“Artificial Date” : “Estimated Timetable” :: Quota : Goal

In responding to President Bush’s Naval Academy speech and Iraq Strategy document, he Democrats come up with another distinction without a difference.

In a Capitol Hill news conference, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Jack Reed (R-R.I.) said they were disappointed by Bush’s plan, which they said fell short on specifics and ignored basic realities in Iraq….

“This debate is not about an artificial date for withdrawal,” Kerry said. He said a Nov. 15 Senate resolution, which called on the administration to hasten an eventual U.S. pullout by turning over more control to Iraqis, did not advocate “an artificial date for withdrawal” but sought to “set an estimated timetable for success which will permit the withdrawal of our troops.”

If you believe that, you’ll believe that the “basic realities” of racial preferences in practice are “goals” and not quotas.

Say What? (17)

  1. actus November 30, 2005 at 3:28 pm | | Reply

    You really can’t tell the difference? Take these two options:

    1. We’ll be out of iraq in january of 2008.

    2. We’ll be out of iraq once there are 5 iraqi divisions online and operational. We expect 5 iraqi divisions to be operational by january of 2008.

    The latter is much better. That’s the sort of formulation I have been waiting for. It ties the withdrawl to meaningfult things — iraqi readiness — and it allows us to gauge whether we are following the plan.

    That distinction has a big difference. The second allows for more accountability and it makes discussion much more meaningfull. It also lets iraqis know that we committed to their readiness, and that we have expectations of that.

  2. John Rosenberg December 1, 2005 at 10:57 am | | Reply

    Go back and read what Rep. Jack Murtha said … and said and said (and that Nancy Pelosi has just endorsed) and tell me if you think all the Dems are asking for is an “estimated timetable.”

    Any “timetable” more specific than “as the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down,” i.e., Bush’s repeated statement, is irresponsible.

  3. Claire December 1, 2005 at 11:40 am | | Reply

    If we did what Kerry and Pelosi and company want, we might as well just say “Okay, all you terrorists. We’ll be leaving in January of 2008. So just hunker down and wait us out, and you can take over as soon as we’re gone.”

    Sheesh. What do these supposedly ‘intelligent’ lawmakers use for brains anyway?

  4. Claire December 1, 2005 at 11:43 am | | Reply

    If we do as Kerry/Pelosi/Murtha are asking, we might as well just say “Okay, all you terrorists. We’re going to be leaving in January 2008. So just hunker down and wait us out, and after we’re gone you can take over like you planned.”

    Sheesh. What do these supposedly ‘intelligent’ lawmakers (and I use the term loosely) use for brains anyway?

  5. Cobra December 1, 2005 at 12:21 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”Any “timetable” more specific than “as the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down,” i.e., Bush’s repeated statement, is irresponsible.”

    The number of troops in Iraq right now can only remain in Iraq under the current conditions for a limited amount of time, many estimate 2007 or 2008, some experts say earlier. If the Iraqis “don’t stand up”, as their documented failures seem to suggest, then whose statements appear to be irresponsible? Bush’s or Murtha’s?

    –Cobra

  6. Sandy P December 1, 2005 at 5:14 pm | | Reply

    How many troops did we have stationed in Germany for 45 years?

    And Germany was a lot worse for wear than Iraq is.

  7. John Rosenberg December 1, 2005 at 5:24 pm | | Reply

    If the Iraqis “don’t stand up”, as their documented failures seem to suggest, then whose statements appear to be irresponsible? Bush’s or Murtha’s?

    Easy. Murtha’s. We are not going to turn Iraq over to a bunch of terrorists. We are not, after all, in Iraq primarily as a humanitarian mission to help the Iraqis but to protect our own interests (although it is interesting how the vaunted “compassion” of the liberals these days stops at the water’s edge.)

    But not to worry: you’ve been looking at the wrong documents. According to reports coming from our military and others on the ground in Iraq (as opposed to easy chairs here), the Iraqis are in fact “standing up” with increasing efficiency.

  8. Cobra December 1, 2005 at 9:09 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”But not to worry: you’ve been looking at the wrong documents. According to reports coming from our military and others on the ground in Iraq (as opposed to easy chairs here), the Iraqis are in fact “standing up” with increasing efficiency.”

    Whose documents am I supposed to be reading? The ones bought and paid for by the Pentagon with our tax dollars?

    >>>”As part of its efforts to counter what it calls “misinformation” in the Iraq media, the US military has been secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories. The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that the stories were written by “US information troops,” then translated into Arabic, and then “placed” in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor. The stories are often presented as unbiased news stories written by independent journalists.

    The Times reported that interviews with military officials and records show that the US military has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of articles.

    The operation is designed to mask any connection with the US military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group’s Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.

    The military’s effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as US officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.”

    Christian Science Monitor, 12-01-05

    John writes:

    >>>”We are not going to turn Iraq over to a bunch of terrorists. We are not, after all, in Iraq primarily as a humanitarian mission to help the Iraqis but to protect our own interests (although it is interesting how the vaunted “compassion” of the liberals these days stops at the water’s edge.)”

    Well, exactly what ARE our “interests” in Iraq NOW, since alleged UN Resolution 1441 violations regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction was the stated reason for this pre-emptive war?

    If “our interests” are creating a cook book democracy between three tribes who’ve been feuding for 1300 years, then our current administration is insane.

