Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Why the Democrats can’t be trusted with national security: Part 46,352
Posted by: McQ on Monday, June 26, 2006

Sen. Russ Feingold on Meet the Press this week:
SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, first, on the time line, it appears to me that the American people understand it’s time for a time line to withdraw the troops from Iraq. The Iraqi people and the Iraqi government understand it. It seems like it’s only here in Washington that people don’t understand it’s time to end this mistake, to end our military involvement there. And the votes in Washington don’t show it, but the people in this country and the people of Iraq want us to stop it.

As to the amnesty, I’m very troubled by it. The idea of amnesty for people that have either attacked or even killed American troops, I think that’s unacceptable and something that we have to make very clear to the Iraqis that we can’t accept.
This is pure blarney. The American people certainly want a plan for the completion of our mission in Iraq and the withdrawal of the troops at the soonest possbile time, but there is nothing to indicate that a 'time line' is what they demand.

Any plan of this sort must commit to some type of time frame to give it a point of reference. But unlike a time line, which requires events happen or be executed without fail on certain dates, the plans offered both by the DoD and the Iraqis give date ranges instead of dates certain. And they have caveats which explain that the proposed date ranges are dependent upon "conditions" at that time. If the the metrics of the condition are met, then action should indeed take place within that time frame.

That is a lot different than what John Kerry proposed, for example, which was simply an "everybody-out-of-the-country" drop-dead date to be executed regardless of Iraq's security status. If anything can be characterized as arbitrary, that proposal takes the cake. If anything can be characterized as not really caring how Iraq is left, Kerry's amendment certainly is that.

Feingold both sponsored that amendment and voted for it.

Secondly, the Iraqi plan does not commit to a date certain for withdrawal anymore than does the DoD plan. Both plans give date ranges and conditions to be met before committing to any troop withdrawals. Both outline what they anticipate to be "best case" scenarios. And while we understand that dissident Sunnis are demanding a date certain, to this point, neither plan commits to a date certain for complete withdrawal. The Iraqis are looking 18 months out and the DoD plan anticipates the summer of 2009 as target withdrawal dates.

So Feingold is being disingenuous when he says the Iraqis have committed to a "time line". They've committed to a plan with conditions based target dates. And that's quite a different animal.

Feingold also finds amnesty troubling. As Dale has pointed out, if all you want is to get the troops out of Iraq and as quickly as possible, why be concerned with amnesty?

Well, how about it as a cheap way to show your "concern for the troops?"

If the intent is to get the troops out of the country ASAP, that's de facto amnesty since we're certainly not going to be around to prosecute those who fought against us.

The main point here is this is Iraq's call. And they're making it. While we may not like it, it is indeed a necessary component to reconciliation within the factions which make up Iraq. Stabilization, which is critical to success in Iraq, isn't going to happen without some form of reconciliation. If the desired end-state of our mission in Iraq is a stable and democratic country, then amnesty and reconciliation will be a large component of achieving that.

But Feingold gets it exactly backwards:
I don’t think there should be amnesty for people who have killed or are trying to kill American troops, and I don’t think that has to be a part of the process. I understand that there might have to be amnesty for certain individuals have—who have committed some kind of criminal acts. It may be a different story for those who have done something to other Iraqis. I understand that. That’s a decision the Iraqis should be able to make. But we, as Americans, cannot tolerate the idea that people who have murdered American soldiers should get off scot-free. I don’t think any of us can support that.
Lastly, General Casey was very specific in his rejection of a withdrawal time line:
Meanwhile, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq said at a Pentagon news conference that he expects to see some U.S. troop reductions this year, but he slammed the idea of a timetable for withdrawal. "I don't like it," Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said. "I feel it would limit my flexibility. I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable, and I think it would send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."
Feingold replies:
When he gives—we give total flexibility to the Pentagon and to General Casey in terms of what order he wants to do this, what time frame within the year that we have proposed. And the fact is our amendment does not call for the complete elimination of all troops. We allow exceptions to protect American facilities, to conduct anti-terrorist activities, and to help in a limited way in terms of training the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police. So the fact is, we do provide the flexibility that General Casey needs. Our plan is so similar to what he’s talking about it makes me wonder what the Republicans of the United States Senate and others were talking about when they said a timetable was a sort of a crazy idea. It’s a perfectly reasonable idea.
How about that ... Casey has all the flexibility he needs "within the year we have proposed". He then goes on to compare his plan with Casey's plan. Of course he fails to mention that his plan (the Kerry plan) ends in July of '07 while the Casey plan is just ending phase one of a three phase plan which stretches into the summer of 2009. You might assume there's a reason for that. And the reason is Casey has a priority of completing successfully the mission in Iraq and Feingold doesn't.

