. What are libs good at? Surrender, cowering, marching around with signs - hell they're too lazy to even wash themselves properly. They do make me laugh though.

[seekeronos]

Some Libtards like getting apoplectic and dramatic in thier "righteous anger", like that knucklehead Kestrel over at DailyKos who got bent out of shape because of some folks who commented on LGF about the Peace Grandma getting arrested, or "warren25smash" on YouTube (look him up, that guy is a screaming liberal rage-a-holic).

Nah, winning a war will take things like self-sacrifice, teamwork, unwavering support of America, her men (and women) at arms, and not giving succor or support to the enemy (in this case, the Islamists).

It requires goverment not to tie the hands of its military, nor allow a demonstratedly seditious and treasonous press corps to be "embedded" in a war zone to broadcast sensitive information to the enemy. Suppressing free speech and press? You bet.

In a war zone, "loose lips sink ships".

It also requires dropping much ugliness and death on the enemy, which will sometimes affect the enemy civilian population.