Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats may unite on plan to pull troops
Boston Globe ^ | February 20, 2006 | Rick Klein

Posted on 02/20/2006 6:08:22 AM PST by AZRepublican

WASHINGTON -- After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

The concept, dubbed ''strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study's concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq -- Jack Reed of Rhode Island -- and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California.

The party remains divided on some points, including how much detail to include in a party-produced document, fearful of giving too much fodder for attacks by Republicans.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: chairmandean; cutandrun; dnc; dncstrategy; iraq; murtha; surrender; terrorism; troops; withdraw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last

1 posted on 02/20/2006 6:08:23 AM PST by AZRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

And the 06-08 Dem platform solidifies. Should be a fun election cycle.


2 posted on 02/20/2006 6:09:53 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

The Democrat platform.
3 posted on 02/20/2006 6:11:33 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
It's 11.18.05 all over again?

"Murtha Urges Iraq Retreat"
4 posted on 02/20/2006 6:13:07 AM PST by jdm (You can learn a lot about paranoids just by following them around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
I reckon no one has advised the Dims that they aren't running the war.

Sure, they can attempt to deny funding for it.

Let them try.






5 posted on 02/20/2006 6:13:26 AM PST by G.Mason (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
'The Iraqis want us to go," said Korb, who has opposed Bush's decision to invade Iraq from the start. ''If you're out by the end of 2007, we'll have been there almost five years. That's not cutting and running."

From the middle of said article.
6 posted on 02/20/2006 6:14:51 AM PST by Pox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: AZRepublican

This is the same strange plan they had last year: pull out US troops from Iraq, camp out somewhere else in the region, and in the (very likely) event of civil war, re-invade Iraq for the 2nd time.


8 posted on 02/20/2006 6:14:53 AM PST by paudio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Rule #1: The Dims never learn.


9 posted on 02/20/2006 6:15:08 AM PST by claudiustg (Delenda est Iran!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Democrat's salute.
10 posted on 02/20/2006 6:15:35 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Tell ya what guys, when you gain control of the house, senate, and the White House then MAYBE you will be able to achieve this lofty goal of yours.

Until then, STFU.


11 posted on 02/20/2006 6:18:08 AM PST by unixfox (AMERICA - 20 Million ILLEGALS Can't Be Wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Exactly right!

MEMO TO 'RATS:
You need to be the Commander in Chief to order the troops around. Your boy, Vietnam hack John 'effin Kerry LOST THE ELECTION. So, your party cannot order troops around.

There, the lesson in basic Constitutionalism is over. For now.

12 posted on 02/20/2006 6:18:15 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
...Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California.

Tha author is obviously on drugs.

13 posted on 02/20/2006 6:19:14 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Demorat surrender Monkeys. Murtha's plan was to deploy forces to places like Okinawa?!?

Trying to objective, this plan assumes that the presence of our forces is the problem. I DISAGREE, our forces are turning over more and more territory to Iraqi forces. If we leave too early (before Iraqi forces are prepared) it will be abandoning Iraqis that had supported us. I would opine that while the Iraqis look forward to the day the USA leaves, they don't want us to leave until the time is right.
14 posted on 02/20/2006 6:21:17 AM PST by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
And when any of them get elected to be Presidnet- then it will mean something. (I guess Dems don't understand that they need to be elected by the people afore they go actin all presidential and stuff...)(*twits*)
15 posted on 02/20/2006 6:24:06 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross (Embrace peace- Hug an American soldier- the real peace keepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Defining and Defending the Terms of Our Surrender:

WE ARE the DEMOCRAT PARTY!


16 posted on 02/20/2006 6:25:51 AM PST by TheRobb7 (The American Spirit does not require a federal subsidy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

True to form, there's still nothing printed on it.


17 posted on 02/20/2006 6:28:27 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diva Betsy Ross

I believe that what the article means to say, is that this will be their presidential platform for the 2008 election.

They are certainly entitled to run on this platform, although it will render their chances of winning nugatory.


18 posted on 02/20/2006 6:30:41 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

See post #18 above.


19 posted on 02/20/2006 6:31:20 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Well, Ms. Feinstein just may be a moderate Democrat, even though she plays so far out in left field, Barry Bonds couldn't hit one over her. That just shows how insane and cowardly the rest of the democrats are.


20 posted on 02/20/2006 6:32:03 AM PST by Rider on the Rain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Why don't we retreat from Detroit?

In all of Iraq in January '06, 45 Americans lost their lives.

In Detroit in January of '06, 40 Americans lost thier lives.

(Quoting these stats second hand from an article over the weekend, can't remember the name of it for direct attribution. Perhaps someone will and can be so kind..)