So, in that case, Sen. Feingold obviously has a different concept of flexibility than does Gen. Casey. What should be just as obvious to anyone who reads Feingold's words is he couldn't care less about the status of Iraq or the successful completion of the Iraq mission. It's all about an arbitrary withdrawal date which he claims is being demanded by the American people. If Iraq then falls, it's the Republican's fault, and that is fine with him.

The problem for him becomes success in Iraq. If the much more reality-based plan of Gen. Casey is followed, it is entirely possible that we'll be in the midst of our final troop withdrawal somewhere around November of '08, leaving a stable Iraq in our wake.

And that, dear reader, would be a disaster for Democrats such as Russ Feingold.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I think the key point is the Democrats have a plan. Not only that, but a plan they are willing to show to the American people. That’s a significant improvement for them.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"And that, dear reader, would be a disaster for Democrats such as Russ Feingold."
I genuinely believe that most Democrats elected at the national level would rather our efforts in Iraq be seen as a defeat than a victory if it gives them back either the House, Senate, and Oval Office in 2008 in any combination, and certainly if it gave them all three.

They don’t think it’s treason, they really believe they and their leftist approach to national policy is all that can "save" the country. To hell with them.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
So, what should we think about people who do not want to give out an amnesty, yet at the same time, wanted to keep the Iraqi Army intact after the invasion...

As for the DOD and Iraqi plans, they have one thing in common, a realistic approach to keeping control of a precarious situation. They set conditions for measuring success, and an anticipated timeline.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
The Democrats probelm is that they have chosen to OPPOSE, rather than simply being an Opposition Party. I don’t recall that the Republicans ran on a platform of ending the Second World War as soon as possible or in short they didn’t bet on a loss. They campaigned on winning the war better, faster and a better post-war environment.
This year’s Democrat’s seem to have plumped for OPPOSING Bush. And that has led, in a defacto way, to them pulling for our defeat in Iraq. A better strategy would have been to have offered an alternative that didn’t seem to be "cut n’run" in Iraq and to have stuck to that program, rather than being AGAINST a pullout in ’03 (JF Kerry) and then FOR one in ’06 (JF Kerry).
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
This is pure blarney. The American people certainly want a plan for the completion of our mission in Iraq and the withdrawal of the troops at the soonest possbile time, but there is nothing to indicate that a ’time line’ is what they demand.
Really? Is that right?

From a CNN poll taken June 14 and 15:
"Which comes closer to your view about U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date. The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal." Options rotated


Timetable
53%
No Timetable
41%
Unsure
6%


Now, correcting every single incorrect factual assertion McQ makes could be a lifetime undertaking, so I won’t spend too much time dwelling on his nonsense. But to assert that there is no support for a timetable is so contrary to reality that McQ really out does himself this time.

If the Democrats can’t be trusted with national security, McQ can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
As to the amnesty, I’m very troubled by it. The idea of amnesty for people that have either attacked or even killed American troops, I think that’s unacceptable and something that we have to make very clear to the Iraqis that we can’t accept
Maybe we can attack them from our Okinawa-based rapid response team (TM Murtha)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Then there’s this from the same poll site:

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"
6/14-19/06 .

Keep Troops
50%
Bring Home
45%
Unsure
5%

So, yeah, while peeps might like to see a timetable they want a stable siuation before the troops are pulled out. I suspect that the timetable in question, should it ever be implemented in fact, would be pretty amorphous at best.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Timetable
53%
No Timetable
41%
Unsure
6%
I have to believe the "poll" conducted recently in the US Senate as probably more indicative of what Americans are really demanding and it was 86-13 against as I recall.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Interesting, because in other polls it says:
"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?" 6/14-19/06 Keep Troops 50% Bring Home 45%

"Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?" 48% Stay 46% Leave

"Do you think of the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, or do you think of it as separate from the war on terrorism?" 54% Part of 41% Seperate
So, what does it all mean?

Likely only that the public is fickle, and polls are unreliable.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
What else does it mean??

That people can cherry pick polls all they want to "prove" their point.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Or that pollsters can phraase their questions to achieve the desired result.
The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’d almost argue that Feingold is hoping to keep the insurgency alive after we leave as the government works to ’bring them to justice’.
This would obviously lead to something closer to Israel and the West Bank, and then the Dems could point at the ’failure’ of the WOT to stablize Iraq (and the failure of the Republicans of course).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
As to the amnesty, I’m very troubled by it. The idea of amnesty for people that have either attacked or even killed American troops, I think that’s unacceptable and something that we...
So how does the good senator feel about amnesty for those who break the law and enter his own country illegally?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
mkultra wrote: But to assert that there is no support for a timetable is so contrary to reality that McQ really out does himself this time.

