Timetable
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to a draft plan to remove U.S. troops from cities by 2009 and completely from Iraq by 2012.
Isn't this announcing to the enemy our date of departure? Isn't this "cutting and running"? No, it's smart, politic, necessary and good policy for the Iraqis and the Americans.
This would seem to favor the presidential candidate who has favored withdrawal, not the candidate who is at ease with 100 years of military engagement there.
It's hopeful change, no?
Isn't this announcing to the enemy our date of departure? Isn't this "cutting and running"? No, it's smart, politic, necessary and good policy for the Iraqis and the Americans.
This would seem to favor the presidential candidate who has favored withdrawal, not the candidate who is at ease with 100 years of military engagement there.
It's hopeful change, no?
posted by JRB at 3:37 PM
3 Comments:
You're too young to remember Nixon's October surprise in 1972.
"Peace is at hand"... The only problem was that it wasn't.
I smell a big GOP rat (again).
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
The actual comment with its clear qualifications sounds much more like our current military role in South Korea at the DMZ.
Do you believe that those military units should also be brought home?
Sorry for the potentially unclear editing. The first two paragraphs of my previous post are from the CNN article. The last two are mine.
Is there a way to edit your posts are being posted?
Post a Comment
<< Home