• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Republicans rethinking the war in Iraq

TSR

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
This is what Kola and I predicted sometime ago. And just watch what happens when the Bush administration is out of office. There will be a lot of policy being reanalyzed...

AP News Analysis: GOP Fears War Fallout

By TOM RAUM
The Associated Press
Monday, October 23, 2006; 4:58 PM

WASHINGTION -- Republicans worried about losing Congress are challenging President Bush on Iraq, eroding his base of support for the unpopular war just two weeks before midterm elections.

Increasing calls from restive Republicans for new ideas to extricate the U.S. come as the White House itself seems to struggle for a better course, or at least a better way to describe the current course.

Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, seemed to open the floodgates to GOP criticism this month when he warned after a trip to Iraq that the war was "drifting sideways" and a course correction might soon be warranted.

In recent days:

_ Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said she would not have supported the invasion had she known there were no weapons of mass destruction, and she has proposed splitting Iraq into three parts.

_ Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen, in a difficult re-election battle with Democratic challenger James Webb, dropped his stay-the-course mantra to assert, "We cannot continue doing the same things and expect different results. We have to adapt our operations, adapt our tactics."

_ Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said in a debate last week with Democratic challenger Jon Tester that he agreed with Warner's call for a change in strategy _ and believed Bush already had a plan to win the war but for now was keeping it quiet. That remark drew ridicule from Democrats who likened it to Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam.

Also challenging Bush's Iraq policy have been former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and several House Republicans.

More and more, the issue is dominating election campaigns and altering the political landscape. That, and the historic pattern of midterm losses for the party holding the White House, has cast a heavy gloom over rank-and-file Republicans, particularly those on the ballot.

The GOP doubts, coupled with widespread Democratic opposition to Bush's strategy, put intense pressure on the White House to do something differently, and momentum for that will build if Republicans lose the House or Senate. Bush has stopped saying he is staying the course because that suggested he was locked into a losing policy. Now Bush asserts that he is constantly switching tactics.

Sen. James A Baker III, a former secretary of state who has a long history of loyalty to the Bush family, has said the Iraq Study Group _ which he leads with former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana _ will wait until after the Nov. 7 elections to present its recommendations.

But he has suggested the panel will present Bush with options somewhere between the extremes of "stay the course" and "cut and run."

Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution who is part of the Baker-Hamilton study group, deemed it unlikely that Baker would lend his support to a phased withdrawal such as some Democrats have advocated. "Baker's not a political novice," O'Hanlon said.

Still, he said, the Iraq government could be told that "you've got to make some big changes" and that U.S. military backing was not forever. Might Bush announce a change in strategy before the election? "Who knows? I wouldn't rule it out," said O'Hanlon.

Bush could portray it to the world "as being not about the election but about the failed Baghdad security plan, and give his party a little boost before the midterms," O'Hanlon said.

Mindful of the political ramifications, the White House sought on Monday to tamp down the growing GOP criticism by portraying the president as engaged _ and flexible.

He met over the weekend with his generals, and on Monday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

White House officials said U.S. and Iraqi leaders had established "milestones" and "benchmarks" to gauge security, economic and political improvements _ but that the U.S. had not issued ultimatums nor withdrawal targets.

"What we aren't doing is sitting there with our heads in the ground," said White House counselor Dan Bartlett as he made the rounds of five morning television news shows. He said that the administration was "making tactical changes on a week-by-week basis as we respond to the enemy's reactions to our strategies."

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that two Republicans _ whom he declined to name _ had told him they would demand a new policy on Iraq after the election. He said the GOP lawmakers were told not to make waves before then because it could cost the party seats.

Biden predicted many GOP defections on Iraq if Democrats win control of one or more chambers of Congress. Polls suggest there is a likelihood Democrats could take at least the House.

As to Bush's oft-repeated statement that U.S. troops will stand down as Iraqi ones stand up, Biden said, "The reason we cannot stand down is that they aren't standing together. They're killing each other."

"I don't see a big surprise with respect to Iraq that turns it around, and that's the only thing that would help the Republicans," said James Thurber, an American University political scientist. "I think it just keeps getting worse and worse, and that is not good news for the president and the incumbent party in the House and the Senate."

R2 don't you realize that you risk being characterized as that infamous dis who has been absent for some while????
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Can't wait to see the Rep. 's put lipstick on this pig!!!!


Yep, you and me, R2....we called this one!!

HOPEFULLY....HOPEFULLY...I'll get a call in a day or two from Ft. Lewis WA saying that my guys are home FINALLY ( at least for a few months). They were re-scheduled to leave 10-24!!!
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Can't wait to see the Rep. 's put lipstick on this pig!!!!


Yep, you and me, R2....we called this one!!

HOPEFULLY....HOPEFULLY...I'll get a call in a day or two from Ft. Lewis WA saying that my guys are home FINALLY ( at least for a few months). They were re-scheduled to leave 10-24!!!

