"As President Bush's plan has stated all along, the US troops will stand down as Iraqis stand up..."-MN

Yup. IIRC, the recent "Operation Forward Together" involved about 50,000 Iraqi troops taking the lead and just 7,000 US troops in a massive sweep through Baghdad looking for terrorists and other bad guys. President Bush's plan is working.

Freedom, just wait axis (of evil LOL) TEO etc. will fight to deny that Bush's plan is working. And as arogant as TEO is, we will hear pathetic name calling, what a fool! TEO thinks TEO is right on EVERY point and we are a bunch of dolts. HA!

Secret New Democratic Plan Since the victory and troop reductions are coming soon, we need to be seen as the leader of the process and be ahead of the Republicans (for once).

We desperately need to get credit for leading the troops home (since it was our idea first) in a victory parade with Kerry and Murtha as grand marshals.

Bush can come along behind and sweep up after the parade, since he didn't seem to be of much help in this entire process, and "everybody knows he ain't as smart as us democraps".

I don't care who was right or who was wrong about it; I'm just happy that some of our troops are coming home.

Found a picture of the democrats in front of the republican plan, they do not look very happy.

KttR,

I don't claim to know everything, but in comparison to most of the stupid comments, and false assertions you guys hold as truths, it may look that way.

I would love to discuss what you claim I am wrong about, i'll be happy to present to facts, with quotes to back them up.

DL: You're so right on your first post. LOL!! What a couple of sourpusses. Must be failing in the foot rubbin' department.

According to the London Times, it's not just the Dems that are in favor of a timed withdrawal of coalition troops, it's the Iraqi government too:

"The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

It will pledge to take action against Shia militias and death squads. It will also offer to review the process of “de-Baathification” and financial compensation for the thousands of Sunnis who were purged from senior jobs in the Armed Forces and Civil Service after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"The deal, which has been seen by The Times, aims to divide Iraqi insurgents from foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda. It builds on months of secret talks involving Jalal al-Talabani, the Iraqi President, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, and seven Sunni insurgent groups."

In fact, it sounds like the official Iraqi plan contains just about everything the Dems have been whining about for the last three years. So it seems to me that if the Dems had any freakin' sense, they'd get behind the Iraqi government and stop taking pointless pot-shots at Bush. But will they do it? I doubt it. Perhaps it's just not anti-Bush enough.

Either way, I have to say that this is as detailed an "exit strategy" as I've heard from any source -- ever. And as the article points out, something like this has to happen. Quoting a senior US official on the political ramifications of granting amnesty to insurgents, “This is what we did after the Second World War, after the Civil War, after the War of Independence. It may be unpalatable and unsavoury but it is how wars end.”

Kimberly,

I never fail at my footrubbin' duties. I can't, I know she isn't sticking around for the sex. LOL

by the way, im not a sourpuss, im a curmudgeon

TEO, even if our assertions are allegedly false your attitude still stinks of arrogance. You are neither going to gain respect, if you even care about that from us, nor will we listen to what you have to say when you hurl insulting names at us. I have come to see your posts as asinine jokes. How do you know for ABSOLUTE certainty if your assertions are always true and ours always false? That’s where the arrogance comes in. Thee truth may be in between what we assert and what you assert, or we may be right and you’re wrong. If and when we are wrong I hope we can admit it, and admit it here on this blog. If you continue to be such an arrogant a## about your assertions and ours, you’ll end up posting to the wind. We will ignore your posts, and your posts will be a waste of your time. At this time I see you as a fool and I don’t debate or discuss anything with fools, it’s always a waste of my time, and I don’t like wasting my time in that way. It's up to you to change that percention.

KttR,

You wont accept the facts i present, you say they are somewhere in the middle, well thanks for realizing life is a bunch of grey areas. So that means that our jaunt in the desert isn't all it's cracked up to be, nor is the feelings from the left that Saddam was completely benign, I am more than happy to admit when I am wrong, but trust and verify is the name of the game, i can't take something that someone makes up from available information, as proof, but i can accept reports from our government, when they repeat all the same refrain...again, if you have some info, with quotes, ill be happy to discuss the issue, but otherwise just repeating a talking point, without proof to back it up, is not my game.

