« Executive Privilege, RNC Style | Main | Is inherent contempt pardonable? »

July 11, 2007


Hang the 'not supporting the troops' label around the necks of the 41 senators. Make sure it also includes 'not supporting the families of the troops' and 'not supporting small businesses / first responders / National Guard members'.

I'd think a lot of constituents would understand the last two, even if they've never realized 'supporting the troops' isn't just 'sending them over there'.


why the Hell do you want to leave the Special Forces over there? Do you want them to be fighting on one side or the other of a Civil War?

Because once our ground troops leave, it will be a no hold barred Civil War with surrounding countries participating.

Troll, you seem to be having problems with your reading comprehension today:

That means no residual force.

What part of that is leaving the SF over there? (If they're left over there, it's the problem of the generals and the @#$%^&* in the White House who sent them.)

If Reid doesn't follow your advice, Mimikatz, it will be at least the second time he's let such an opportunity pass. Even if the Dems do have a very slim majority in the Senate, they could still do better than this.

Nice post. You're right, it's time for Reid to take the gloves off.

No, my idea is not that special forces take sides in the civil war. I'm just making an allowance for such forces. Special forces by nature don't require the kind of big support apparatus that is part of our problem in Iraq--no bases with Pizza Huts or Burger Kings for them. They by definition don't need "force protection", so we are talking at best in the hundreds or maybe 1-2 thousand. They can hunt the real al Qaeda, if there are any, and keep tabs on the border areas. According to Bob Baer, they did that between Gulf War I and the Iraq invasion. It is an effort to make the measure more palatable. But I don't want combat troops or training and arming of militias in the guise of training Iraqi troops and no big support apparatus. I'd close down most of the Embassy too, so it could get by with a minimal guard.

P J Evans

quote from Mimikatz with my bold

And Levin-Reed should include a requirement that all troops (except possibly a few special forces) be withdrawn by some date in 2008, be it April 1 or June 30. That means no residual force.

The last sentence you quoted conflicts with the bold letter words.

The story in the LA Times, way down the web page in 'National', has the headline 'GOP again blocks change in war policy'.

I'd say 'someone is finally getting it' but I think it's only the person who wrote that headline.

Please note that the Iraq War is now considered a mistake by more people than thought the Vietnam War was a mistake while it was still going on (62%), although after it ended, more came to view the Vietnam War as a mistake. I suspect that will happen here too.

Jodi--the residual force that many people talk about is 30,000-50,000 troops. They would have an uncertain and probably impossible mission, as Biddle pointed out in the quote in my post. As I explained in my earlier comment, if there are any special forces remaining, they are essentially for intelligence purposes and limited covert ops, and are on their own with no support system. I can see a rationale for that, as I can see a rationale for troops in Kuwait or Qatar or Bahrain or at sea or somewhere they aren't so hostile to us, although I'd just as soon we bring everyone home.

shit stain has problems with REALITY COMPREHENSION

it ain't just reading that confuses the shit stain

everything confuses the shit stain

If you send the shit stain to the store for catsup, you can be sure the shit stain will come home with mustard

some people just don't get it

and the shit stain is ALWAYS in that group

a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I never met a person with as little knowledge as the shit stain is armed with

slapping down the shit stain is a lot like like shooting fish in a barrel

and I always liked shooting fish in a barrel ...


excuse my invective.

I agree with you that there should be no residual force, no training force even, since without support they would be sitting ducks.

I probably have some more knowledge here than most, but Special Operations Forces are being used in many areas in Iraq as Super Shooters. They are being used as an "anti-sniper force" in many areas. Yes they still have missions like Delta and the Rangers in the popular movie Blackhawk Down, but they are also being used more and more to shore up the weak spots in a very porous line of defense of the occupation.

It does make sense if you are a Field General to have all the shooters, and certainly the best shooters contributing every day.

In fact there has been a lot of conflict about who is in charge in Iraq of the various Forces. Too many Generals and Admirals can spoil the soup just like too many cooks.

