Meehan pullout plan comes under attack

[Cocoa]

The spin in this story is pathetic even for the Boston Herald.

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=65309

Meehan pullout plan comes under attack

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan's plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year met with immediate criticism yesterday from a leading conservative as capitulation to insurgents.

The Lowell Democrat's proposal calls for President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to announce a timetable for drawing down U.S. forces, with most leaving by the end of this year. By mid-2006, only a force of about 30,000 troops would remain to help train Iraqi troops and prevent civil war.

Meehan, who recently returned from a trip to Iraq, said the insurgency is fueled by the perception of the American military as an occupying force. ``The United States presence has become inherently destabilizing,'' Meehan said in a speech unveiling his plan at the Brookings Institution.

But William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, told the crowd that announcing a timeline ``will be interpreted as a loss of nerve'' by Americans and would send a ``terrible signal'' that the insurgents drove out the United States.

More…

[cthrumatrix]

1. MIlitary Industrial Complex is not done reaping the spoils of war

then they use the corp media against anyone speaking out.

[atreides1]

2. Yes, Mr. Kristol

We all have heard of his courageous exlpoits when he went to Vietnam, and attempted to bring an end to the Communist threat!!!

NOT!!!!!

I guess as one of the neo-con cowards, old Bill would know all about "loss of nerve".

[Cocoa]

3. "Why we(sic) fight"

another neocon Bill encourages steadfastness...

[salin]

11. how does "take the money from lectures on morality to lose millions

on gambling" man get away with using the term "Moral Clarity" without being laughed out of the publishing house?

[Cocoa]

17. he also can't say "moral relativism" anymore

maybe that's why we're not hearing much from Bill these days.

[salin]

22. but I bet there are some foolish groups

who still ante up big bucks to pay him speaking fees. And some casino or gambling buddies who are glad that is the case...

[Ripley]

4. Obfuscation.

Bill knows damn well it has nothing to do with capitulation. We are there building permanent bases to secure our fat share of oil in the entire region when oil prices soar out of control and the many more oil wars begin. They have no intention of leaving.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. What is the neo-con's threshold number for dead soldiers?

There must be a number out there to represent the dead American soldiers that these neo-cons think they can get away with before even right-wingers turn on them. What number do you think that will be? For Vietnam, it went up beyond 50,000 dead soldier before anyone thought to withdraw. We have 1417 dead today, and soon they'll be asking for 40,000 more.

[Cocoa]

6. there actually is a number out there

some report, maybe from the Rand Institute, calculating politically acceptable losses for various potential involvements.

Iraq as I recall was in the tens of thousands, and I also recall a lower tolerance for costs from engagements in Africa.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Didn't one of the Pats come out (Buchanan or Roberts) and say

that Bush said no one would die? That obviously was a lie. Are you saying that the Rand Institute will allow it to go over 10,000 for a wrong war!!

[Cocoa]

9. actually it was the Triangle Institute

the one I was thinking about was the Triangle Institute, but I'm sure Rand has done these too.

And I forgot the most interesting aspect of the study, the gap between the public and the elites...

http://www.endthewar.org/features/thirtythousand.htm


<snip>

A) To stabilize a democratic government in Congo__________.*

B) To prevent Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction__________.

C) To defend Taiwan against invasion by China__________.

Military Mission: Congo
Military Elite: 284
Civilian Elite: 484
Mass Public: 6,861

Military Mission: Iraq
Military Elite: 6,016
Civilian Elite: 19,045
Mass Public: 29,853

Military Mission: Taiwan
Military Elite: 17,425
Civilian Elite: 17,554
Mass Public: 20,172

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Iraq is off by 70,000 civilians!

[Cocoa]

16. if this was about foreigners

military or civilian, the number of tolerable casualties would be virtually infinite.

In Iraq's case, there would always be "it's still better than Saddam!" to fall back on.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Well, what is the number of Saddam's civilian casualties? I'm

sure once we hit it, that argument will fold.

[Cocoa]

21. that's the beauty of it

the number of Saddam victims is flexible. Just take our current death toll and add 200,000. Who's going to know? just find some more mass graves.

[Ripley]

7. I think it has to be at least the Vietnam number.

Because that is the rebuttal I hear from people when I mention the number of soldiers dead in Iraq. They always say, that's nothing compared to 58,000 in Vietnam, or sometimes they go on to say "hell, that many died on D-Day."

That's when I change the topic of conversation to the weather. :eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Do you think the Vietnam number will hold now that we know that

Iraq is Bush's Folly?

[Ripley]

14. Honestly, I think Americans will be ready to quit Iraq when the

dollar amount gets too high. I think they care more about how it will affect them personally, financially than the loss of lives. Maybe I'm too cynical. :shrug:

[salin]

15. Before the war I read an article stating that a study had been conducted

to estimate the populations "tolerance" level of us troop casualties ... and it was something atrocious like 35,000.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. I think that number is way overestimated for this reason:

(1) The relatives of the military in Iraq are screaming and protesting much sooner than Vietnam.

(2) Republicans stand to lose elections in 2006 over this if they don't have an exit plan in place soon.

[Cocoa]

23. but on the other hand...

it was done before 9/11. That will make a big difference.

But on the other hand again, it was done before the WMD lie was exposed (and WMD is in the survey question).

[salin]

24. I agree - and agreed when I read it

in the context that it was being used in the decision making process by some of the neocons in their early justifications for pushing for this war. But while seemingly ridiculous of a number... it was frightening that they would consider using it (if, indeed, they did) and would explain the rather cavalier response early on to the escalating rate of US casualties ("Bring it On.." as just one example).

I think they will continue to miscalculate the speed with which these policies will have the potential to take down not just the administration - but the party... especially given the arrogance of rove/bush/cheney in pushing all sorts of policies that are damaging and hit home to so many people in their ongoing grabs for purse and power.

I don't think that it is just Iraq that will do it - but unless the congressional repubs can put curbs on the arrogant insanity emanating from the white house... they are likely to pay a great price in the ballot box in the years to come.

[VegasWolf]

10. These neo conservatives like Kristol and his dad ought to do some

fighting themselves and then see if they still have a taste for
it. It is pretty easy to conduct war from a warm library with
a snifter of brandy.

[Davis_X_Machina]

18. He should have checked with Howard Dean.

The unforgivable sin in American politics is not being wrong, it's being right too soon.

[heidler1]

25. I wonder when they will use "Peace is at hand." like Nixon?