An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Talabani: Democrats Vowed To Stay In Iraq
Iraq’s President Talabani says that Democratic leaders told him that they do not plan on leaving Iraq any time soon.
“They all told me that they want the success of Iraq’s democratically elected government and continued support for the Iraqi people to defeat terrorism,� Talabani said about his trip to the United States in late September as many were predicting the Democratic congressional triumph in Tuesday’s midterm elections.“One of them (a Democrat leader) told me that any early withdrawal will be a catastrophe for the United States and the world,� Talabani, speaking from his northern hometown of Sulaimaniyah, told the Dubai-based Al-Jazeera satellite broadcaster.
The Democrats are now in positions of power: they control both the Senate and the House. (Rightfully) attacking Bush for his Iraq policy won’t cut it from now on: they have to come up with their own plans.
We’ll see.
27 Responses to “Talabani: Democrats Vowed To Stay In Iraq”
The Dems know they were elected based on iraq. Thier campaigns were based on Iraq. People hear what they want to hear and I wonder if he took it as the way he wanted it.
The Dems know they will be destroyed if they “stay the course” so to speak.
Until we know who it was who he spoke to and if this person was speaking for just himself or for the party and what was said on the other end, I wouldn’t put alot of stock in it.
Chris Matthews has been taking a very hard line on this and it’s been amusing to watch. What do we gain by staying another single day? If we have been unable to establish even a stable horror show — it’s worsening daily — then what will we accomplish in the next 6 months, except the loss of more of our troops?
What I’m hearing is shrill rhetoric from those who don’t know.
What I’m not hearing is a half-baked, partisan plan from the new leadership … and that’s a good thing. It’s just a gut feeling, but, I suspect, given a little time, we’ll hear a plan that’s been given real thought after honest fact-finding.
Let’s all just give the new leadership some time. After all, they have been in a position to demand the truth for about … uh … three days now.
I think everyone is waiting to see what the Iraq Study Group is going to recommend. Bush has signaled by replacing Rumsfeld with Gates (who was a member of the group) that we are not going to stay the course.
As long as we get out of there in a way that allows Bush to save face and a small part of his legacy, (whatever happens he’ll be touting his “victory”!)I think he’ll be open to just about anything they come up with. The Dems who know full well what they’ve been sent to do, will also be anxious to cooperate in any kind of plan that involves a smaller US presence in Iraq.
I think there will have to be a timetable—so that the Iraqis have a chance to get it together. There’s also some chance that democracy will be replaced by stability—a strongman backed up by a large military force (unfortunately similar to Saddam).
The other part of the stated goal of “strong democratic ally in the region” that we may have to fudge on is ally. We have already seen sharp departures in position between the existing Iraqi government and Washington. Maliki supported Hezbollah over Israel, and a high-level official publicly scapegoated Iraq’s Jews for the rising violence. We will see a more realistic, rather than idealistic policy in the region.
Well it’s not like we can really leave Iraq at this point. I mean, we’d all like to, but that’s just not an option at this point in time.
Kim, right again.
Bush was planning to let his present Iraq policy play out for the next two years when it will become someone else’s problem.
The arrival of Gates and, I’m certain, the Iraq Study Group Report will change all this and if the Dems are smart and the report makes sense and is actionable they will use it as a starting point to change the dynamics both in America and on the ground in Iraq.
Progress can be made and already those in the know are suggesting Baker and Hamilton will urge opening up dialog with Iran and Syria and re-energising a first world response to what will otherwise become a massacre of Rwandan proportions.
In other words, Daddy is back.
vwcat,
Democrats got elected largely on Iraq but not on a party statement of immediate withdrawl. They got elected largely on Iraq due to a lack of leadership and the fact that “stay the course” wasn’t working. They got elected due to a desire for change but not necessarily a desire for immediate withdrawl.
I have a feeling that, in the coming months (remember, Dems have 2+ months before they assume control so they have time to take their ideas and form them into a plan), we’ll see a comprehensive plan laid forth. It will probably take heavily from the commission and will be supported by both the Democratic Congress and by the White House. My guess is that, if not a flexible timetable, it will include some kind of requirements that the Iraqi government will have to meet and some way of holding that government accountable if they don’t meet the requirements in a reasonable amount of time.
The Democratic legaslature can only do oversite and at the worst cut funding from the war. Michael is back to the LGF Ace of Spades talking points. What about Bush waiting on the Iraq Study Group and the firing of Rumsfelf? How many US and Iraqis have died do to this delay for partisan politics?
Nice of him to feel he’s a spokesperson for the Democratic leadership. Seems to me his fears are we’ll leave and he’ll just be another body full of drill holes on the streets of Bahgdad.
The best thing that can happen to Iraq now is for the leadership to realize this billion+$$ a week gravy train is over. They need to start putting up or we leave.
These guys all got their purple thumb photo-ops now they need to start producing some results and I don’t mean on Exxon’s and Halliburton’s bottom line. Call it tough love if you will.
Anyone want to answer Matthews’ question? What do we gain by staying another day? I’m not saying we should leave immediately, but what I’m reading sounds dreadfully close to sacrificing more soldiers to the cause of turning the country over to the ‘axis of evil’ Iran and Syria, or telling the Iraqui government to ‘get it together’ (they can’t and won’t).
Wait! Saddam’s not dead yet. Hmmmmmm…..
Matthews has dumped Bush under the bus. I watch him but his integrity is on par with W’s. I will have to Google, but CM had homoerotic fantasies about Bush when he landed on the aircraft carrier and claimed “Mission Accomplished”. CW saved the world in the Peace Corp. Tell the Tillmans about another life Chris.
Rudi- Matthews has been against the war since day one-its not a new stance. Also, he purposely tries to throw people off when they figure out where he sits in the political spectrum. One minute he’s praising Harold Ford, the next he’ll say something like “What did Mike Dewine ever do to deserve his loss”? Or “I just love Rudi”.
I like Hardball, because it comes the closest to getting truth out of politicians that are trying to avoid it like the plague. Its not really about Matthews-its about the Washington culture and all its blemishes. Everyone with an issue ends up on there.
Matthews doesn’t think much of Bush, but unless you watch O’Reilly or Hannity, not too many journalists do. Even Banjo Boy jumped off the bandwagon after Katrina.
You know, something always eats at my craw when people use hypotheticals as justification. Let’s look at the real reason why we’re going to stay in a Iraq for a while:
Because we said we would, and to take that back would be dishonorable.
Both the dems and the repubs feel that at some level, even though I don’t think any of them will say that since, because it’s an emotional impulse, it lacks material validity, but truth be told, it’s as valid as any other reason.
Kim R – Are you saying that Matthew is about as honest as Limpbaugh? CM has the guests, but he is even less honest than Bill OReilly.
Rudi, I don’t think Michael is going into LGF territory here, just aknowledging the new sheriff’s, and saying “ok balls in your court”.
Michael, they are going to see what Baker’s team comes up with, and then move forward. Baker is a responsiable adult (unlike Rumsfeld) and the Democrats know this. When Baker presents his findings then we might see alternatives presented to him by the Dems.
Only been 3 days folks, and Bush got 5 years to make this supersized mess, so a little patience is warranted.
heehee. cmon. I didn’t ask for a debate on Chris Matthews. The only one who answered the question was bellisaurius. And as to that, we said we’d stay in Vietnam too. We didn’t. It wasn’t the end of the world. The dominoes didn’t fall. Vietnam is a friend now. I’m not saying get out today. I’m asking, “why not?” What specifically, other than “saving face” will we gain? Anyone here still fantasizing that we’re going to pull out of a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq if we just sacrifice some more troops?
I think you’re scenario’s the most likely GD. We’ll show a tough face, stick around for a while, then leave. The question is how much honor we get to keep.
But let’s take a look at how we left vietnam. Nixon pulled up the paris Peace accords. He promised Thieu economic support, and some access to american air power. Thieu agreed (troops had already been largely withdrawn, something like 30,000 left). So, if it ended thusly, we could have said “We left, peace was restored.”
It obviously wasn’t. Plus there was no way Nixon was able to give South Vietnam what he promised since watergate had just occurred.