21 posted on 02/20/2006 6:33:36 AM PST by IamConservative (Who does not trust a man of principle? A man who has none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pox
Korb is a Soros funded leftist. They use his Reagan era credentials to pretend he's a conservative. I realized something was wrong when they had the big fuss in South Korea about the traffic accident where two Korean girls were killed. Korb's position was to turn the GIs over to the Koreans to settle the issue.
22 posted on 02/20/2006 6:33:51 AM PST by Patriot from Philly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Murtha's brilliant plan is to redeploy to Okinawa.


23 posted on 02/20/2006 6:36:39 AM PST by OldFriend (MSM ~ controversy, crap, & confusion.....compliments of Alan Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
Well, I believe what the article means to say is that even tho the Dems have no power ,and the majority of Americans are afraid of them in power- they are acting like they do have power-

... and the MSM will continue trying to hoodwink the public into believing that the Dems have power, no matter how ridiculous they appear to the rest of us.

It is all an illusion... over power- see? :]

24 posted on 02/20/2006 6:37:09 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross (Embrace peace- Hug an American soldier- the real peace keepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq


In other words, withdraw then retake the same area you previously took, withdraw and then do the same thing again, all the while taking flak for not only killing the enemy but also people you didn't intend to. Sounds like a...plan.
25 posted on 02/20/2006 6:38:14 AM PST by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patriot from Philly
John Gambling on WABC radio has Korb on regularly to bash the President and the war.

He is always touted as a republican who was in the first President Bush administration.

I usually call in to the call screener and blast Gambling for having him on a guest.

26 posted on 02/20/2006 6:39:02 AM PST by OldFriend (MSM ~ controversy, crap, & confusion.....compliments of Alan Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
The concept, dubbed ''strategic redeployment,"

"Strategic redeployment" is demspeak for "abject surrender."

If I were a political cartoonist I would depict this as a variation on the Iwo Jima flag-raising theme, with Pelosi, Murtha, Dean, Kennedy, and Clinton tossing the uprooted flag over the summit and charging screaming in full-tilt terror down the mountainside, abandoning to radical Islam the bodies of the good and brave Marines who planted that flag.

27 posted on 02/20/2006 6:40:09 AM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Better yet, depict Murtha, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry et all raising the equivalent of the Iwo Jima flag....just make the flag a white one.

In typical Dem fashion, here they are trying to devise a plan 3 YEARS INTO THE WAR. Just when are they going to release this plan? The day after the Pentagon announces even more troop withdrawals? When violence has subsided to the point that even their friends in the media can't flog that meme?

Sheesh...the Keystone Kommanders.


28 posted on 02/20/2006 6:45:04 AM PST by Timeout (I hate MediaCrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Not on drugs, just writes for El Globo.


29 posted on 02/20/2006 6:47:59 AM PST by metesky (Official Armorer, Aaron Burr Dueling Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
OK Dimocrats,
  1. What friendly country is within helicopter range of Baghdad?
  2. How vulnerable would troop-laden helicopters be coming at a time and place chosen by the enemy?
  3. How many helicopters have to be shot down to equal one week's worth of casualties under the current deployment?
  4. How do you win hearts and minds from 300 miles away?
  5. Why do you think Democrat Congressmen and Congresswomen know how to fight a war better than people who have made a career of it?
  6. Lastly, how is this different from Vietnam where we broke our promise to defend an ally after withdrawing?

Dimocrat Answers:

  1. None - you're getting "hyper-technical" by asking these questions and we don't like you questioning our patriotism.
  2. Very - but we want casualties to provide an excuse for reneging on support later.
  3. We weren't told there was any math on this quiz
  4. You can't - but they're Iraqi civilians who can't vote for us.
  5. Because we conned people into electing us so we're experts on everything
  6. It isn't - we want Iraq to turn into Vietnam. What are a few million innocent lives compared to us regaining political power?

30 posted on 02/20/2006 6:52:32 AM PST by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

"Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal..."

We should call this the "French" gambit.


31 posted on 02/20/2006 6:52:47 AM PST by BadAndy (The DemocRATs are the enemy's most effective weapon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

"This meeting of the Neville Chamberlain Society will please come to order!"


32 posted on 02/20/2006 6:54:50 AM PST by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
This redeployment strategy came from Murtaugh this erstwhile war hero who now proclaimed that the U.S. military is broke and needs to get out now.
Shows what former heroes are uttering when leadership changes from military to the likes of Reid, Schumer, Turbin, Pelosi takes place.
33 posted on 02/20/2006 6:54:56 AM PST by hermgem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Which one of the Democrats is Commander-in Chief? My guess is the CIC will be making that decision.


34 posted on 02/20/2006 6:57:49 AM PST by jch10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

And the Boston Globe has decided on KY Jelly instead of Vaseline.