If the Democrats can’t be trusted with national security, McQ can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
A timetable is contrary to success in Iraq, and is therefore contrary to our security. Given that, Democratic demand for a timetable shows that Democrats can’t be trusted with national security.

As far as the dueling polls go, one possible answer is that the people polled in the CNN poll mkultra brought up would in fact prefer a plan such as that offered by the administration, as opposed to a strict timeline. Staying in Iraq forever isn’t a good thought, but getting out based upon a strict timeline is stupid.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So how does the good senator feel about amnesty for those who break the law and enter his own country illegally?
The more new Democrats in his state, the better.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I have to believe the "poll" conducted recently in the US Senate as probably more indicative of what Americans are really demanding and it was 86-13 against as I recall.
Well then, perhaps you should amend your statement from, “Why the Democrats can’t be trusted with national security:” to, “Why Russ Feingold and John Kerry can’t be trusted with national security:”

Because the “poll” you believe illustrates that the majority of the Democrats sided with the Republicans on this issue.

Also, you should amend your statement, “The American people certainly want a plan for the completion of our mission in Iraq and the withdrawal of the troops at the soonest possbile time, but there is nothing to indicate that a ’time line’ is what they demand.” to, “The American people certainly want a plan for the completion of our mission in Iraq and the withdrawal of the troops at the soonest possbile time, but not everything indicates that a ’time line’ is what they demand.”

Because there are some indications.
Including this,
An NBC/”Wall Street Journal” poll shows that in fact a majority of Americans, 54 percent of voters say they are more likely to vote for someone who supports bringing home troops within 12 months.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Feingold also finds amnesty troubling. As Dale has pointed out, if all you want is to get the troops out of Iraq and as quickly as possible, why be concerned with amnesty?

Well, how about it is a cheap way to show your "concern for the troops?"

If the intent is to get the troops out of the country ASAP, that’s de facto amnesty since we’re certainly not going to be around to prosecute those who fought against us.
Wrong about the facts. Wrong about the analysis.

First, the promise of amnesty will only increase the level of violence. If those committing the violence think they will eventually get off the hook anyway, why quit being violent?

And talk about spin. Now, anyone who is against amnesty for killers and thugs - who actually wants to see them prosecuted - is showing cheap concern for the troops? Wow. Remember, the guerillas are not entitled to be treated according to the rules of war. So why should they get any amnesty at all? They are not better than ordinary criminals. Indeed, as Bush has said numerous times, they are terrorists. He won’t even call them insurgents. So now Bush wants amnesty for terrorists and it is the Democrats who cannot be trusted with national security?

You have really gone around the bend on this one.

Oh, and one last thing: It is not the role of the United States to prosecute anyone. We wouldn’t prosecute anyone regardless of whether we stay or leave.
I have to believe the "poll" conducted recently in the US Senate as probably more indicative of what Americans are really demanding and it was 86-13 against as I recall.
Of course you do.

But that wasn’t your original assertion, this is:
The American people certainly want a plan for the completion of our mission in Iraq and the withdrawal of the troops at the soonest possbile time, but there is nothing to indicate that a ’time line’ is what they demand.
And that assertion is dead wrong. It is in fact wrong. It’s false. Incorrect. There is no other word for it. Pure Bush propaganda.

In a word, it is BS.




 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
And you, once again, demonstrate you have no grasp of history.
Amnesty is generally offered to end hostilities (which it usually helps do, counter to what Pogue indicates).

Cripes, we didn’t just gave Werner Von Braun amnesty, we gave him a freaking job.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Why the Republicans Can’t Be Trusted With National Security—IRAQ

The headline kind of writes itself.
 
Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
As far as the dueling polls go, one possible answer is that the people polled in the CNN poll mkultra brought up would in fact prefer a plan such as that offered by the administration, as opposed to a strict timeline.
This is the question that was asked:
The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date
****
Amnesty is generally offered to end hostilities (which it usually helps do, counter to what Pogue indicates).

Cripes, we didn’t just gave Werner Von Braun amnesty, we gave him a freaking job
.

Name one other instance in history when the United States has offered amnesty to a group of people that the President has declared are terrorists? Just one.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Umm. I didn’t write anything about amnesty, looker.

An honest mistake, I am sure.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Why the Republicans Can’t Be Trusted With National Security—IRAQ
Good point Steve, that whole they’ve created a Constitution and elected a government thing is certain to have happened without US intervention. Or is it your contention that the Shi’i and Kurds were just "genetically inferior" or had the "Mark of Cain" or "Shem" on them and therefore DESERVED to be ruled by 22% of the populace?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Stop and think about the concept of —- Tough Love.