TEO: LOL. Hey, I've heard that word "curmudgeon" before on The Factor. Are you a closet Fox watcher like Ash?

Kimberly,

yes, everynight, right before I slather myself in flaxseed oil, and pray to Pagan gods of fertility.

Democrats don't have a strategy when it comes to Iraq. Maybe it's because they look towards folks like Neil Young. I wonder what Neil Young would say? Does he have a strategy?

Neil Young (Have You Forgotten?)
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
http://www.drblt.com/music/neilyoung.mp3

I think things will begin to improve

Now That Zarqawi's Gone
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
http://www.drblt.com/music/nowthatzarq.mp3

I think troop pull-outs will be a realistic possibility very soon, but we must refrain from setting specific dates.

Ricorun,

I hope you also note that the Iraqi plan has been crafted with the input and agreement of the United States.

I look at it this way: the back of the so-called "insurgency" has been broken, but the final clean up will, well, get a little rough...it will be Iraqis who will clear out the die-hard local and foreign terrorists...this plan seems to be directed at getting the non-die hards to give it up and come in from the cold. The clearing up of the die hards, though, won't be pretty...and is not really a task for a foriegn army to do...the Iraqis have to do it.

We're probably on the cusp of some major troop withdrawals - or at least the withdrawal of US troops from Baghdad and other major cities.

TEO,

We did rather suspect as much...

Mark,

You enjoyed the lap dances, don't pretend that c-note you shoved into my g-string wasn't given with love.

XOXOXO

Does anyone else find it funny, that last week we were staying the course, but now, a complete paradigmn shift has occured regarding our troop numbers?

Has the standing of the Iraqi army and police changed so much in the past week, that you guys are now agreeing with the democrats, and their down-shift in troop numbers?

TEO, yes, now Bush is following the lead of the democrats and he will follow the parade they have when the troops come home, and he will sweep up after them too. (posted earlier under Secret New Democratic Plan)

We are so glad that the democrats are so wise and are leading this retreat away from the enemy. OH WISE ONES, protect us now from IRAN and N KOREA. Let us know what we should do now? Who is your leader that will be protecting us from the world?

DL,

we can just follow Bush's plan...WAIT AND SEE! LOL

Mark said: "I hope you also note that the Iraqi plan has been crafted with the input and agreement of the United States."

I have always been of the opinion that if one ignores the ad-hominem attacks, peoples' attitudes on either side are much closer than they otherwise think. And of course the Iraqi plan was developed with the input and agreement of the US. Nonetheless, there are a number of things in the Iraqi plan that aren't going to sit well with many Repubs. Specifically:

1. a timetable of withdrawal of coalition troops. That's the Dems talking point, not the Reps. In fact, the Reps have constantly denigrated it as unrealistic.

2. approval by the UN. Again, that's the Dems talking point, not the Reps. Neocons in particular don't like the UN.

3. a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds. My guess is that most Dems won't have a problem with that, but many Reps will.

4. financial compensation for the thousands of Sunnis who were purged from senior jobs in the Armed Forces and Civil Service after the fall of Saddam Hussein. My guess is that many Reps will have trouble getting behind this one, too. On the other hand, it was mostly Dems that criticized the decision to demobilize the Iraqi army and social administrations during the Bremmer administration.

5. amnesty to insurgents who have killed US soldiers but who are not members of extreme groups such as al-Qaeda. I consider myself a rather moderate Republican, but even I find this one a very hard pill to swallow. But I'm guessing it's going to be no problem at all for many of our Dem friends.