35 posted on 02/20/2006 6:58:07 AM PST by johnny7 (“Iuventus stultorum magister”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr

The Democrat plan is inspired by the English example of strategic redeployment from Dunkirk to Britain...the Brits did it to survive...the Dems think it will help them prosper.


36 posted on 02/20/2006 7:01:41 AM PST by dogcaller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

37 posted on 02/20/2006 7:02:12 AM PST by Doogle (USAF...8thAF...4077th TFW...408th MMS...Ubon Thailand..."69"..Night Line Delivery,AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Why should I believe that the 'Rats will agree on anything?? One of the hallmarks of the current litter of 'Rats is that they are a bunch of fringe groups united only in their hatred of Bush. they just got through trashing the only Veteran they had who was willing to run as a Rat, by accusing him of War Crimes!!

sheesh!


38 posted on 02/20/2006 7:04:05 AM PST by Bean Counter ("Stout Hearts!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

39 posted on 02/20/2006 7:04:48 AM PST by Doogle (USAF...8thAF...4077th TFW...408th MMS...Ubon Thailand..."69"..Night Line Delivery,AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; SoFloFreeper; jdm; G.Mason; Pox; paudio; claudiustg; All


40 posted on 02/20/2006 7:06:53 AM PST by Zacs Mom (Proud wife of a Marine! ... and purveyor of "rampant, unedited dialogue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
That would work too, although I still prefer the image of a pack of cowards running from the threat in full sprint boogie down the hillside. Showing them standing in place to erect a flag, even a white flag, is to credit them with more spine than they actually have.

The war is a losing issue for the democratic leadership no matter how it tries to approach it. Democrats desperately want the war (not just in Iraq, but against Islamic terror in general) on its way to being resolved before 2008 because they don't want to have to take responsibility for the war if, heaven forbid, they manage to take the White House in 2008. Like Butterfly McQueen in Gone with the Wind who didn't "know nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies," Hillary "don't know nothin' 'bout winnin' no war against terror."

What democrats hope to do is to force the Bush White House into at least starting the "strategic redeployment." That way, the democrats can claim that they are not surrendering. They are merely cleaning up the "disgraceful mess" that Bush made.

41 posted on 02/20/2006 7:07:55 AM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dogcaller

The difference is that once the Dems redeploy the troops , they will never be allowed to go into combat anywhere, despite any justification , and will serve the sole function of being targets for terrorist bombs, and subsequent Janet Reno FBI investigations of the "crimes".

Trusting the Democrats with our security is like trusting your gerbil [the Dems' pet of choice] to guard against snakes.


42 posted on 02/20/2006 7:15:06 AM PST by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

"WASHINGTON -- After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries."

Well, this is a really stupid thing to propose. But they seem to be coming up with a plethora of stupid ideas...


43 posted on 02/20/2006 7:15:22 AM PST by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative
"Why don't we retreat from Detroit? "

Most everyone but the welfare leeches already have...lol
44 posted on 02/20/2006 7:15:44 AM PST by Beagle8U (An "Earth First" kinda guy ( when we finish logging here, we'll start on the other planets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

It seems to me that this nation is no longer capable of waging war for any reason, good or bad.


45 posted on 02/20/2006 7:16:29 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
This is nothing new. I guess the Boston Globe is a few months behind on the "news".



Strategic Redeployment' vs. 'Out Now'
by Gilbert Achcar
and Stephen R. Shalom

November 29, 2005


snip


In October, Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis, writing for the Center for American Progress, a liberal organization headed by Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, issued a report calling for what they termed "strategic redeployment."



snip






http://tinyurl.com/gftu6


(Lawrence J. Korb and Brian Katulis, Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists, Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, October 2005.)


* The Shadow Party's leading policy organization and spin machine

* Run by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta

* Helped launch "Media Matters for America" - a media ethics watchdog group run by David Brock, who has publicly confessed to writing false, political hatchet jobs for pay

* Key players: Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Morton Halperin, Harold Ickes, John Podesta

Inside sources have described the Center for American Progress (CAP) as "the official Hillary Clinton think tank" - a platform designed to highlight Hillary's policies and to enhance her prestige as a potential presidential candidate.

On its Web site, CAP describes itself as, "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals."

CAP is one of the Seven Sister organizations forming the administrative core of the Democrat Shadow Party. The other Seven Sisters constituent groups are America Coming Together, America Votes, Joint Victory Campaign 2004, The Media Fund, Moveon, and The Thunder Road Group.

Among CAP's expert commentators are Eric Alterman - who claims expertise on the subjects of media and democracy - and Morton J. Halperin, who offers to speak on national security. For more, see the "American Progress experts directory."