This isnt a Rep-Dem issue. All Americans should be onside to win the war.
BTW It would be dumb to split Iraq three ways<Sunni,Shitte and Kurd> Because then your just giving one country to Iran and another to Syria with American forces fighting from a surrounded land locked position trying to maintain a foothold in the region with the Kurds.
Also about Nixons secret plan to win the war.#1 He couldnt win unless he killed every VC because the VC knew that Nixon had to eventually withdraw because of pressure from the American public.
#2 Nixon should have carpet bombed the North off of the face of the earth but he didnt have the guts to do it.
Who was it that said that the only ones who can defeat America are Americans? Thats what happened in Nam.
This is what I hate about Democrats. Bad news for the troops should not be good news to the democrat party!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
kolanuraven said:
Can't wait to see the Rep. 's put lipstick on this pig!!!!


Yep, you and me, R2....we called this one!!

HOPEFULLY....HOPEFULLY...I'll get a call in a day or two from Ft. Lewis WA saying that my guys are home FINALLY ( at least for a few months). They were re-scheduled to leave 10-24!!!

This isnt a Rep-Dem issue. All Americans should be onside to win the war.
BTW It would be dumb to split Iraq three ways<Sunni,Shitte and Kurd> Because then your just giving one country to Iran and another to Syria with American forces fighting from a surrounded land locked position trying to maintain a foothold in the region with the Kurds.
Also about Nixons secret plan to win the war.#1 He couldnt win unless he killed every VC because the VC knew that Nixon had to eventually withdraw because of pressure from the American public.
#2 Nixon should have carpet bombed the North off of the face of the earth but he didnt have the guts to do it.
Who was it that said that the only ones who can defeat America are Americans? Thats what happened in Nam.
This is what I hate about Democrats. Bad news for the troops should not be good news to the democrat party!

We all want the war to be won, Roper. Bush was given his way to do it his way and it seems he came up short. Clinton had his way in the Balkans and succeeded for the most part.

Everyone wants success, the choice is about who can give it. As I said, the republicans are a little short.

I will give you one example of why we are "losing" this war: Last night on 60 minutes the irrational spending of the Iraqi defense department was televised. It seems they took U.S. money and paid much of it in bribes. The head of procurement was on tape saying it would take 45 million to bribe another fellow. The equipment they bought, with our money, was all a bunch of junk. It was billions wasted. The pentagon and Bush just gave that money to the Iraqis without a good (we have one of the best) procurement systems in hopes of throwing money at it and seeing if that would work. It didn't. The incompetence of this administration with our tax dollars is astouding, and this is when our govt. is not fully funding Every Child Left Behind and a slew of other projects while they give it away to an incompetent Iraq with no oversight.

It is just appalling.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ I know you and other "grass roots" average voters want to win the war. Its the ones who are running the DNC who seem to be so happy about any military failure.
I talked about trying to buy off the enemy on here last week. We are still doing it in the Balkins and BTW I dont see the balkins as a success. I mean there we went in to save muslims for God sakes and just ended up being hated by everyone. Plus now its a breeding ground for Alqada.
We should have stayed out of it and then we would have less of the enemy to fight today.
Here is something else to think about. I dont know whos figgures your going by but whatever the4 amount the CIA has already spent is more than likely just a small percent of what they have promissed.
Example your CIA has already spent a fortune in Afghanistan buying off the public for support. However this is just a small amount compared to what the CIA has promissed.
I forget the Canadians General name who said it but if that money doesnt start coming in then we are in trouble over there because most of the locals will fight for whoever pays them the most. If its not us then its Aqada/drug lords/war lords that they will be on side with.
Like I said before its like trying to buy love from a whore.
Okay then, whats the DNCs sollution? Ive heard nothing from them that will work.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bad news for the troops should not be good news for ANY AMERICAN.

That said, it does seem that there is a little flattery here.

Imitation is the best form of flattery.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Econ I know you and other "grass roots" average voters want to win the war. Its the ones who are running the DNC who seem to be so happy about any military failure.
I talked about trying to buy off the enemy on here last week. We are still doing it in the Balkins and BTW I dont see the balkins as a success. I mean there we went in to save muslims for God sakes and just ended up being hated by everyone. Plus now its a breeding ground for Alqada.
We should have stayed out of it and then we would have less of the enemy to fight today.
Here is something else to think about. I dont know whos figgures your going by but whatever the4 amount the CIA has already spent is more than likely just a small percent of what they have promissed.
Example your CIA has already spent a fortune in Afghanistan buying off the public for support. However this is just a small amount compared to what the CIA has promissed.
I forget the Canadians General name who said it but if that money doesnt start coming in then we are in trouble over there because most of the locals will fight for whoever pays them the most. If its not us then its Aqada/drug lords/war lords that they will be on side with.
Like I said before its like trying to buy love from a whore.
Okay then, whats the DNCs sollution? Ive heard nothing from them that will work.

The mistakes in Iraq were made early. With the dismantling of the Iraqi army, we made the largest and most equipped fighting force in Iraq against us.

Then came the de-Bathification. It pretty much made all the movers and shakers of the country into enemies.

These two mistakes made the largest power vacuums fill up with hostiles. We had other power vacuums that we created.

It was a huge mess.


On the money, I think it was part of a 7.2 billion dollar budget given to Iraq to buy military equipment. Even in Roosevelt's lend lease program, the goods came from us. The 45 million was a payoff not to fighters, but one of the corrupt Iraqi politicians trying to take what we would allow with such a loosely run program.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
kolanuraven said:
Can't wait to see the Rep. 's put lipstick on this pig!!!!


Yep, you and me, R2....we called this one!!

HOPEFULLY....HOPEFULLY...I'll get a call in a day or two from Ft. Lewis WA saying that my guys are home FINALLY ( at least for a few months). They were re-scheduled to leave 10-24!!!

This isnt a Rep-Dem issue. All Americans should be onside to win the war.
BTW It would be dumb to split Iraq three ways<Sunni,Shitte and Kurd> Because then your just giving one country to Iran and another to Syria with American forces fighting from a surrounded land locked position trying to maintain a foothold in the region with the Kurds.
Also about Nixons secret plan to win the war.#1 He couldnt win unless he killed every VC because the VC knew that Nixon had to eventually withdraw because of pressure from the American public.
#2 Nixon should have carpet bombed the North off of the face of the earth but he didnt have the guts to do it.
Who was it that said that the only ones who can defeat America are Americans? Thats what happened in Nam.
This is what I hate about Democrats. Bad news for the troops should not be good news to the democrat party!


No body won anything Roper....Its about life loss on both sides.It never needed to happen and for sure not still happen...All that happened was a country became a open ground for those that disslike the western lifestlye.....Many cells against the that western lifestyle converged on Iraq just to take out American soldiers.This was never a war between two countries........It was an invasion that required a country to protect itself.....Believe it or not thats what it was.....Right or wrong that is what it was......No body went to war with Iraq,they were invaded by other countries......You talk about winning like its a game...."GOOD PEOPLE DIED OVER THIS,FOR WHAT,,,JUST TELL ME FOR WHAT"????? Crown your winners and losers but the world took steps back,and a brand new hate was born,and and old hate made even stronger....No winners here but weapons builders.


It is how i see it So take your shots at me i do not care......

PS .Sorry I know this thread was about other issue......
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
nonothing said:
RoperAB said:
kolanuraven said:
Can't wait to see the Rep. 's put lipstick on this pig!!!!


Yep, you and me, R2....we called this one!!

HOPEFULLY....HOPEFULLY...I'll get a call in a day or two from Ft. Lewis WA saying that my guys are home FINALLY ( at least for a few months). They were re-scheduled to leave 10-24!!!

This isnt a Rep-Dem issue. All Americans should be onside to win the war.
BTW It would be dumb to split Iraq three ways<Sunni,Shitte and Kurd> Because then your just giving one country to Iran and another to Syria with American forces fighting from a surrounded land locked position trying to maintain a foothold in the region with the Kurds.
Also about Nixons secret plan to win the war.#1 He couldnt win unless he killed every VC because the VC knew that Nixon had to eventually withdraw because of pressure from the American public.
#2 Nixon should have carpet bombed the North off of the face of the earth but he didnt have the guts to do it.
Who was it that said that the only ones who can defeat America are Americans? Thats what happened in Nam.
This is what I hate about Democrats. Bad news for the troops should not be good news to the democrat party!


No body won anything Roper....Its about life loss on both sides.It never needed to happen and for sure not still happen...All that happened was a country became a open ground for those that disslike the western lifestlye.....Many cells against the that western lifestyle converged on Iraq just to take out American soldiers.This was never a war between two countries........It was an invasion that required a country to protect itself.....Believe it or not thats what it was.....Right or wrong that is what it was......No body went to war with Iraq,they were invaded by other countries......You talk about winning like its a game...."GOOD PEOPLE DIED OVER THIS,FOR WHAT,,,JUST TELL ME FOR WHAT"????? Crown your winners and losers but the world took steps back,and a brand new hate was born,and and old hate made even stronger....No winners here but weapons builders.


It is how i see it So take your shots at me i do not care......

PS .Sorry I know this thread was about other issue......

I just dont understand you or your view except maybe the part about it not being a real war against Iraq. Your right there and I think that was a mistake right from the beginning.
Except for the Kurds I think its time to think of everybody else in Iraq as the enemy. Good night im going to bed :)
 
Top