All in all, one thing that has been missing from our discussions about what the right course of action in Iraq constitutes is the consideration of the question... what do the Iraqis want? Well, now we know. And come Sunday we'll know even more. But at present it appears that the Dems are going to have a much easier time supporting the Iraqi initiative than the Reps. And that sort of puts a major monkey wrench in Rove's idea of making Iraq a central issue in this year's elections. At least that's the way it appears to me at present.

Amazing,
I saw Casey on the tube this morning. He was explaining the troop withdrawls -- just in time for election, I assume.
The next story up was that all of Baghdad was under a "State of Emergency."
These guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrits on earth. They have Rove out declaring that Democrats want to "cut and run," while they pursue the same policy (which is what the people want) -- until about two minutes after the election.
As we have noted in the past: Bush foreign policy is directly driven by the U.S, election cycle. It has no correlation to the situation on the ground or the capability of Iraqi forces.

Amazing,
I saw Casey on the tube this morning. He was explaining the troop withdrawls -- just in time for election, I assume.
The next story up was that all of Baghdad was under a "State of Emergency."
These guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrits on earth. They have Rove out declaring that Democrats want to "cut and run," while they pursue the same policy (which is what the people want) -- until about two minutes after the election.
As we have noted in the past: Bush foreign policy is directly driven by the U.S, election cycle. It has no correlation to the situation on the ground or the capability of Iraqi forces.

A key component of the London Times article seems to be that any time table for withdrawl of coalition troops would be done under a a peace agreement between the Iraqi governmen, the resistance groups, and the Americans. If we can reach an honorable agreement that will end the war that is acceptable to all sides, this would be a good thing. I hope and pray it can be achieved. It seems the time table some in Congress want to set for withdrawl would be done without any kind of agreement between us and the insurgents. If we can reach an honorable agreement, we will need some mechanisim to ensure that the insurgents honor it. I'm not worried about our side honoring it, as we will be under tremendous pressure from the international community to fulfill our obligations. If the UN can assist here, this is a good thing.

B.Poster... well said!

I love this revisionist history from liberals. Troops reductions were talked about 12 months ago by Rumsfeld and Casey. Again 8 months ago. Again 4 months ago.

But no, it's a election ploy.

This is why the electorate hates you anti-American moonbats.

Ricorun,

There is a vast difference between the Democrats' plan and this Iraqi proposal - the Democrats were calling for a cut and run regardless of the situation on the ground, the Iraqi proposal is related to what is happening...and the timetable would only come in to effect AFTER most of the "insurgents" have stacked arms...in other words, after they have surrendered...as for the cessation of Coalition attacks on insurgent strongholds...that is actually just a recognition that Coalition forces will not be used to dig out the last of the terrorists...that will be nasty, bloody work and cannot be done in accordance with our Uniform Code of Military Justice...the Iraqis, however, have every right to bring order to their own nation, even if some rather harsh things have to be done.

If you read it right, the proposal is a chance for those who want to live in the new Iraq to draw the proper conclusion from recent events...failure to take advantage of this would be to sign one's own death warrant.

Ricorun

Thank you for the compliment!!

Mark,

I am very anxious to read the Iraqis' proposal in detail. Until then -- or until you can provide a source for views -- I have to conclude that if your assumptions are predicated on the article I cited, they are unwarranted. But I also have to say that to the extent that you are right -- specifically, that (1) the timetable would only come in to effect AFTER most of the "insurgents" have stacked arms, and (2) that the cessation of Coalition attacks on insurgent strongholds actually is just a recognition that Coalition forces will not be used to dig out the last of the terrorists -- it would be exceptionally welcome news! After all, I understand that this accord was reached with the acceptance of all of the most important (native) insurgent groups in the country. Thus, to the extent that the conditions you indicate are true, it implies is a profound level of weakness on the part of the insurgent forces.

But that implication doesn't seem to be warranted on the basis of any metric of insurgent capability you care to name. Consequently, I sincerely doubt you are correct. But I guess we won't know for sure until the Iraqi proposal is released, right?

And what about the points that I numbered 2, 4, and 5, which you did not mention?