I think it may happen like this again (I’m not offereing this hypothetical as a justification, btw, just as my best guess). We’ll have an agreement to leave close to the end of the term, but the incoming adminitration won’t respect it, thereby giving us a sort of “out”.
OMG- No, Rudi- What I’m saying is that he tries not to reveal how he really feels about anybody— which I actually like. He doesn’t want to become too predictable or to keep anyone from coming on his show because of his partisan leanings. He likes to keep everyone guessing as to where he stands politically-except I do know he opposes the war. He’s a little bit gossipy and loves to schmooze with his guests, but I think his method is to lull them into a false comfort zone then try to catch them off guard. I think he’s one of the sharpest interviewers out there.
Wow first the comparison with Olberman and now Matthews–no I would never in a million years compare him to the limpy blimp. Why don’t you think he has integrity?
Yes we left Vietnam and life went on…….except for the Hundreds of thousands of people who died after the fall of South Vietman. But hey We were ok and that’s what counts!!
Eric. I’ve posted too much on this thread already, but don’t twist this. Vietnam was a civil war that no matter how much we would spend, no matter how many innocents WE killed, how many American soldiers we let die there, we would never, never, never have “won”. Iraq is the same. We cannot leave victorious, “greeted as liberators, shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East, etc”. It just is not going to happen and I think you know that. So, Matthews quoted Kerry “how do you ask some American soldier to be the last to die there?” How many more of them and us do we kill off before we “cut and run”?
And hey, easy on the sarcasm, Mister. The average Iraqi is 15000% more likely to die a violent death today than we went there and far more have died since we arrived than under Saddam. I’m not a Saddam fan, but we screwed up and the “stay-the-coursers” are not entitled to moral outrage here.
GreenDreams – When the Congress sends their children to die is the day we leave Iraq. Maybe a “Peace with Honor” so that 30,000 more soldiers can die for Honor. I admire both McCain and Webb watching their sons go to Iraq. I’m waiting for W to send Pierce Bush off to Ramadi. Henry Kissinger, an author of “Peace with Honor” , is advising W on Iraq – LOL.
We could argue all night and not agree, but the calloness of that comment when so many people died by that decision, is truley breathtacking. If anything it shows how great our responsibility is to stay and try and prevent the inevitable deaths when we leave.
That’s exactly what I am saying Pyst. Welcome to the big leagues… now show us some plans / results.
You are of course right, but the pressure should be kept on the Democrats (and Bush of course).
Eric, I’d argue callousness is exactly what we need more of in international politics. One of the historical issues that seems to get repeated a lot is a great power being taken down by an interest in a minor power.
Just think, Athens taken down because of a minor interest in Cocyra bringing about the Pelloponesian wars. The punic wars, initially over a few loosely confederated sicilian colonies. WW1 fought over a little scrap of balkan land. I’m just scratching the surface. Powers often get to connected to things emotionally.
Iraq may fall on it’s own. Thousands of them may die, but not a single one of them affects our life here. It’s good to be empathetic, and I’m not against helping an ally. It’s just a matter of figuring out what something’s worth. Iraq, since it possesses resources and is strategically located, deserves a lot of attention, and quite a few american lives, but there must be a limit on the amount we lose.
Bel,
I can deal with callousness as long as the same person doesn’t make all the horrible deaths part of the reason they are agaist the war, then want us to leave making sure that even more will die.
As far as the other stuff….We are not Athens and I’m not worried. If we fall anytime soon it will because we gave “it” away not because of exterior forces.
Ah, yes. I’m not a big fan of “this is the basis of my argument for”, followed by “this is the same basis for my argument against.”
Not quite itellectual dishonesty, but it implies that they’re misleading themselves as to the “why’s” behind their thoughts. Accidentally done it myself more than a few times.
Yep, I won’t even argue here about leaving Vietnam but we need to be honest about the cost. If we leave Iraq then the death toll will go thru the roof for 10 to 20 years. If you only care about our personal cost fine, but don’t say anything about anything else in Iraq. You just showed that you don’t care. (Not addressed to anyone in paticular)