Dammit Kohl, get some sense in your head!

[TheMightyFavog]

http://www.wisinfo.com/journal/spjlocal/324301615435171.shtml

WISCONSIN RAPIDS - U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl on Monday broke from fellow Democrats who are demanding President Bush set a date for bringing troops home from Iraq.

(snip)

"We're in a very difficult situation and the American people are growing restless," he said in an interview at the Daily Tribune. "They are wondering if the cost in American lives is defined or bottomless ... or will (the war) reach a satisfactory conclusion?"
Two Wisconsin congressional Democrats - Sen. Russ Feingold and Rep. Gwen Moore of Milwaukee - favor a timetable for withdrawing troops.

Kohl joins Republican Reps. Mark Green of Hobart, Tom Petri of Fond du Lac and Jim Sensenbrenner of Menomonee Falls, who say a timetable would encourage the insurgents to continue their fight until after the pullout.

:thumbsdown: :banghead: :banghead: x(

[Lorien]

1. KOOOOOHHHHHLLLL!!!!!

[Oversea Visitor]

2. With Dems like him

you dont need republicans

[RevCheesehead]

8. Hi, Oversea visitor!

:hi: Long time, no see! I'm glad you're still around. :)

[RetroLounge]

3. I was not aware

The insurgents needed any more encouragement than the fact that there homeland is being occupied by US troops.

That would be enough for me...

RL

[sybylla]

4. Agreed.

The only way to "win" against an insurgency is to prevent it from starting the first place.

[Redroach]

14. How do I add that Batshit Insane to my profile?

[LiberalFighter]

18. I would agree

If the insurgents would be encouraged to fight until we leave based on a timetable. Wouldn't the insurgents still be fighting if a timetable is not defined?

Better yet, if the insurgents know that we will leave by a specific or general time frame wouldn't they be more inclined not to fight because their fighting would encourage the insane gw*dipshit to delay the exit of the troops?

[Scruffbunny]

5. oh, dude...

You should ask my mom about Herb Kohl...*stoner laugh* No, really.

[RevCheesehead]

7. Hi, Scruff!

:hi: nice to see you posting again!

I'm certain your mom will weigh in at some point. She really isn't one to "hold back," is she? :evilgrin:

[joneschick]

10. ok, i once had dinner and drinks with Herb

about 25 years ago. i should have never told my kids. he was very nice and my mother spent weeks trying to convince me I really am Jewish. Mostly, folks say " I thought he was gay???"

This was long before he was a senator or owned the Bucks.

[RevCheesehead]

13. You mean you went on a date with him?

Who knew? :shrug:
(I will commend him on his excellent taste, however!)

[ewagner]

6. I'm really torn on this one

I agree that getting our troops out of there as soon as possible is an absolute necessity, but I'm equally concerned about what might or will happen in Iraq when we do.

We've created such a mess over there now (mad a "hash" of it) that we stand a good chance of allowing REAL terrorist to breed there much like what was going on in Afghanistan...and maybe STILL IS going on in Afghanistan.

In my mind, any discussion of pulling out of Iraq should also be accompanied by a discussion of how we can assure some sort of stability there through political and economic measures....

thoughts?

[sybylla]

9. I would like to think that the blueprint for exiting

suggested by the Out of Iraq caucus would in some way develop steps to ensure a force was in place with a relatively stable government to control it as well as the technology and support to thwart al Qaida.

I don't think packing up and walking out tomorrow is the answer either. But, as with everything the chimp does, we've only done a half-assed job in Iraq. Now that the insurgency or terrorists or whatever you want to call them seem to unfortunately be holding their own, we've created another situation in which the best we can hope for short of a heavy-handed military state in Iraq is a draw. I say draw because it is my understanding that insurgencies wither without the support of the people. If the insurgency has won the PR battle with merely a quarter of the people of Iraq, I suspect they have enough support to sustain the bombings and street battles. Evidence of the past six months seems to suggest they can. If that's the case, I would argue we've already lost.