    If “our interests” are seizing corporate control of the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves, then at least we can start an honest dialogue about the feasibility of nation-building, the morality of greed based imperialism and the influence of neo-con mechanizations.

    Just remember that all the while this dialogue is occuring, we’ve lost over 2,113 servicefolks, closing in on 18,000 maimed, wounded and injured, with countless dead Iraqis, and a volunteer military falling apart before our eyes.

    –Cobra

  9. Sandy P December 2, 2005 at 2:02 am | | Reply

    What are our interests in Iraq now?

    Syria and Iran.

    Finishing GW1 15 years later.

    Ever notice Korea, Iraq and Iran are all biting US in the rear at the same time?

    Unfinished business.

  10. John Rosenberg December 2, 2005 at 7:30 am | | Reply

    Well, exactly what ARE our “interests” in Iraq NOW, since alleged UN Resolution 1441 violations regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction was the stated reason for this pre-emptive war?

    Now you’re selectively reading documents. WMD was ONE of the stated reasons for war, not THE reason.

    If “our interests” are creating a cook book democracy between three tribes who’ve been feuding for 1300 years, then our current administration is insane.

    And was Clinton similarly insane for intervening in the Balkans (where we still have troops), an area not noted for its peaceful, democratic multiculturalism?

    And exactly how long and firm were the democratic traditions in Japan, before 1945 that is?

    At the moment one good reason to stay in Iraq a while is the same reason Willie Sutton gave for robbing banks (“Because that’s where the money is”). Iraq is where the terrorists are (estimates are around 10,000). I’m sure you would like to hand the country over to them, but most of the other 27 million Iraqis, and most Americans, still aren’t ready to do that.

    If “our interests” are seizing corporate control of the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves,…

    But if that were our interest, we would have done it, wouldn’t we? In fact, we did the opposite. The Iraqis oil is controlled by Iraq, not us. I’m not sure I would have minded if we HAD taken the ol, or some of it, but we didn’t.

  11. actus December 2, 2005 at 8:37 am | | Reply

    “Any “timetable” more specific than “as the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down,” i.e., Bush’s repeated statement, is irresponsible.”

    Is it really irresponsible to say “and we expect iraqis to be standing up at a rate of 10 battalions [or whatever] a month” ? That promotes responsibility and accountablity.

    “How many troops did we have stationed in Germany for 45 years?”

    They weren’t there to fight against Germany, but against the soviet union.

  12. John Rosenberg December 2, 2005 at 12:46 pm | | Reply

    Is it really irresponsible to say “and we expect iraqis to be standing up at a rate of 10 battalions [or whatever] a month” ?

    It’s either irresponsible, or it’s meaningless: Irresponsible if we pull out before “10 battalions [or whatever]” are ready; meaningless if it’s merely a statement of our hopes and expectations.

    But then, assuming Murtha’s proposal meant only what the words in it say (withdraw “as soon as practicable”) and not what he repeatedly said and everyone assumed him to mean (early withdrawal, shouldn’t take more than 6 months), then it too was meaningless and you’re in good company (if you consider Murtha and Pelosi good company).

  13. Cobra December 2, 2005 at 1:15 pm | | Reply

    John,

    If our military CANNOT sustain its current level of operations in Iraq, then no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that status.

    Murtha’s proposal is an action to SAVE our volunteer military from further destruction, and I’m not just talking about our casaualties (10 more dead since my last post.)

    >>>”The U.S. Army Reserve, tapped heavily to provide soldiers for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is

  14. actus December 2, 2005 at 1:34 pm | | Reply

    “Irresponsible if we pull out before “10 battalions [or whatever]” are ready;

    But we’re not. the point is we’re saying we’re gonna pull out according ot iraqi readiness, not according to time. We’re just adding in our goal and estimate for iraqi readiness.

    “meaningless if it’s merely a statement of our hopes and expectations.”

    Its a goal. We set goals for ourselves in order to measure if we’re meeting these goals. You’ll find this in business all the times. Goals aren’t meaningless, certainly not to the guy who gets fired when they’re not met and to the guy who gets a bonus when they’re exceeded.

  15. Sandy P December 2, 2005 at 4:07 pm | | Reply

    –If “our interests” are seizing corporate control of the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves,…–

    I wish someone had told the Kurds, they gave a contract to the Norweigans.

    Even better, w/o Iraq gov’t approval.

    Now it gets fun.

  16. Sandy P December 2, 2005 at 4:15 pm | | Reply

    I seem to remember the USSR had quite a few 5-year plans….

    And it seems the UAE will allow women to vote – there will be partial elections.

  17. Cobra December 2, 2005 at 4:55 pm | | Reply

    Sandy writes:

    >>>”I wish someone had told the Kurds, they gave a contract to the Norweigans.

    Even better, w/o Iraq gov’t approval.”

    Now you’re making my point for me. OBVIOUSLY, there are three factions who really want autonomy. The Kurds want to form their own state in Northern Iraq. The Shia want to create a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy alligned with Iran. The secular Sunni want their power back.

    Yet you, and others would have American troops stay in this meat-grinder for what reason? There is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to Iraq’s insurgency.

    There’s no MILITARY SOLUTION to making these three ancient tribes get together in a sandbox and play nice.

    This neo-con fantasy is becoming more nightmarish every day.

    –Cobra

Leave a Reply to Cobra Click here to cancel reply.