This Just In:

Iraq Panel to Urge Pullout Of Combat Troops by ’08

By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 1, 2006; Page A01

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group plans to recommend withdrawing nearly all U.S. combat units from Iraq by early 2008 while leaving behind troops to train, advise and support the Iraqis, setting the first goal for a major drawdown of U.S. forces, sources familiar with the proposal said yesterday.

The commission plan would shift the U.S. mission in Iraq to a secondary role as the fragile Baghdad government and its security forces take the lead in fighting a Sunni insurgency and trying to halt sectarian violence. As part of major changes in the U.S. presence, sources said, the plan recommends embedding U.S. soldiers directly in Iraqi security units starting as early as next month to improve leadership and effectiveness. […]

Bradrocket adds: Never, ever, ever, ever gonna happen. Bush has constructed his entire foreign policy from watching Toby Keith’s Ford truck ads:

“Yeah!” you can hear G-Dubs saying while pumpin’ his fists at the ol’ teevee. “I ain’t got no boundaries! I don’t compromise! George W. Bush is Ford Tough!!!”

In other words, we can expect thousands more to die between now and 2008, with no hope of anything changing.


Comments: 29


Ummm, so we’re just going to be military advisers? Ummm…


Bush ain’t gonna go for that. His whole foreign policy is basically a Ford Truck commercial. No way he’s gonna back down.


The Roombaâ„¢ collective urges pulling out of Lee Hamilton’s brain so ‘bipartisan commisions’ like this no longer exist.


Bush’s up-armored truck is flying down an empty freeway. So…uh…we’re fucked.


What’s that? The long-demanded-by-popular-majority withdrawal will occur right in the midst of a heated prezitential campaign?

Who on earth could have predicted that?


Oops, spelling error. That should read “preznitenshul.” Sorry about that.


Hey! This is news! The msm hasn’t been reporting anything about this study group for the past month, so we had no idea how it would turn out! But, what would you expect from the guy who left the Iraqi’s to starve and die with Saddam the first time?


Not only is nothing going to change, these sandlot bullies are going to freak out with adults attempting to instill some kind of order via congressional oversight. I fear the situation will still get worse before it gets better. especially if pelosi n co can’t do enough to keep us out of iran.


But, what would you expect from the guy who left the Iraqi’s to starve and die with Saddam the first time?

since he’s a Republican, I expect from him the same as the rest. Lies, cheating, greed, self-interest, more lies.

Ben, I think you never answered my question before. Could it be you couldn’t?


The fact is that this leftist ISG group should be ignored, because they only offer Surrendercrat talking points, instead of real plans to win in Iraq.


He is the decider, right?

Let the bastard decide which disastrous option to take.

Then pin him down and vivesect him (politically speaking, ie, by Henry Waxman. You can stopp tapping my phone now.).


I would like to know why every time I go to a coffee shop someone is crying. Is there some subset of people that can’t help but be moved to tears by the shape their spilled caffinated-lactose drink? It makes bumming smokes off of them that much more awkward.


Mmm… vivesection…

… fake Gary? It didn’t seem… punchy enough to be the real one. Also, he didn’t blame Iraq on Pelosi OR Micheal Moore.


“this leftist ISG group…. only offer Surrendercrat talking points”

Uh….Gary? They’re Bush’s daddy’s buddies. And Bush appointed them.

In Gary’s World, Jim Baker is a lefty.


When do Jenna and not-Jenna go to Iraq to strike fear into the hearts of the baddies?

Why is Bush holding back on the secret weapon?!


The fact is that this leftist ISG group should be ignored, because they only offer Surrendercrat talking points, instead of real plans to win in Iraq.

Won’t it be funny if the Baker Boys come back with, “stay the course?”

Then Gary will say:
The fact is, the ISG has made the right choice and the defeatocrats have no plan and Micheal Moore is, in fact, fat.


It makes bumming smokes off of them that much more awkward.

You don’t get to be a millionaire by spending your own money on cigarettes…


“I would like to know why ever”y time I go to a coffee shop someone is crying.”

Stop parking in the play area.


Toby Keith is a pussy-ass, needle-dick bitch. I’d like to cram his stupid cowboy hat straight up his dumb redneck ass.

Just how bad can things get in Iraq? You have to wonder. “Stay the course” is going to look uglier and uglier by the month. If the ReThugs want to win in 2008, they better start thinking about getting the fuck out NOW and washing their hands of the whole mess. Another two years of dawdling around and they are FUCKED. They might even end up in the dustbin of history.


