Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow in Iraq

[unhappycamper]

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow in Iraq <<-- LTTEs here


UHC note: These are today's LTTE. The backstory: Warmonger Jeff Jacoby put out a column on July 18 about why we can't leave Iraq.

The consequences of quitting Iraq
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 18, 2007

LOUDER, more insistently, the drums are beating for an American retreat from Iraq.

No longer is declaring the war unwinnable and leaving Iraqis to sort out their own problems a prescription taken seriously only on the antiwar fringe. Back in November 2005, when Representative John Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal of US troops was put to a vote, the House voted it down by a nearly unanimous 403-3. Last week, a House bill mandating a departure from Iraq by next April was approved, 223-201. There may not be -- yet -- a veto-proof majority for pulling the plug, but it is clear where the momentum lies.

The end-the-war bandwagon is rolling in the Senate, too. Some prominent Republicans have climbed aboard, joining Democrats who have been denouncing the war for many months. "We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely," Pete Domenici of New Mexico said on July 5, as he called for "a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home." George Voinovich of Ohio has urged President Bush to give up on the surge and adopt "Plan E for Exit" instead.

The media echo chamber, meanwhile, reverberates with defeatism on Iraq and disdain for the president. Rapt attention is devoted to the Republican wobbling; much less to the heartening dividends being returned by General David Petraeus's surge. "If not now, when?" Matt Lauer recently demanded on NBC's "Today" show. "The White House says it's not considering pulling US troops out of Iraq right now but with sinking approval ratings and defections from his own party, is it just a matter of time before the president changes course? . . . How long can the president ignore calls to bring the troops home?"

But for all the clamor to quit Iraq, there is little serious discussion of just what quitting will mean.

more

Jacoby gets some interesting comments.

[Chipper Chat]

1. Nothing much will happen until January 2009.

Barring another 911, Bush and Darth will lumber to the finish line with their stubborn policy intact. No more senate repubs will cross the line (count 'em: McConnell, Sessions, Kyl, Infoof, Burr, Liddy, Kay Bailey, Cornyn, etc: ALL CHICKENHAWK BUSHLICKERS). But the good news is I predict a veto-proof DEM senate elected in 2008. On their first day in office, an executive order by Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or Gore could end the war and bring the troops home. In the interim 17 months it will be more of the same status quo vadis. Sad.

[Jim__]

2. Jeff Jacoby is supposed to be a reporter, but he can't get the simplest facts right

For instance, he claims: Back in November 2005, when Representative John Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal of US troops was put to a vote, the House voted it down by a nearly unanimous 403-3.

However, Murtha's call for a phased withdrawal never even came up to a vote in 2005. Jacoby is, as usual, quite confused. From a story printed at that time:

The US House of Representatives was thrown into an uproar Friday when the Republican majority forced a vote on a sham resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.

...

In the end, the Republican measure calling for “immediate withdrawal” was voted down by an overwhelming margin, with 403 voting against and just 3 Democrats voting “yes.” Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi had urged Democratic congressmen to vote against the measure.

The resolution that was voted down 403 - 3 in 2005 was a Republican resolution. Since Jacoby can't keep the simplest facts straight, his opinion is absolutely useless.

[KG]

3. the usual blather. the US bombs crowded urban areas and kills thousands

of civilians, and destroys the infrastucture so the survivors have to live in misery, detain and torture indiscriminately, but it's always the other side that are the 'barbarians'. :eyes:

[buddhamama]

4. the thread title caught me- Huxley is appropriate.

it is one of my all time favorite books.