Posted on 05/10/2007 10:41:29 PM PDT by Anita1
A group of Republican lawmakers warned President George W. Bush this week at a private White House meeting that conditions in Iraq must improve quickly or he will lose more support from his own party, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
Eleven moderate House Republicans were unusually candid with Bush in a meeting that lasted more than an hour, telling him public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts, the Times said, sighting participants in the Tuesday session.
NBC Nightly News quoted an unnamed participant in the meeting as saying that they had an "unvarnished conversation" with Bush about the war.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The White House declined comment on the discussions.
"I'm not going to comment on what the president may or may not have said in a meeting with members. He meets regularly with members of Congress and asks for their unvarnished opinions and frank advice," said spokesman Tony Fratto.
The session in the residential section of the White House demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans feel about the war, even as they continue to stand with Bush against Democratic efforts to force a troop withdrawal through a funding measure, The New York Times said.
"It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war," said Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the meeting. "It was a no-holds-barred meeting."
Lawmakers said that Bush and others at the meeting, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, political adviser Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, appeared to appreciate the political reality facing Republicans who will be on the ballot next year, the newspaper said.
Dent, who helped arrange the meeting, told the Times the lawmakers wanted to convey the frustration and impatience with the war they are hearing from voters.
"We had a very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq," he said.
Even so, the Republicans who attended the meeting indicated that they would stand with Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for financing the war.
People need to find out the names of those moderate (turncoats) who are so nervous!
Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.
Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
I totaly agree with you:
“Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule.”
The Iraqis - whether Sunnies or Shiites are gangsters - They are hoodlums in gangs just like the gangs we have here in the states.
It’s all about territories!
That is why they cannot get a handle on them fighting a traditional war!
The military need to consult with former gang members to understand what can bring those hoods down!
I wonder how many of these so called 'republicans" campaigned using the line "sometimes doing what needs to be done isn't the most popular decision, but I don't care what the polls say, I'm the man to get the job done"
They can blame their crumbling support on their decision to chase after skewed polls, instead of doing what needs to be done.
Perhaps they should think about what being a RINO does to their support.
PLEASE CALL THE CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD — 202-225-3121 -— AND ask for the offices of Reps. Charles Dent and Mark Kirk. They need to be reminded that the national security of this nation comes before protecting their shameful political careers.
No disrespect but did you say that with a straight face?
well said!
Plus, I don’t think I would want to be the government responsible for pulling out of Iraq, and the bloodshed that followed that action.
Let the Democrats do that, and be charged with war crimes and all the other Geneva convention rules of war BS, which only America has to follow. I’m pretty sure that these “rules” state that you have to leave behind a stable government, not just go in smash the place, turn around and leave. (only Russia, and other commie countries can do that, as well as Mohammadan crusaders. They don’t really leave however, they stay and make sure it’s reduced to misery and run by the Mullah mafia’s dictators like all Islamic countries
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.
To: AmericanVictory
I agree. It’s setting the bait for Iran to take if they so decide. Here are 2 of my posts on prior threads that propose one approach to the issue.
Kurds drift toward autonomy, away from Iraq’s daily violence
Posted by Kevin OMalley to Camerican
On News/Activism 01/03/2005 1:51:59 PM PST · 7 of 7
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
Armed Kurds fomenting unrest in Iran pose security threat to Tehran
Posted by Kevin OMalley to F14 Pilot
On News/Activism 08/29/2005 4:18:19 PM PDT · 16 of 17
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend”.
20 posted on 01/19/2007 6:29:42 PM PST by Kevmo (Darn, if only I had signed up 4 days earlier, I’d have a 3-digit Freeper #)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
It’s oil prices stupid! That is what is killing President Bush. The war is way off in another country in the minds of the average Joe. The gas pump is staring him in the face everyday, along with everything else going up in price because of the cost of energy.
Yes - I was kidding! Sorry I forgot to put in (sarc)!
That's like saying I think the Pope is Catholic!
Sometimes I do the same. Goodnight.
That is the dumbest thing to do. An independant Kurdistan will bring Turkey into the war, on Iran's side. They are already massed at the border waiting for something like that to happen. They would swoop down and take the whole northern state, and don't think those northern oilfields aren't a powerfull motivator as well.
The best the Kurds can ever hope for is a Kurdish state within Iraq, nothing more, nothing less, and that is what has taken place now.
The Turks and the Iranians, working together, keep a carefull watch on the Kurds. Any Kurd action near the border is quickly claimed by the Turks and Iranians as attempts to expand a Kurdish state, or supporting Kurd rebellion within their borders.
Considering that we have armed the Turks to the teeth with our equipment, (why I'll never know) despite the fact that from before end of ww1, and after signing a treaty to end such actions, they continued on with their Christian persecutions up until around 1935 or so, exterminating an estimated 124 million Christians. Although it was known what was going on, it was ignored by both the government and the media, the "league of nations, etc.
So sure, if you want to kick off the final war, lets create a Kurdistan. That aught to get the ball rolling.
Rep. Mark Kirk is a true RINO. His district is the north shore
which is the Volvo driving
typically upper crust liberal.( American made autos need not apply)
These are the soccer moms who appear as Oprah’s audience.
Lower your expectations.
Don’t expect a change in heart from this guy. I doubt that he has any ..... left.
People need to understand what they commit themselves to when they invade a country. 90% of the electorate supported the invasion. Y’all now have a MORAL OBLIGATION to do whatever takes for as long as it takes to create a stable, secure goverment in Iraq before you can pick up your dead bodies and go home.
Even if means RAISING TAXES FOR SEVEN GENERATIONS ..
Even if it means instituting a draft and putting ONE MILLION TROOPS in Iraq and keeping them there for 50 YEARS ...
Even if it means SACRIFICING OUR SECURITY in order to ensure theirs ...
You have a MORAL OBLITATION TO DO IT.
It’s like getting your girlfriend pregnant because the condom broke. Abortion isn’t an option. You’ve got a moral obligation to have that child and sacrifice everything you have and every thing you always hoped for if that’s what it takes to care out your moral responsibilities. There’s no “but it costs too much and it’s been 5 years already”. There’s no “but the child was born with birth defects and we’ll be living in poverty until we die just to pay the medical bills.” You have a moral obligation to do it.
Right?
Then why don't these 11 RINOs grow a pair of BALLS and go back to their districts and educate their constituents about what is happening in Iraq?!??
I mean for GOD'S SAKE, you'd think these Congresscritters were little puppy dogs led around by the neck of a leash! I thought they were supposed to be LEADERS in their communities, helping people understand what is accurate in the LameStream Media and what isn't.
And if ONE thing is wrong about the LSM these days it is the impression that America is getting beaten militarily in Iraq!
YOU WERE ELECTED TO LEAD PEOPLE, YOU DOLTS!! DO IT!
What a bunch of pansies.
“Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.”
You have an extremely good pulse on Iraq IMO. I believe there has always been and still is the desire to continue compartmentalizing (fractioning) Iraq, likely into thirds. It was no accident that we marched in there with “Kurdistan” already “with us”, I don’t believe.
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.