Mission Accomplished? Or "Cut-And-Run?"

Remove all ads!

Colin Powell has announced that American forces will begin leaving Iraq this Spring. Actually, I was quite surprised to see this, considering all the "stay the course in Iraq" baloney we heard during the election campaign from Shrub and his minions. The fact is that support for the war has been slipping into new lows and Shrub does not want to plummet down the same pit that the Iraq effort seems to be headed down.

Does anyone really believe this?

Yeah, right.


Some of us who have read about the Vietnam War heard this one before:

And we all know how that ended for the South Vietnamese. But this is most interesting.

Reading between the lines, one thinks the Germans are too smart to be left "holding the bag" as Shrub and the boys ride off into the sunset, making a hasty retreat, and congratulating themselves on a "job well done."

But that's just my take on this development and yours may be different.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6727646/

 

Hah, next minute they put Hussein back into place because he was the only one who could keep order.

 

How about this - "Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

Am I surprised? No!

So weapons have not/will not be found and troop levels are going to decline. hmmmmmmmmm

 

Man, there's just no pleasing some people.

First, everyone is complaining that, when the U.S. first went into Iraq, it had no plans for how to get out. And now that it does have a plan, people are complaining anyway.

That fact that the U.S. will probably being leaving Iraq hanging out to dry is irrelevant. At least they now have a PLAN!

 

...a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.

The problem is, this administration is very cunning indeed when it comes to demonizing opponents and manipulating media coverage around wedge issues. So right now they're doing their best to talk down the definition of success in Iraq (just as they are for the economy, etc). And chances are lots of Americans will buy it. It's just too bad none of their cunning plans ever seem to translate into good policy, foreign or domestic.

 

A. They are probably telling the truth. If at the start if 2005 you have 150,000 troops in Iraq, and at the end of 2005 you have 135,000 troops in Iraq, you have reduced troop levels. You haven't done much to compromise the effectiveness of your fighting force, but there are less troops there.

B. I forget what government official made this comment yesterday, but he said that even if the President knew then what he knows know, he still would have made the decision to invade Iraq as Iraq posed a serious threat to the U.S.

Of course my question would be, if Iraq did not have chemical, biological, nuclear, or trans-Atlantic missiles, exactly how were they a threat?

 

I can think of one, he is sitting on a huge reservoir of oil and if we(*cough*US*cough*) don't have direct access to it the entire world economy would bite the dust.
I think that was a good reason for this war, I like to keep this life-style y'know?