So in my view, all that's left is for us to plan our exit strategy. Battles don't end in a draw unless one of the parties involved in it is willing to accept that conclusion and walk away. It took us 15 years to admit Vietnam was unwinnable. All I'm asking for is a plan that will get us out of this mess in five. Give the Iraqi people the tools they need to govern themselves and whether or not we are there the rest is really in their hands. (unless we leave tight-assed conservative control freaks in charge who look at the resources of this poor country as their retirement savings and run it into the ground so to speak)

So what if the insurgency thinks they can wait us out. Kohl seems wrongheaded in this to me. What we leave behind determines whether or not the insurgency goes anywhere. No government can last long without the consent of the people, whether it's a democracy or a totalitarian regime. In five years we can do a lot of good and leave behind a strong government with a strong economy. If you make the people happy, they'll support their government whether or not it looks like a puppet government.

Just my two cents. But you asked. :shrug:

[ewagner]

11. Good response...as usual

I'm pretty much in agreement but I think the most important part is that the "plan" for a US-free Iraq has to be articulated very clearly. I'm still struggling to articulate just exactly what that plan should be...although some elements of it are perfectly clear.

#1: Get Haliburton the hell out of there And all other "private contractors" and the mercenaries who protect them. Turn complete control over all public works to the Iraqi Government itself and let them run it.

#2: Promise that there will be NO "ENDURING BASES" in Iraq when the United States leaves...or as an alternative a very limited number (say, 1)

#3: Iraqis are free to tear up the rules/laws/mandates left by Paul Bremmer and his merry band of thieves The Iraqis are SOVEREIGN DAMMIT! they are free to govern themselves.

#4: All funds appropriated by the US Government for the purpose of rebuilding Iraq will be made available to the Iraqi Government....no ifs, ands or buts....

Those are just the first few things....I'm sure there are others I can add....feel free to add or modify.....:hi:

[sybylla]

12. Nice list!

That's exactly where I'd start. But I'm very fuzzy about the details on the ground in Iraq so I couldn't add anything more. You seem to be following that much more closely than me.


As for a good response, I couldn't say. I just started fuming after that infomercial for the administration last night and this is what it's boiled down to for me. I don't admit to having any answers on the withdrawl question. But I just can't make any sense out of staying there with no plan. And after ruminating for most of a day over it I managed to put it into words. Trust me, as a newbie to politics, sometimes that's the hardest part. Thanks for the gold star! Coming from you it means a lot.

[AllyCat]

15. EWagner and Sybylla, have you read that essay in the Progressive

this month (June, 2005)? It's by Erik Gustafson stating exactly why we cannot just walk "out of Iraq tomorrow" and what we should do instead to ensure a more peaceful solution. There is a counter to his argument written by Norman Solomon, who says we are the cause of the trouble and if we leave, the insurgency will stop.

I sort of agree with both, but I think Gustafson is on to something. He outlines a number of points that include: ensuring that we actually intend to leave in the foreseeable future (not in 12 years); developing a jobs program for Iraqis with Iraqi-led reconstruction; ensuring the protection of human rights; building Iraq's capcity for security to avoid a power vacuum if we just up and leave; and increased political inclusion.

He asserts that all of these measures require the assistance and cooperation of other nations, largely including Iraq's neighbors, and the UN, EU, and Arab League. This, of course, requires that Bush allow involvement by others. He also feels Bush "must issue an unequivocal declaration that the US has no long-term interests in the territory or natural resources on Iraqi soil (something I'm not sure any of us believe is true...but it's needed).

Then we get out. I was all for just packing up leaving yesterday morning, but we cannot, in good conscience, leave the Iraqis to this mess of our own making. It would not be the human thing to do. We need to stop shooting at them, and figure out how to withdraw, while building up their own country.

This will, of course, require a new leader. All the more reason to work towards a more blue Congress and articles of Impeachment. Bush must go. Almost ANY of the other candidates in the 2004 election would have been able to do this. But then, we all knew that.

[sybylla]

16. Thanks, AllyCat

I have the Progressive on my kitchen counter. Just haven't had a chance to go through it yet.

Based on your description, I'd have to say I think both Solomon and Gustafson are right. We are the flame that ignites the insurgency, but we can't just walk away.

Sounds like I have some lunchtime reading to do.

[ewagner]

17. Interesting...

I'll take a look at the article too.

You're absolutely right about the part that says Bush* will neither leave willingly no disavow any claims to Iraq's natural resources. Further, I've been thinking in the last 24 hours that Bush* would rather bathe the country in blood rather than cancel Haliburton's or KRB's contracts (and god knows how many others) in Iraq.

Thanks for the post.