Ooops, DUHbya flip flops on Iraq: 'Quick Exit Likely'

[memyselfI]

Looks like DUHbya might be waivering on his 'consistent and hardline' stand. Wonder if the Cons will support this radical flip/flop.


http://www.pajamamania.com/media/dgchicksrulessliplrg.jpg

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html

Quick exit from Iraq is likely

September 20, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.

The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal. Sen. John Kerry's political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route.

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.

The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.

This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam's police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed.

Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream. The Bush administration's drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin's seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest.

The Kerry campaign, realizing that its only hope is to attack Bush for his Iraq policy, is not equipped to make sober evaluations of Iraq. When I asked a Kerry political aide what his candidate would do in Iraq, he could do no better than repeat the old saw that help is on the way from European troops. Kerry's foreign policy advisers know there will be no release from that quarter.

In the Aug. 29 New York Times Magazine, columnist David Brooks wrote an article (''How to Reinvent the GOP'') that is regarded as a neo-con manifesto and not popular with other conservatives.

''We need to strengthen nation states,'' Brooks wrote, calling for ''a multilateral nation-building apparatus.'' To chastened Bush officials, that sounds like an invitation to repeat Iraq instead of making sure it never happens again.

[Donger]

I thought it has been Bush's plan all along to remove troops after the elections in late January?

[memyselfI]

I thought it has been Bush's plan all along to remove troops after the elections in late January?

You can't be serious. ROFL

[RINGLEADER]

I see a lot of opinion from Bob Novak...I don't see anything from Bush backing up that opinion in what you've posted here...The sources that he is citing could be policy wonks with Dem leanings for all you know. At one time Rand Beers - Kerry's foreign policy advisor - was in the same aparatus that Novak is referencing here.

[memyselfI]

But if Kerry withdrawals it will be because he's 'fixing' a problem he didn't create...

if DUHbya withdrawals it's because they f*cked up post war and bailed. :hmmm: No way in HELL does this go down as an 'American victory' or strengthens our standing in the world in any way, shape, or form.

[Donger]

You can't be serious. ROFL

Sure I am.

That's just my opinion, of course. Much like what is contained in the article you posted.

[Donger]

But if Kerry withdrawals

I know I'm sure going to have "Kerry withdrawals" after November 2nd.

[memyselfI]

Sure I am.

That's just my opinion, of course. Much like what is contained in the article you posted.

Well most Cons have been saying this is a long term, stay the course, America 'cannot lose' venture...

then all of a sudden it's not? :hmmm:

[KCWolfman]

Well if "well placed sources" say so it must be true.

I can't wait for the 60 Minutes expose'

[memyselfI]

Well if "well placed sources" say so it must be true.

I can't wait for the 60 Minutes expose'

Ah, but Bob has good sources within the Administration...see the Valerie Plume story.

[KCWolfman]

Ah, but Bob has good sources within the Administration...see the Valerie Plume story.
Yes, we have all learned about the "unnamed sources" recently, haven't we?

Some of us will tend to blindly believe them if they fit our needs and the rest of us will intelligently take them with a grain of salt.

[memyselfI]

Yes, we have all learned about the "unnamed sources" recently, haven't we?

Some of us will tend to blindly believe them if they fit our needs and the rest of us will intelligently take them with a grain of salt.

Agreed...on BOTH sides. :thumb: :clap:

[RINGLEADER]

Kerry's new 10-point plan in Iraq (from the speech I'm watching now):

1. Go to the international community to get troops and money,
2. Convene a summit meeting of international community and Iraqi neighbors,
3. Allow France to bid on the $13 billion in reconstruction Kerry voted against,
4. Get other countries to share the burden,
5. Train more Iraqi security forces with a 24-week training program,
6. Get NATO to assist in the training of Iraqi security forces,
7. Get the reconstruction aid to the Iraqi people (doesn't mention he voted against it),
8. Use Iraqis instead of Halliburton in supporting troops and infrastructure,
9. Insure that the elections go forward in January,
10. Get international community to supply troops for a peacekeeping effort

There's absolutely nothing new here...Now he's saying he can't get into the specifics of what he would do because he doesn't know what he'll find in January of next year...more of his "secret plan" talk...

:shake:

[Cochise]

There's absolutely nothing new here...Now he's saying he can't get into the specifics of what he would do because he doesn't know what he'll find in January of next year...more of his "secret plan" talk...

:shake:

ROFL ROFL

sKerry rolls out his Iraq plan and it still only amounts to "That's none of your business"

[alnorth]

I see a lot of opinion from Bob Novak...I don't see anything from Bush backing up that opinion in what you've posted here...The sources that he is citing could be policy wonks with Dem leanings for all you know. At one time Rand Beers - Kerry's foreign policy advisor - was in the same aparatus that Novak is referencing here.

I wouldnt be so quick to dismiss the article. This isnt Dan Rather, its Robert Novak. He's basically THE definitive source for Republican insider info. If he says the GOP will do something, he's right 99% of the time.

