LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-07 AT 02:56PM (MST)[p]Yawn auuughh man! Funny pic D13!
I watched our distinguished Senators until 4:00am, after Sheldon Whitehouse I went to bed. Ugh
Man I'm tired. I thought both sides had brought some valid and enlightening points to the table. One unifying message became very clear, Rumsfield did an awful job. This message rang through from both sides of the aisle.
As I posted before and was confirmed by McCain, Kurdish terrorist groups are performing hit and run bombing into Turkey from Iraqi Kurdistan. So we are indirectly allowing terrorist groups to launch attacks against a fellow democracy.
Norm Coleman and James Imhoffe are partisan idiots with Zero concern for our troops. McCain as much told Coleman so by instructing him to go to Iraq.
McCain seemed preoccupied with the Domino Theory of neighboring countries should we pull out. The only problem is McCain had lots of hypothetical gloom and doom without any defined victory or defined future exit strategy. It was basically, if we ever leave the Turks will war with the Kurds, the Syrians along with Hezbollah and Iran will take over Iraq.
McCain's statements only confirmed to me of Clinton's descriptions of Sadam being in a box, and George Sr.'s reasons as to why we left Sadam in power. Along with Powell's comments of "you break it, you buy it."
There was a Sen. from Pennsylvania that was heavily concerned for our troops and made it a point to mention the losses, injuries, and veteran families from his home state. The heavy burden we have asked of our soldiers, their families, and preparing for the impending aftermath of veteran care when they return home.
Hillary looked exhausted and at times it showed during her speech. Like the Sen. from Pennsylvania her concern was certainly with furthered troop losses, and the broader picture of the "wack a mole" tactics employed by those that are attacking our soldiers.
She was very concerned over the alignment with Iran that predominates the Maliki government and the fact that Iranian influence is now riddled throughout the southern provinces. She noted that the extremely reduced British troop presence in the south are simply standing-by in their bases as Shiite factions battle it out for southern control.
Hillary noted that our troops have accomplished all of our military goals. That any further progression towards peace must be accomplished through political means and by forcing the Iraqi's to establish peace on their terms and our assistance.
Then there was Kerry, there's a guy that made me struggle to stay awake. But 2 messages rang out from his speech.
1. Given the current security role of our troops would the U.S. approve of sending our troops into Iraq to perform their current roles today?
Our current military roles are 2-fold, engage the enemy and find i.e.d.s. Our troops enter a town, speak with locals drive out of town an encounter an ied that takes out 6 of our finest. Our troops know that the perps are probably in that town yet have no way of properly locating the enemy.
2. How does this loss of 6 of our soldiers further our goals, weaken our enemies, or secure peace in the region?
I can't comment on Orrin Hatch, it would take too long.
McCain dropped this little pearl which I found to be very interesting about Rhamadi. Rhamadi was the self-proclaimed capitol of Al Queda in Iraq. Until a few months ago Al Queda in Iraq had killed every single Iraq policeman in Rhamadi.
The local sunni sheiks had finally concluded that the brutal tactics by Al Queda in Iraq, including murders of local sunni's in the Rhamadi region were not in their best interests. So the sheiks in the region sent 1,200 of their men in one day to become policemen for the region and go after Al Queda in Iraq. The result has been a dramatic decrease of violence in the Rhamadi area. This is indeed welcomed news and the exact type of victory U.S. have strived for.
IMO, Isn't this revelation by the sheiks in Rhamadi, the exact turning point that we need to start the redeployment?
The politics: The dems along with some republicans believe our military has seamlessly accomplished all that has been asked of them. Any further advancement must done politically. Their basis comes from generals in the field, an avoidance of further troop losses, and polls in both Iraq and the U.S. The political gain will be "they" initiated the redeployment.
The reps. along with Zero dems if you don't count Lieberman wish to wait and fear a complete regional meltdown should we withdraw prematurely. It appears that the reps. will only accept redeployment when they can claim they initiated according to stated time frames. Further troop losses in the interim does not appear to be a major concern being deemed acceptable.
Regardless of the admittance on both sides of the aisle that the Maliki government is a travesty at the highest levels, the reps. wish to give it another 60 days and stay on the Sept. schedule.
Both parites agree there is the subsidiary Al Queda in Iraq which arrived after our invasion and it's parent company Bin Laden's 9/11 Al Queda in Pakistan. Both parties agree with current intelligence estimates that Al Queda 9/11 has regrouped over the last 4 years in Pakistan and that our successes in Afghanistan have started deteorating.
I'm going to go crash on my couch!