46 posted on 02/20/2006 7:17:05 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

History

The Center for American Progress (CAP) was the brainchild of George Soros and Morton H. Halperin, the latter a veteran leftist critic of national security policies. Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation:

"The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor. … Halperin, who heads the office of Soros' Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders."

Soros and Halperin reportedly recruited Harold Ickes - chief fundraiser and former deputy chief of staff for the Clinton White House - to help organize the Center. It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress (CAP) on September 1, 2003.


snip


Regarding the new think tank proposed by Soros and Halperin, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, "We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party's values."

Expanding on this theme, Hillary later told The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss, "We've had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The center is a welcome effort to fill that void.



snip


Hillary Clinton tries to minimize the depth of her involvement with the Center for American Progress (CAP) - as indeed she does habitually in all matters connected with the Shadow Party. Beltway insiders are not fooled, however. Persistent press leaks confirm that Hillary calls the shots at CAP - not John Podesta.

"It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank," an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International.

Many ideological purists on the Left dismiss the Center as a platform for Hillary's presidential ambitions. And, of course, they are right.

As Robert Dreyfuss notes in The Nation, "In looking at Podesta's center, there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile - or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton."

Dreyfuss notes the abundance of Clintonites on the Center's staff, among them Clinton's national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; Democratic Leadership Council staffer and former head of Clinton's National Economic Council Gene Sperling; former senior advisor to Clinton's Office of Management and Budget Matt Miller; and so on. Dreyfuss writes:

"[T]he center's kickoff conference on national security in October [2003], co-organized with The American Prospect and the Century Foundation, looked like a Clinton reunion, featuring Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary; William Perry, his Defense Secretary; Sandy Berger, his National Security Adviser; Richard Holbrooke and Susan Rice, both Clinton-era Assistant Secretaries of State; Rodney Slater, his Transportation Secretary; and Carol Browner, his EPA administrator, who serves on the center's board of directors."

Naturally, Hillary Clinton also attended the event, Dreyfuss reports.


snip


On May 3, 2004, CAP helped launch David Brock's Media Matters for America - a 501(c)(03) public charity (EIN 47-0928008), better known for its Web site MediaMatters.org. Inasmuch as Media Matters claims to serve as a "watchdog" organization, monitoring "rightwing" media for ethics and accuracy, it is revealing that David Brock - a self-confessed liar who admits to having fabricated evidence while writing journalistic hatchet jobs for pay - has been appointed its President and CEO.

According to The New York Times - which announced Brock's grand opening with a 1,025-word feature on May 3, 2004 - Brock conferred with Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle and former Vice President Al Gore about Media Matters before embarking on the project.

"Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress," notes The Times, and CAP president John Podesta "introduced [Brock] to potential donors."

Brock reportedly received $2 million for the start-up. The New York Times states that his donors include Hillary friend Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the fashion company Esprit; former Global Crossing CEO Leo Hindery Jr.; and San Francisco philanthropist James C. Hormel - an enthusiastic promoter of the "gay lifetstyle" - whom Clinton appointed ambassador to Luxembourg in the 1990s.

Media Matters provides "rapid response" rebuttals to any and all conservative viewpoints which happen to find their way into mainstream media. In its short life, Media Matters has already acquired a reputation for virulent partisanship and reckless disregard for the truth.




http://tinyurl.com/h4zz7


47 posted on 02/20/2006 7:20:49 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
''It's important to note that it's not withdrawal -- it's redeployment," Reed said.

And where exactly do y'all plan to redeploy our troops? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Turkey? Iran? Israel?

To get out of Iraq and to try to avoid the political stigma of advoctating a cut-and-run policy (which is exactly what they're doing) the DemoRats been floating this idea of a "strategic redeployment" in neighboring countries for several months now. One of the guys I work with, who's a hard-core lefty, even suggested this to me as a viable policy during an intense debate we had last week. So its definitely sinking in among their rank and file left-wingers who know nothing about military operations and the real geo-political world.

My question here is (rhetorically, of course) has anyone of these DemoRat ignoramouses bothered to ask the aforesaid countries if they would even allow massive numbers of U.S. forces to be based on their terrotories? Israel would probably be most happy to have them, but I'm sure that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was because we absolutely had to get out of Saudi Arabia. I'm sure the Saudis do not want out roops back. What sheer stupidity!!!!!!!

48 posted on 02/20/2006 7:22:12 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx; Spiff; Da Jerdge; MJY1288; xzins; Calpernia; TEXOKIE; windchime; Grampa Dave; freekitty; ...
Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops



Democs Platform!

49 posted on 02/20/2006 7:22:44 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Wow! That is the most cogent summation of what they are proposing that I have seen yet. I'll make a point to use it when I'm arguing with the hard-core socialists I have to deal with on a daily basis, particularly the point about invading Iraq a second time.


50 posted on 02/20/2006 7:24:35 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson