McCain: Out Of Iraq? When The American People Say So

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 03:52:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

John McCain is just losing it:

He said that if the Bush administration’s plan had not produced visible signs of progress by the time a McCain presidency began, he might be forced — if only by the will of public opinion — to end American involvement in Iraq. “I do believe that history shows us Americans will not continue to support an overseas engagement involving the loss of American lives for an unlimited period of time unless they see some success,” he added. “And then, when they run out of patience, they will demand that we get out.”

But the American People HAVE said it. They said it in 2006. They say it in every poll.

The Reid-Feingold bill is the proposal the American People support. By a wide margin. Heck, it even gives Bush and McCain a year to see if their ridiculous "strategy" can work. There is no reason why the Congress, and every Democrat in particular, should not embrace the Reid-Feingold proposal. Especially Democratic Presidential candidates. Why is Chris Dodd the only one supporting Reid-Feingold?

< 67% Support Not Funding the Iraq Debacle Past 2008: Reid-Feingold Anyone? | Pot Guru Ed Rosenthal To Be Retried Even Though Jail Off the Table >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain: Out Of Iraq? When The American People Say So | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Follow the money (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Lora on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:21:50 PM EST

All those gazillions of dollars spent on Iraq haven't disappeared into a black hole. They have ended up in various pockets. Cut off funding and those pockets won't get any plumper.

trouble with this blog (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Miss Devore on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:35:09 PM EST

the immediate grat thang. no responses to late posters on a thread. which means one must dedicate to always being around for a fresh post. bring the fans on!

leads to trivialization, imo.

another mickey mouse club. annette and tommy in the wings.

: I too enjoy the give and take on new... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by cal11 voter on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:35:16 PM EST

comments. I'm relatively new to this community, and I hope it continues to grow.

: When I see you I respond (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:51:43 PM EST

Is there something in particular you want to bring to my attention?

a present (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by irishkorean on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:32:02 PM EST

for your posts

: Recommended with a 5. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by cal11 voter on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:39:03 PM EST

America at a Crossroads-- (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:16:49 PM EST

Jihad: The Men and Ideas Behind Al Qaeda. This PBS series is reviewed in today's NY Times.
Review concludes with this:

One of the most chilling themes in 'Jihad' is that Al Qaeda, which fell to pieces after Americans routed the Taliban in Afghanistan, is back in business and bigger than ever as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Michael Scheuer, a former head of the bin Laden tracking unit of the Central Intelligence Agency, puts it this way: 'The unexpected gift of the invasion of Iraq has really been more than bin Laden ever dreamed was poaaible.'

According to our resident expert on all things (none / 0) (#4)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:36:03 PM EST

military, JimakaPPJ,

you have no concept of the strategy involved, and how the "cost-benefit" ratio is employed. You think that we should have fought a bloody war with lots of US soldiers killed because we could not use our technical advantages. All to gain control of a country (Afghanistan) that has no real strategic value. Thank God Bush thought otherwise.

I just report, you decide.

Molly B (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:49:02 PM EST

Thank you for replaying my most excellent and correct report.

You failed to mention where I said that the Left, in general, is only happy when we fight a war of no benefit to the US.

You also failed to mention my point that we left knowing that we can come back anytime and do the job again with very small loss of life because we can again use our tremendous technology advantages, instead of fighting a high mountain war where we would be at a disadvantge.

Sorry you can't figure out the value of "advantages" versus "disadvantages."


: Suh-prahz, suh-praz, Sergeant Carter (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:45:32 PM EST

I said that the Left, in general, is only happy when we fight a war of no benefit to the US.
So none of my friends is a member of "the left," but everyone in the administration is.
Coulda foooled me.
Does this mean you do not support the "leftist" invasion of Iraq?

: Benefits (none / 0) (#15)
by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 08:55:44 PM EST

the Left, in general, is only happy when we fight a war of no benefit to the US
What about the benefits of NOT fighting wars?
The Right (since we're carelessly generalizing here) seems to want to fight wars that have short-term payoffs but long-term make the rest of the world hostile to the U.S. There is benefit in not having the rest of the world hate you - a factor the Right only takes into account by getting increasingly paranoid.
As to those apparently benefit-less wars, as a member of the Left, I'd support "wars" that put troops between factions that are slaughtering each other and that thereby decrease the total amount of bloodshed in the world. Having stable, prosperous, non-conflict-ridden societies around the world is I'd say of inestimable benefit to the U.S. Do you disagree?
Republicans always seem to want to draw the boundaries of benefit and loss too narrowly and thereby end up shooting themselves (and all of us by default) in the foot. It may be a frightening thought to you, but we have to live in a world where people have values and goals that aren't always the same as Americans'. It can be of benefit to understand what these are and try to find ways to work together for mutual benefit. The only alternative is kill them all and let god sort them out. Is that what you think is the better course of action?

Traitorous rabble-rousing (none / 0) (#3)
by scarshapedstar on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:33:24 PM EST

Doesn't he know the only one who Decides when the war ends is The Decider?

Poll Driven? (none / 0) (#6)
by jarober on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 05:19:33 PM EST

Shall we decide all things via poll then? I wonder how the civil rights movement would have fared under that sort of theory.

: Take it up with McCain (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:52:46 PM EST

I opposed the Iraq Debacle from the word go, when all the polls supported it.

: No (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:11:31 PM EST

Shall we decide all things via poll then? I wonder how the civil rights movement would have fared under that sort of theory.
I wasn't aware that the Civil Rights movement was costing the taxpayers a billion dollars every three or four days.
Do the taxpayers have any right to object to the theft from the treasury of billions of dollars with no accountability? Do the taxpayers have any right to object to billions of dollars being wasted on the basis of lies?
No, we should just shut up and let Halliburton steal our money, let Bush send our friends and children to their deaths, and pay no attention to the corruption driving all this.
Sorry. I can't go along with that. Why do you hate Amerioca so much?
I'm an Army vet. What's the most important personal secrifice you have made in the name of patriotism? What is the "goal" of this war, and by what measure will we recognize "victory?" What was the "exit strategy?"
You seem to be in disagreement with the Bush administration and its allies, who said this:
"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

Laughable (none / 0) (#7)
by jarober on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 05:25:45 PM EST

"The Reid-Feingold bill is the proposal the American People support. By a wide margin. Heck, it even gives Bush and McCain a year to see if their ridiculous "strategy" can work."

So let's apply that to criminal law. The police announce: "We're going to really crack down on gangs for the next 12 months. After that, we'll just leave the area".

Now, you tell me: What will the lay of the land be, gang-wise, 14 months out?

: The world's policemen? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:52:13 PM EST

Hey now!

: Worst comparsion I've seen in awhile (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:35:15 PM EST

Apples and oranges. The police are on their own territory. As a general proposition, citizens want gangsterism stopped.
In Iraq, we are not on our own territory (see British 17761781; US 1965-1975). While it is probably true Iraqi's don't want terrorists on their soil, they also don't want the US occupying their country either for some reason or another (that is a snark)

Not an answer (none / 0) (#16)
by jarober on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:13:20 PM EST

"Apples and oranges. The police are on their own territory. As a general proposition, citizens want gangsterism stopped."

Sorry, that's not an answer to my question. Not to mention that it's not always true: witness various riots in various cities, especially the ones in France in late 2005.

: The question isn't relevant (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 11:04:39 PM EST

and therefore needs no answer other than to point out your comparsion is invalid.

that was because (none / 0) (#21)
by cpinva on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 03:53:05 AM EST

I opposed the Iraq Debacle from the word go, when all the polls supported it.

we were lied to. go figure.

whew jarober! you've reached jim level, in inane comparisons. it's so self-evidentally nonsensical, it stands on its own, needing no comment to highlight its glaring stupidity.

hmm (none / 0) (#22)
by jarober on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:59:56 AM EST

I believe "needs no answer" translates to "I can't answer that". Here's my point:

In some cities in the US and Europe, we already know what the impact is of reducing police presence in a given area - it results in a lawless zone where criminal gangs set up their own rules. France has lots of those zones in and around its cities, for instance. Why do you persist in believing that things will improve in Iraq if we leave? What past event shows that withdrawing the main source of power from a troubled region made things better?

Jarober (none / 0) (#23)
by Claw on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:22:22 AM EST

Here's why your Iraq-gang comparison makes no sense: we have a police force (and always will) to combat crime. That is its purpose. The purpose of the armed forces is not to foolishly occupy other countries to the detriment of our people. Also, you can't apply public outrage over a terrible war to criminal law (and to your credit, you did not do so. You merely compared it to police conduct...which also doesn't work). If anyone on the left has ever, ever, ever advocated removing a police force from an entire city please let me know.

Avoidance (none / 0) (#24)
by jarober on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:12:48 PM EST

You're still avoiding the real problem. If the left gets its way, and we leave - then Iraq will descend into madness - and no, it's not there now. What's there now is bad. What will happen if we leave will be madness.