I’m surprised to hear conservatives defend an open-ended Iraq strategy, especially when it’s so clear that our presence is as much a part of the problem as it is the solution.

We’ve seen this overbearing government syndrome before —- a population tyranized by a cycle of dependency, in dire need of some "tough love". These were the "welfare moms" of the 1990’s.

The people administering the welfare program were sure they were doing the right thing. Those advocating the program were sure we could never step back from our commitment. Sound familiar?

Our presence in Iraq, especially as we’re building permanent bases that many pundits refuse to cite even when quite relevant, creates both ill will, and a dire sense of dependency on the struggling Iraqi government.

America is unique in its reverence for individual responsibility. Let’s show Iraq the Tough Love we showed welfare moms in the ’90’s. Only some form of draw-down time-table, whether there’s an explicit end date or not, will lavish Iraq’s government with that, and offer the United States Victory in Iraq.
 
Written By: Mark MyWords
URL: http://mark-mywords.blogspot.com
Name one other instance in history when the United States has offered amnesty to a group of people that the President has declared are terrorists?
So terrorists are worse than Nazis? Learn something new every day.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
In Vietnam, we managed to accept ex-VC and NVA soldiers to switch sides and fight as Kit Carson scouts.

Amnesties are often part of the solution to insurgencies and to gain ex-regime member loyalty. It’s an important incentive.

If I know that I will be prosecuted for my actions, why would I stop fighting?

And honestly, even though I support the war in Iraq, I also recognize that most of the insurgents are in some form patriots that feel Iraq is being occupied. Now that they are re-considering their position, we need to encourage that not threaten them with trials because they attacked a foreign army on their territory.

My suggestion would be:

no amnesty for bombers who targeted civilians.
no amnesty for crimes committed under Saddam, but leniency if they speak the truth...

But really, these are all issues for the Iraqi people to decide.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Good enough for you MK Ultra?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Pogue - apologies, and thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
I should have rechecked.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
In any case, it is the Iraqi government which is offering amnesty, not the US. In fact, many in the US are opposed to the proposal, which has apparently already been accepted on a preliminary basis by 7 insurgent groups in Iraq.

especially when it’s so clear that our presence is as much a part of the problem as it is the solution.

That’s pretty dated thinking, given that for the past 4 months the emphasis in Iraq has been on sectarian violence.
 
Written By: geoff
URL: http://
If the Iraqis give amnesty to any Iraqi that killed Americans, we should give amnesty to any American that killed Iraqis in return. Though the Left would howl.

Feingold is another liberal Jewish lawyer that thinks all rights and liberties are automatically guaranteed as long as they are written on a scrap of paper, with no sacrifice required to maintain them or no external threat to them - because THEY ARE WRITTEN AND GUARANTEED FOREVER!! This is a guy that wants to close down GITMO and amnesty all the terrorists there - kvetching about how "troubled he is about" an Iraqi amnesty that of course would happen the day after he pulled all our troops out like he demanded.

Kerry is an insincere flip-flopper and self-promoter quietly despised by most Democratic Senators almost to the degree he was detested by his fellow officers in Vietnam. Feingold is the reverse. He never flip-flops, and is sincere about his vision of a liberal utopia. But that makes him no more admirable than Kerry - because all Feingold is - is an honest, consistent idiot of the Paul Wellstone variety.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
If we’re going to play with poll numbers .. try these.

Approval:

Rasmussen
Bush 42% in US

Pew poll
UBL 24% in Jordan
UBL 38% in Pakistan


Most Muslims don’t believe that Arabs did 9/11, even
after UBL repeatily took credit on multiple videos.

They don’t believe UBL.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
"So now Bush wants amnesty for terrorists and it is the Democrats who cannot be trusted with national security?"

Well, that’s not Bush’s plan, that’s the Iraqi government’s plan. Regardless of what Bush thinks of it, it’s a primary step in self-determination.

And funny how, as soon as an amnesty plan is floated, libs are suddenly outraged that it’s too soft on terrorists? Weren’t you folks calling them "minutemen" just a short time ago?


 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://gabbleratchet.blogspot.com
mkultra wrote:
This is the question that was asked:
The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date
****
Your first quoted the full question:
"Which comes closer to your view about U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date. The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal."


Note "Which comes closer . . ."



 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Approval:

Rasmussen
Bush 42% in US

Pew poll
UBL 24% in Jordan
UBL 38% in Pakistan
I wonder how these numbers go in San Fransico? Suspect UBL does better than Bush there . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider