Shays Trying to Pass the Buck on Iraq

Sorry There Shays... You and your GOP broke Iraq, you bought it.
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) claimed that “the Democrats may not want to own Iraq but they own it now as much as this President.”
The GOP controlled House and Senate, and the bush White House, wanted Iraq. And even though the Democratic party won't take over until January sessions the irresponsible republican children are already trying to pawn blame off on Democratic members for past GOP mistakes.

Go sit in your partisan corner with your pet Lieberman and STFU.


Courant Echoes Lieberman's Debunked GOP Talking Point

Not like this hasn't been shot down enough on the Blogs already:
courant.com | Mood Swing On Iraq:

"'A congressional mandate to begin a withdrawal from Iraq in a time certain would be a disaster for the Iraqis and, more directly, for the U.S.,' Lieberman said.

But even Lieberman was looking for an endpoint. At the hearing, he told Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, that he hoped the general would 'not hesitate' to ask Bush for a troop increase if necessary.

'It may be that a short-term increase in our forces there, embedded with [Iraqi troops], will be the best way for us to more quickly get to a point where we can actually draw down our forces,' Lieberman said.

His comments illustrated a key difference between pre- and post-election rhetoric: Lawmakers of all stripes understand things are not going well and are clearly searching for some way out.

Just to be clear on this: Joe Lieberman is full of shit, and so is McCain. Sending more troops will only make more targets for the insurgents AND send all of the wrong messages to the Iraq government and people.

It is the epitome of playing politics with soldiers lives when they put forth "ideas" that are nothing more than GOP talking points designed to deflect the medias' attention from the the American voters desire to get out of Iraq.

You really want more soldiers in Iraq Joe?

If you are going to talk the talk, then walk the fucking walk: US Army recruiting. You, Joe "chickenbawk" Lieberman, sign up and put your partisan ass on the line if you really believe the BS you are spouting.

Otherwise... Just STFU!


Lieberman Thinking of Sending More Troops to Iraq?

Did anyone catch Joe Lieberman thinking about sending more troops to Iraq on Meet the Press when he was on with McCain?
McCain and Lieberman Express Support For Sending More Troops to Iraq: "McCAIN: The question is, is what’s the solution? And I believe that a withdrawal or a date for withdrawal will lead to chaos in the region, and most military expercent think the same thing. I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops.


RUSSERT: Should we send more troops?

LIEBERMAN: I think we have to be open to that as a way to succeed, to achieve a free and independent Iraq, which would be an extraordinary accomplishment."

What do the Generals say about the Lieberman and McCain idea?

We already know that sending more troops is not a real option.

Rangel Wrestles With Political Elitists Again

As a means of protecting the average American kid from the elitists in this country Rangel offers up the draft:
House Democrat wants draft reinstated

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded
Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

The best way to stop the political greed spurred on by the industrial-military machine that funds it is to put their kids necks on the line too.

Does anyone think Bush would have chosen to invade Iraq without an honest reason if his twit-twins would have had to be drafted?

Pentagon Floats 3 Iraq trial Balloons

Someone thought these trial balloons should be floated in the media about the super-duper-double-secret Pentagon plans for the future of Iraq.
Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit - washingtonpost.com:

The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.

Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.

A quick look at what these secret plans are?

Plan 1:
"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.
"Go Big" is really a misnomer for this plan... How's this sound:

Go Draft!

Rep. Charles Rangel is busy trying to ensure that this plan is ready to consume the political and business classes' kids if they opt for Go Draft.

OK... How's about Plan 2?
Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.
Go for Broke!

AKA the already debunked McCain plan of sending 20,000 more troops that is also being considered by Joe Lieberman. It won't work since it will break the already over-stretched military even more. It is already going to take years to rebuild the military after what the incompetent ChickenBawks in the GOP have done to them in this last half a decade. Of course, this would also break Iraq even more as well, an there is the fact that Only 8 percent of Americans support this.

1) No troops to send. “Sending more troops to Iraq would, at the moment, threaten to break our nation’s all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security.” McCain suggests enlarging the force to send them to Iraq, an idea that is implausible to carry out over the short-term and would damage the military’s ability to recruit over the long-term.

2) The insurgency would grow more inflamed. “A more visible presence of U.S. troops risks further stoking the flames of the insurgency by feeding perceptions of long-term U.S. occupation among many Iraqis.” The recent effort to increase troop numbers in Baghdad has only increased violence. A recent poll of Iraqis indicated that support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position — now six in ten — a number sure to increase if more U.S. troops are put on the ground.

--- Think Progress

How's about Plan 3?
"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.
Sounds suspiciously like what the American voters expected when they voted the GOP out of power in the House and the Senate? Besides... Iraq has been in a CIVIL WAR for a long time. The fact that the Bush appointed leaders still in place refuse to recognize this truth amplifies the reasoning for complete withdrawal. Our soldiers should not have to be subjected to the abuse of these GOP incompetents any longer:


Phased withdrawal is gaining consensus as the last best option for Iraq. A growing group of experts — including the Iraq Study Group and host of conservative senators — are consolidating behind a redeployment. 63 percent of Americans believe Congress should set a timetable.

--- Think Progress
Makes sense to me. Why not let Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin know which secret plan you support? Don't forget to contact your own Representative and Senator to let them know where you stand and what you, the voter, expect from them as well.


Bush's Definitive "Big Push" Talking Point

I hate GOP talking points. They are dishonest. The MSM repeats them unquestioningly and unchallenged, and it hurts any chances of bipartisan politics when the MSM is highly partisan in its coverage.

Here is a beuty picked up early on by "The Aristocrats Blog" that has slipped under most people's radar...

Bush: "The final push" - "A last big push"

Dems: "Benchmarks"

Which one of those messages sends a definitive amount of time that the insurgents has to wait out our forces before they return chaos to the streets of Iraq? Benchmarks are flexible, FINAL and LAST are pretty definitive. Are the Dems telegraphing a message to the insurgents of how long they have to wait us out OR is the Bush admin. doing that? What does the media say?

Bullshit like the MSM repeating GOP talking points like this unchallenged, all the while picking apart the Dems POV, has got to stop.