It's now printed in the NYTs... front page. "U.S. Envoy Offer Grim Prediction on Iraq Pullout". Therefore it *must* be true for liberals, progressives, anti-war advocates and the election campaign, poll driven Congres, right? Is the NYTs not their god of truth?
Adding his voice to Zebari's (the Iraqi FM - see below post), Ryan Crocker (US Envoy to Iraq) also made his opinion clear - that despite the violence we see in Iraq today, and the admission of more loss if life by staying, the alternative of implementing the Congressional cut and run policy would be far worse.
In the interview, Mr. Crocker said he based his warning about what might happen if American troops left on the realities he has seen in the four months since he took up the Baghdad post, a knowledge of Iraq and its violent history dating back to a previous Baghdad posting more than 25 years ago, and lessons learned during an assignment in Beirut in the early 1980s. Then, he said, a “failure of imagination” made it impossible to foresee the extreme violence that enveloped Lebanon as it descended into civil war. He
added, “And I’m sure what will happen here exceeds my imagination.”
On the potential for worsening violence after an American withdrawal from Iraq, he said: “You have to look at what the consequences would be, and you look at those who say we could have bases elsewhere in the country. Well yes, we could, but we would have the prospect of American forces looking on while civilians by the thousands were slaughtered. Not a pretty prospect.”
And did this beacon of truth deter Harry Reid? Of course not...
Although Senator Warner said he was inclined to heed the president’s request to delay a vote, the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, of Nevada, said Monday afternoon that he would not wait. Indeed, hours later, the Senate began debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, the main military spending bill for the next budget year — and a vehicle for trying to force the administration to change its policy.
The bill calls for the military to balance the amount of time American troops spend overseas and on American soil, a measure that would limit troop deployments to Iraq.
Like their Dem Congressional peers in Vietnam history (of which far too many of those are STILL around in Congress....), they too will have blood on their hands for the aftermath they cause merely to appease poll numbers in a pre-election run up. Poll numbers that, BTW, reflect opinions formed after reading nothing but "failure" media reports for years. Of COURSE everyone thinks we're losing and it can't be won. That's all we've heard from these bozos for years.
Bush should stand with Australia and be firm on not leaving. If the Dems wish to inflict the afermath bloodshed on the Iraqis who've given their all to form a freely elected gov't and their own form of democracy, then it should happen under their watch and under their CIC. This President has not been bullied into change of course for political popularity yet.
And I hope he doesn't start now. I don't care if the GOP is ripped to shreds. Frankly, they ought to be. They are a poor alternative to the unthinkable progressives anyway.