But Toby said “It’s the American way” so how can we argue?
I mean, it’s American….
And it’s the way….
So, you know….


Ummm, so we’re just going to be military advisers? Ummm…

“Okay, maybe the original Vietnam scenarios didn’t come out so good, so this time we’ll play them… backwards!!!1!!”

Kind of interesting watching Brian Williams interview Condi. He would ask something like, “So, will American troops still be in Vietniraq when Bush leaves office?” And Condi’s giant teeth would chop out diplomatic expressions concerning ‘the will of the Iraqi people’ and ‘as long as we are needed’ while her head swung left-right-left-right-left-right. Words: we’re staying; body language: we’re going…

I was hoping Williams would ask something like “Is your ‘office husband’ hitting the bottle again?” just to see if Rice started nodding while The Teeth denied everything.


Baker knows there’s something else scheduled in 2008. Bush is aware that his dideys are squishy and smelly, but can’t remember what that means.


[…] Steve Gilliard’s graphic and Gavin’s video provide all the added commentary you need. […]


An ’08 pullout is the same as stay the course, but with a date – a date that doesn’t necessarily have to become a reality. It is “stay the course� with a maybe.

The strategy might be to force Iraq’s current leadership to get off of their butts and do something, as if they have the same defensive capabilities that they had prior to the war. The plan seems to assure that Iraq will be a sitting duck for Iran, Israel or any other nation in the region that has its eye on the prize of a greatly weakened Iraq with its infrastructure mostly destroyed.

Is this supposed to give false hope to the Iraqi insurgency to reduce the violence temporarily? What is going to happen in one year that will be better than it is now?

What fantasy is the Iraq Study Group hoping to foster with this so-called plan? This plan is early Vietnam when the American military presence was in the role of advisors. Is the purpose of this “stay the course� plan with “a date maybe� over one year from now to stall to give some terrorists enough time to take another crack at the U.S.?

How is the U.S. supposed to turn over responsibility to the Iraqis when many of the Iraqi police and military are part of the insurgency? Ally by day, insurgency by night is what reports from Iraq have been telling us. Who is this “plan� supposed to fool? Is it supposed to fool us, them or both?

Since the goal of the ruling oligarchy remains endless war with little shit countries that can only exact a small amount of damage on the U.S. while raising animosity among other poor nations and paranoia among a few large nations, the little nations must be wondering, “I wonder which of us is next?� The answer is whichever nation has the most valuable resource that the U.S. needs.

The U.S. is repeating earlier Vietnam policy which was to install a puppet regime that caters to U.S. interests that the people will hate, and then we’ll dump it on Iraq’s lap to control the not civil war, but rebellion. This means that the U.S. will have to pump up the military in Iraq enough to fight the rebellion which will require another Iraqi strongman and we’ll be back to where we were in 2002, but with more enemies. I just love the ruling oligarchy, because they are such murderous idiots, don’t you?


I wonder- would sending the Army and Marines across the Iranian border count as withdrawal from Iraq?

They’ve been pushing for an Iran attack for some time. And, they have been pressing hard on the “Iran is supplying the terrists in Iraq!” meme pretty hard lately, judging from the trollbots here and elsewhere. And, nothing says, “Vote Republican!” like a fresh helping of stupid war. And, the ISG is hinting at getting out of Iraq right smack in the middle of a presidential election. If Iran is considered to be the big state sponsor of the insurgency, AND this phony nuke story gets even wider, an invasion (not just airstrikes) would be sold as the next logical step, the only way to “victory” in Iraq is to attack Iran…

Well, it’s a good thing that the most influential neocons, the ones the preznit actually listens to, are not calling for any such stupidity as that.

Nobody would be so stupid as to recommend expanding the Iraq war as the means to end it, right?
That question forces us to devise a strategy to deal with multiple enemies instead of limiting our strategic thinking to the Iraqi insurgency alone. It forces us to confront the terror masters in Tehran and Syria as well as the killers in Iraq. If we ask how to win in Iraq alone, we are led into a fool’s errand of trying to convince our sworn enemies–Iran has been at war with us for twenty-seven years—to act like friends.



“Iran has been at war with us for twenty-seven years”

Because we NEVER overthrew any democratic government in Iran, and NEVER installed any dictator called the Shah, and NEVER help train his secret police the Savak (who tortured and murdered thousands of people)…oh, and NEVER shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft with 127 people on board.

…I’m sorry, what were we talking about again?


Oops, my bad…that should be 290 people.


(comments are closed)