I'm shocked and unsure of what to think. The Neocons within the administration have always pushed the rebuilt Iraq dream spreading through the middle-east etc, and Robert Novak has said that Bush has decided that the Neocon vision has failed, and will act accordingly in a 2nd term.

[homey]

http://www.xmission.com/~daina/images/flip_flop_bg.jpg

[Cochise]

:rolleyes:

Apparently Novak is a credible source when DUHnise likes what he has to say but isn't any other time.

And apparently Bush can flip-flop just by someone writing a column about him.

It's funny how bad the libs want to label him a flipflopper. Their guy has spent 35 years sculpting himself out to be one, so their only choice is to try to drag the other candidate down to their level.

[homey]

How about, "We're going into Iraq to get WMD's."

To - "We're going after the man that tried to kill my daddy."

To - "We're going to liberate a country from a repressive regime."

Now that’s a flip-flop. That’s three times he changed his position of the Iraqi.

[Cochise]

How about, "We're going into Iraq to get WMD's."

To - "We're going after the man that tried to kill my daddy."

To - "We're going to liberate a country from a repressive regime."

Now that’s a flip-flop. That’s three times he changed his position of the Iraqi.

Right... now just outright making things up. Nice to meet you, Mr. Rather.

[homey]

Making that up? Don't you read? You don't remember him saying those things? That's denial.

[Radar Chief]

How about, "We're going into Iraq to get WMD's."

To - "We're going after the man that tried to kill my daddy."

To - "We're going to liberate a country from a repressive regime."

Now that’s a flip-flop. That’s three times he changed his position of the Iraqi.

I’m assuming you can provide links to these quotes.

[Cochise]

Making that up? Don't you read? You don't remember him saying those things? That's denial.

Unless you've got quotes for those, then you are no better than Rather.

I have better things to do than trifle with some schmuck on the internet who spouts this kind of crap, though, so instead of letting the mental midgets among us ruin the day, I think I'm going to go do something else. No point in reasoning with a fool, as the saying goes.

[Radar Chief]

Making that up? Don't you read? You don't remember him saying those things? That's denial.

Uh, no. Making chit up and trying to attribute the made up quotes to someone else is denial.

[Loki]

i think it might be time for a...

[KCWolfman]

Making that up? Don't you read? You don't remember him saying those things? That's denial.
Find me a link saying "We're going after the man that tried to kill my daddy." or I will have to deem you horribly misinformed at the least or a liar at best.

[alnorth]

WRONG homey, and you damned well know it.

You seem to be saying "we are going into Iraq for this reason and no other", to reason b and no other, to reason c, etc.

We invaded Iraq for a LOT of reasons. One of those reasons was to spread democracy. If that fails, it does NOT mean we didnt go in to try, it just didnt work out (at least not without a civil war and hoping the good guys win). Furthermore, one reason for going to war failing does NOT invalidate the numerous other reasons.

Your just desperately trying to find the flip-flopper angle and it doesnt exist, Bush NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said we were going into Iraq for one and only one reason. He has always stated a laundry-list of reasons.

[Duck Dog]

But if Kerry withdrawals it will be because he's 'fixing' a problem he didn't create...

if DUHbya withdrawals it's because they f*cked up post war and bailed. :hmmm: No way in HELL does this go down as an 'American victory' or strengthens our standing in the world in any way, shape, or form.


As much as you would like this to be a failure on America's part. You are wrong. This will go down in history as an American victory for our Armed Forces.

[Hel'n]

i think it might be time for a...

I'm with you... as long as you have the gun!

;)

[Raiderhader]

This won't happen.

[Loki]

I'm with you... as long as you have the gun!

;)

yep.. got my peashooter right here.

so hows about them RED SOX?

(cringing, expecting multiple attacks from royals fans right about now...)

[memyselfI]

As much as you would like this to be a failure on America's part. You are wrong. This will go down in history as an American victory for our Armed Forces.

Yep, in the UNITED STATES textbooks and history it will... :doh!:


no matter what I want the rest of the world will see it for what is is/was. A great military effort from the air by the most heavily armed military power in the history of the world vs. a much weaker and underarmed enemy and then a subsequent diplomatic implosion causing a military withdrawal before completion of the mission.

[Radar Chief]

yep.. got my peashooter right here.

so hows about them RED SOX?

(cringing, expecting multiple attacks from royals fans right about now...)

The Royals have fans? ;)

[memyselfI]

WRONG homey, and you damned well know it.

You seem to be saying "we are going into Iraq for this reason and no other", to reason b and no other, to reason c, etc.

We invaded Iraq for a LOT of reasons. One of those reasons was to spread democracy. If that fails, it does NOT mean we didnt go in to try, it just didnt work out (at least not without a civil war and hoping the good guys win). Furthermore, one reason for going to war failing does NOT invalidate the numerous other reasons.

Your just desperately trying to find the flip-flopper angle and it doesnt exist, Bush NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said we were going into Iraq for one and only one reason. He has always stated a laundry-list of reasons.

Al, you were honest about the Novak angle...surely you can be honest and acknowledge that the 'democracy' reason was mid-to low on the list and only became a major justification after the whole WMD angle fell through and then when no significant link with SH to AQ or terror groups could be established....

they had the concern for the Iraqi people trump card to play. but it was NOT in the top two or three reasons.

[Radar Chief]

Al, you were honest about the Novak angle...surely you can be honest and acknowledge that the 'democracy' reason was mid-to low on the list and only became a major justification after the whole WMD angle fell through and then when no significant link with SH to AQ or terror groups could be established....

they had the concern for the Iraqi people trump card to play. but it was NOT in the top two or three reasons.


Uh, do what? (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11349)

[Raiderhader]

Al, you were honest about the Novak angle...surely you can be honest and acknowledge that the 'democracy' reason was mid-to low on the list and only became a major justification after the whole WMD angle fell through and then when no significant link with SH to AQ or terror groups could be established....

they had the concern for the Iraqi people trump card to play. but it was NOT in the top two or three reasons.


What is it with the left and their reckless behaviour in throwing out bold faced lies with out even thinking about it?

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that there were no ties between Saddam and terror groups when it is a known fact that he gave financial aid the families of Palastinian suicide bombers and as also evidenced by the terrorist training camps that were in Iraq?

And further more, it is a bold faced lie to suggest that the administration ever said there was a link with AQ, because they did not. There has been speculation from all sorts of people, but the administration never came out and said that there definitley was a link.

I should be used to it by now, however the reckless behaviour and the nonchalant attitude towards it still blows me away. :shake:

[homey]

You all are highly entertaining. So glad I'm not a neo...

[Raiderhader]

You all are highly entertaining. So glad I'm not a neo...


Still haven't found that link, huh?


Keep looking bub, I'm sure that it exists.

[homey]

What link to do want? I've got a minute. I can give you a Google tutorial as well.

[Duck Dog]

Yep, in the UNITED STATES textbooks and history it will... :doh!:


no matter what I want the rest of the world will see it for what is is/was. A great military effort from the air by the most heavily armed military power in the history of the world vs. a much weaker and underarmed enemy and then a subsequent diplomatic implosion causing a military withdrawal before completion of the mission.


Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

Oh, that's right, you. You and the other libs who live their lives off the results of world opinion polls.

Good luck.

[Radar Chief]

What link to do want? I've got a minute. I can give you a Google tutorial as well.

Playing stupid now, huh? How’s ‘bout just finding links to Bushy say’n what you’ve got him quoted as say’n.

How about, "We're going into Iraq to get WMD's."

To - "We're going after the man that tried to kill my daddy."

[memyselfI]

What is it with the left and their reckless behaviour in throwing out bold faced lies with out even thinking about it?

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that there were no ties between Saddam and terror groups when it is a known fact that he gave financial aid the families of Palastinian suicide bombers and as also evidenced by the terrorist training camps that were in Iraq?

And further more, it is a bold faced lie to suggest that the administration ever said there was a link with AQ, because they did not. There has been speculation from all sorts of people, but the administration never came out and said that there definitley was a link.

I should be used to it by now, however the reckless behaviour and the nonchalant attitude towards it still blows me away. :shake:

Did ya happen to miss the word SIGNIFICANT? Face it, if there WERE SIGNIFICANT links with SH to AQ or a terror network DUHbya would be parading (complete with marching band) them all over the place. Alas, there was not any or enough to make the case so they dumped it and that trump card was played...

[Duck Dog]

America will speak and give her opinion on Nov. 2nd.

[Radar Chief]

Did ya happen to miss the word SIGNIFICANT? Face it, if there WERE SIGNIFICANT links with SH to AQ or a terror network DUHbya would be parading (complete with marching band) them all over the place. Alas, there was not any or enough to make the case so they dumped it and that trump card was played...

So, because Bushy didn’t make enough noise for you about Saddam’s terror links they aren’t “significant” enough? :LOL:

[Raiderhader]

Did ya happen to miss the word SIGNIFICANT? Face it, if there WERE SIGNIFICANT links with SH to AQ or a terror network DUHbya would be parading (complete with marching band) them all over the place. Alas, there was not any or enough to make the case so they dumped it and that trump card was played...


Still pimping the AQ angle I see. I defy you to provide a credible link, i.e. not some crack pot conspiratorial site, that quotes the President as saying that there was a link to AQ.


Or you could just continue to hit on a tangent that is a complete lie like the partisan hack you are......

[memyselfI]

America will speak and give her opinion on Nov. 2nd.

Yeah. Like he had the popular vote to begin with...

[Duck Dog]

Yeah. Like he had the popular vote to begin with...


ROFL

jeez. Already warming up, eh?

[SBK]

I designate the following thread on Nov. 3 in honor of all posts my memyselfi....

OOPS, AMERICA ISN'T LIBERAL, KERRY LOSES BIG

[StcChief]

I designate the following thread on Nov. 3 in honor of all posts my memyselfi....

OOPS, AMERICA ISN'T LIBERAL, KERRY LOSES BIG

I like it. Send this one to FOX news for a headline on Nov 3rd.

See what the response is by the rest of the CBS,CNN,NBC... media.