I'd like to mention something Off-Topic here:

after watching Michael Moore destroy wolf blitzer and "THE QUACK sanjay gupta" for two days on chicken noodle network, I'd like to request that anybody who makes reference to sanjay gupta please use the title "THE QUACK" before sanjay gupta's name

any "so called" journalist who fucks up the facts in a hit piece deserves to covered with all the shit we can heap on him

and any "so called" doctor who would LIE ABOUT MEDICAL STATISTICS on a news show deserves to be stripped of his licence

The Quack sanjay gupta got caught doing BOTH yesterday

I ain't accepting appologies from people who could have got the facts right in the first place with a little EFFORT


and we should let the world know that

thanks for your time,

and now we return you to your previously scheduled topic:

That is an interesting observation, Jodi. If we pull out most of the troops, then we wouldn't need the sharpshooters to protect them, so pulling out the troops would necessarily limit the mission of special forces.

We seem to be in agreeement on the training aspect--give it up.

The bill the House will vote on, evidently later this week, allows for the following to be done if the President can explain and justify the mission:

3) As part of the justification required by paragraph (2), the President shall, at a minimum, address whether it is necessary for the Armed Forces to carry out the following missions:

(A) Protecting United States diplomatic facilities and United States citizens, including members of the Armed Forces who are engaged in carrying out other missions.
(B) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.
(C) Engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.
(D) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

This is too much for me. I'd take out the training and I think "force protection" is just a circular argument for leaving more forces than necessary.

and why not remove Joey boy from his committee chair and replace him with a junior senator? it is nothing but a divisive hard right wing GOP senator being pampered like the love poodle of the paranoid.

C) Engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.
(D) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Those are what got us into trouble in Vietnam (replace 'Al Qaeda' with 'Viet Cong' and 'Iraqi Security Forces' with 'ARVN', and see how big a difference it makes). Let's not make that mistake again, please!

sorry PJ, we've already made all of the other "Mistakes" that we made in Vietnam, and presnit george is determined to prove that Vietnam was winnable, so that's the next mistake on the menu

and that causes a revelation:, maybe george bush wouldn't be so easy to predict if every person over 40 hadn't already seen this fiasco in its' original version

yeah, but obviously you don't understand the old fashioned way the Senate works. They don't need to filibuster any more, because if they don't consent to bringing an amendment up for a vote, Reid is forced to file for cloture, and he can't get 60 votes. Wonder how it feels to Reid to have the tables turned on him. Do away with cloture!!!


Too bad we don't have a time machine to get the word back so as to send him to 'Nam (or boot camp anyway) instead of TANG. A little properly-directed honesty in a letter to a senator from TX in 1970 or so ... or in a letter to an admissions committee.

hey, some repuglicans have found a way to support the troops

olympia snowe and gordon smith are co-sponsering a bill that says we remove our troops in 120 days see Truthout

put a fork in george, he's fucking done

anybody wanna take bets on when the temper tantrum happens ???

I've been waiting for the moment that george accuses us all of being unpatriotic, looks like we're almost there

hey george, that snowball is gaining momentum, and it's coming right at you

It ain't exactly "Profiles In Courage", but if it brings my soldiers home, I don't care

Agree 100%.

well, learn about the way the NEW Senate works (and this was in the wapo)

Facing crumbling support for the war among their own members, Senate Republican leaders yesterday sought to block bipartisan efforts to force a change in the American military mission in Iraq.

But the GOP leadership's use of a parliamentary tactic requiring at least 60 votes to pass any war legislation only encouraged the growing number of Republican dissenters to rally and seek new ways to force President Bush's hand. They are weighing a series of proposals that would change the troops' mission from combat to counterterrorism, border protection and the training of Iraqi security forces.

how's that "Permenent Repuglican Majority" lookin now, kkkarl ???

but- if we withdraw all the troops, who is going to guard all of those bases that Halliburton built for us?

And who is going to keep the arabs from stealing our oil?

I think we're witnessing a gambler's fallacy here that any MBA president should recognize: this is the "sunk cost problem" or the "pot committed" bet. Bush can't withdraw the troops because he's pot-committed to the war- but this is exactly when someone who understood finance correctly would pick up the chips and walk away from the table.

It is not good business to allow sunk costs to influence future allocations of capital.


George slept through those classes.
It's pretty clear to most of us that his MBA is a courtesy degree, and otherwise meaningless, because he certainly didn't learn anything in class.

Ok, Reid but doesn't have to call for cloture. He can just extend debate on the measure. Let the Dems shred Bush's war, over and over. Talk about the troops--the injuries, the "invisible head wounds" caused by the IEDs, for which they are given ibuprofen and told to get back to duty. Let the GOP defend it. Take notes, and use the GOP's statements in commercials against them. You will note that of the 7 Senators who voted to shut off debate, every one of them is up for reelection. Soon enough we will hear from Pajamas Domenici, John Cornyn, Susan Collins, Liddy Dole and maybe even James "hot enough for you?" Inhofe, the new person from Wyoming, Larry Craig in ID, plus a resignation from Ted Stevens.

snowe and smith are co-sponsers of the Levin-Reed proposal, btw

and I just saw pete dominichi rambling on about some crazy bill that rebrands the "stay the course" bullshit

the repuglicans don't know if they should shit or go blind on this one (if you don't know what it means, you don't want to know what it means)

the repuglican leadership is betting the farm on george bush, and some of the farmers are getting nervous

Let's please not forget to deal with the 130,000 or so mercenaries and consultants in Iraq who are there only at our request, only to hide how large a force is really needed to do half of what Bush says he thought we could easily accomplish, and only because (directly or indirectly) US taxpayers are paying for them (at considerably greater cost than for US govt personnel).

yo, earlofhuntington, tekel provides the solution to the "Merk" question

we just tell the "merks" to guard haliburton's bases while we go to get their checks

can you see where this is leading ???

yeah, I'm serious about that, I don't like mercenaries

earl: good point. Let's suspend/defund all US Gov't contracts with Blackwater, Halliburton, and Bechtel. Halliburton needs security? They can pay for it themselves.

I'm not opposed to mercenaries, in principle. I'm opposed to mercenaries working for the US government, or getting paid by US Companies on US Gov't contract.

I kind of like the idea of pulling some troops back to Kurdistan, maybe to the Turkish border for the purpose of stopping incursions of PKK rebels into Turkey, and not much else.

mercenary is what the usa IS now.. some country that does everything based on money only. it has no ethics and is only interested in pursuing any means to an end - the end being money, the means - take yer pick. going to war was never about anything else but money. the usa ought not to even bother calling itself a country anymore. it stands for nothing except some mercenary organization looking for its next paycheque.

both snowey and smithy are losing their election poll results and are only speaking up to look good. they told karl they have to look good or they are going down. problem is, they are going down to defeat no matter what
it is pure posturing nonsense, neither one cares one whit about the troops or the war, just being re elected, there is nothing else they have time for
they are scum, treat them as such please. Only Mr. Hankey is a turd of merit

You can't swing a dead cat around this site without hitting A-list bloggers. And you can't count yourself an A-list blogger if you can't get one of Reid's staffers to return your phone calls. Many people are front pagers at dKos. So would someone, please, fucking call Reid's folks and find out the skinny on this? What Mimikatz recommends is the obvious move. Is there some reason Reid isn't doing this? What is the plan?

With all the talk about the growth and influence of the "progressive netroots" why the fuck can't we get a simple question like that answered?

Are we just an ATM machine for Democrats; fed bullshit and kept in the dark? Why can't Reid explain himself to us?

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

nice site... look on my site

http://www.desklamp.fora.pl - desk lamp
http://www.lampshades.fora.pl - lamp shades

fqegzdmx mfpjyxuie raxvh ywmhapqcl hgsfulmb rzoepixvu ehul

axujkgfn mraehglu aqzhwfcvn osqwr vmsry zsygtadk fepwhu http://www.kmifyhep.paoidxfst.com

hkigrm yviwxzerm lazi uhdwgep uvtieq uqehk jmdu [URL=http://www.kjnryg.pmhbkido.com]hbkgvuz atqzhgls[/URL]

wnlhfu desc piesdlry othrzdy huamfznk bfmgjdchr izru [URL]http://www.jvrplbs.xjmcbng.com[/URL] drxkj vlrmpb

[URL=emerald cut wedding ring]http://emeraldring.fora.pl/[/URL]
http://emeraldring.fora.pl/ - emerald cut wedding ring

[URL=emerald cut wedding ring]http://emeraldring.fora.pl/[/URL]
http://emeraldring.fora.pl/ - emerald cut wedding ring

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad