39 comments for “Senator John Warner

  1. August 24, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Big difference between troop withdrawls and troop drawdown, which is what he suggested.

  2. demmother
    August 24, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    I like ‘girlie man’ myself.

  3. d'Anconia
    August 24, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    Like Thomas must mentioned, “troop drawdown” is what the original plan has been all along. To take the Senator’s words and misconstrue them into a “pull out” statement is very disingeneous.

  4. August 24, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Warner said this:

    “I think no clearer form of that than if the President were to announce on the 15th, that in consultation with our senior military commanders, he’s decided to initiate the first step in a withdrawal of our forces. I say to the President respectfully, pick whatever number you wish. You do not want to lose the momentum, but certainly in the 160,000 plus, 5,000 could begin to redeploy and be home to their families and loved ones by no later than Christmas of this year.”

    and this:

    “Let the president establish the timetable for withdrawal, not the Congress.”

    and this:

    “We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action.”

    I think RadioBlogger has a good analysis — one I’m sure most readers of this blog will disagree with: http://radioblogger.townhall.com/blog/g/caf266ef-75f9-42e8-b401-af9a339c9148

  5. August 24, 2007 at 5:37 pm

    Why don’t we just call Senator Warner what he really is?
    Barbara Walters’ EX-boyfriend.

  6. Dan Chmielewski
    August 24, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    Pull out vs drawdown; my, my, my… aren’t were doing whatever we can to describe something that means the same thing. Verbal acrobatics

    Matt — read the analysis, but still reads like its written by someone who still thinks there is a military solution to Iraq. There isn’t. Does the writer want Tony Snow to run for Senate?

    Actually, the original plan was to find WMDs. The generals wanted a much larger force and Rumsfeld said no. Quagmire. Even Warner can see it.

  7. Dan Chmielewski
    August 24, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    Tom – I am not letting you off the hook. Explain the difference between troop withdrawl and troop drawdown.

  8. d'Anconia
    August 24, 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Dan-

    Were you kidding or do you REALLY need someone to explain the difference between the two for you?

  9. Northcountystorm
    August 24, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    Trrop withdrawls versus troop drawdown is a distinction without a difference for anyone who isn’t taking their cues from the Ministry of Truth.

    The distinction is that for some, troop withdrawl implies defeat while troop drawdown implies victory, even though the end result is the same—U.S. troops will go home. The reality is that most people(except McCain Republicans) want to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. For some its a political necessity even if they don’t REALLY want to reduce the number of troops. For others, its a moral imperative to get the U.S. troops out. For most the fight is about when and how not if.

  10. Dan Chmielewski
    August 24, 2007 at 10:27 pm

    PotAto, PoTATo..fewer troops in Iraq and its clear Warner no longer has the stomach for the war. He is hoping the president does the right thing.

  11. d'Anconia
    August 26, 2007 at 9:22 am

    NCStorm:

    It’s funny that you mention the Ministry of Truth. That’s the kind of system the Democrats would need in order to re-write history if they ever convinced the country (or event their own electeds) to pull out of Iraq before ensuring security.

    “moral imperative”????

    Give me a break. Explain to me the “moral imperative” behind going to war and leaving before the work is done. Explain to me the “moral imperative” behind empowering our enemies to come attack us at home, again.

    Now you can hide behind Bush’s bad decision of rushing into war for as long as you want, but the Democrats will not be able to hide for very long. Before next year your party is going to have to figure out how to deal with Iraq and if you haven’t noticed by now, pullout is not an option.

  12. Dan Chmielewski
    August 26, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    Actually, pullout is an option and the same one Reagan did in Lebanon in 1984.

    d’Ac: Explain to me the “moral imperative” behind empowering our enemies to come attack us at home, again.

    Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11.

    Now explain to me the moral imperative of invading a nation that didn’t attack us. You are right. Bush has made a mess of Iraq that the Dems will have to clean up. And its a bad mess.

  13. Northcountystorm
    August 27, 2007 at 12:17 am

    Thanks Dan. Nicely parried.

    I’d only add that the security situation is far worse for the average Iraqi now then it was before we invaded Iraq. And our own security is worse off as well.

    I don’t know of Democrats who are hiding behind the President’s bungling of this war, turning an army of liberation into an army of occupation. As a result of this Administration’s dogged refusal to wake up and smell the coffee there are some Democrats who are so hell bent on getting out that they don’t seem to want to address the post-occupation scenario. I’m not one of them.

    And as Dan said, its a bad mess that all of us are going to have to help clean up. Don’t think for a minute you Reds can screw things up and turn Pontius Pilate on us.

  14. d'Anconia
    August 27, 2007 at 10:46 am

    Dan & NC Storm:

    I have heard nothing but pessimism and complaining from the Democrats on the Iraq issue. At one point you have to be FOR something instead of OPPOSED to everything.

    You’ll all be a lot better off when you realize that you can’t turn back time and go back to 2003. If you don’t, the American public will take notice, and will hold you accountable.

    Just like they did the Republicans last year.

  15. Dan Chmielewski
    August 27, 2007 at 11:21 am

    I’m for pulling out of Iraq and for peace. I’m for a permanent Democratic Majority in the House and Senate. I’m for liberal ideals. I’m for a return to dissetning viewpoints without having patriotism questioned. I’m for reforming immigration, environmental controls/protections, gay marriage, full funding of special education and for taking care of the healthcare of our soliders wounded in battle physically and emotionally.

    Republicans paid a price for their support of the Iraq war, earmarks, and general corruption (Cunningham, Foley et al)

  16. d'Anconia
    August 27, 2007 at 11:46 am

    Dan-

    “I’m for pulling out of Iraq and for peace.”

    That’s an oxy-moron. If you think pulling out of Iraq = Peace, then you need to re-read your history.

    “i’m for a permanent Democratic Majority in the House and Senate.”

    Dream on?

    “I’m for liberal ideals.”

    Duh?

    “I’m for reforming immigration, environmental controls/protections, gay marriage, full funding of special education and for taking care of the healthcare of our soldiers wounded in battle physically and emotionally.”

    Weren’t we talking about Iraq? To be perfectly honest with you Dan, I’ve seen you change the subject more than a few times already in this blog. I’ve said this before: if you want to talk about those issues, write a post about it. This is a post about Iraq. For the sake of our discussion, why don’t we stick to it?

    “Republicans paid a price for their support of the Iraq war, earmarks, and general corruption”

    I agree on earmarks and general corruption (Dems have it coming too), but agree to disagree on Republicans’ support for the Iraq war. They paid a price for not living up to their Republican ideals; not for supporting winning a war.

  17. Dan Chmielewski
    August 27, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    well, you asked me what I was for and I took that question in a broad sense.

    I am against the war in Iraq and have been from the start. Is that clear enough for you?

    And the explanation that Republicans lost becasue they failed to live up to Republican ideals does not show up in any post-November 2006 election data or polls. But it is what Republicans continue to tell themselves

    Here’s some proof:
    Thursday, November 09, 2006
    Exit polls: GOP lost independents
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican Party ceded the center of American politics and its many groups of swing voters to the Democratic Party in the 2006 midterm elections — with predictable results.

    The GOP lost the House and the Senate.

    Republicans lost badly among independent voters, suburbanites, white Catholics, the middle class and Hispanics — groups it had been courting successfully in recent years, exit polls found.

    “The one thing that is so frustrating is when you hear the Karl Roves and Ken Mehlmans talking about focusing on the base because there are no swing voters,” said GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio, who says there are still plenty of swing voters.

    A fourth of voters this year were independents, according to exit polls, and they voted heavily for Democratic candidates.

    Updated: 8:56 p.m. PT Nov 7, 2006
    WASHINGTON – The Iraq war and congressional scandals hurt Republican candidates in the midterm elections, as the GOP lost the advantage on their central issue of terrorism, exit polls found.

    Three-fourths of voters said corruption and scandal were important to their votes, and they were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates for the House. Iraq was important for just two-thirds, and they also leaned toward supporting Democrats.

    Voters who said terrorism was an important issue split their support between the two parties.

  18. d'Anconia
    August 27, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    “I am against the war in Iraq and have been from the start. Is that clear enough for you?”

    Sure it’s clear, but it still doesn’t answer my question. You’re against the war in Iraq, well what are you FOR doing concerning Iraq? Pulling out? Could you please comment on the ramifications of pulling out?

    “A fourth of voters this year were independents, according to exit polls, and they voted heavily for Democratic candidates.”

    That’s because 65% Republicans stayed home.

  19. Dan Chmielewski
    August 27, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    You sound like a sore loser to me. Elections have consequences. Your side lost.

    Pulling out of Iraq will result is sectarian violence. Troop draw downs will result in sectarian violence. Staing will result in sectarian violence.

    Quite a mess Republicans and Bush created for our country.

  20. RHackett
    August 27, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    Sure it’s clear, but it still doesn’t answer my question. You’re against the war in Iraq, well what are you FOR doing concerning Iraq? Pulling out? Could you please comment on the ramifications of pulling out?

    Setting a timetable. The ramifications being that fewer US soldiers will be killed supporting a group of people who go on vacation for a month while Americans in uniform are being killed daily. The Iraqis have shown no inclination to getting their act together and I see no purpose in prolonging our support for a group of indifferrent people.

  21. d'Anconia
    August 27, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    Dan-

    I’m no sore loser. I don’t consider the Republican loss of Congress as a loss as much as a perfect example of electoral accountability. Republicans didn’t behave so they were voted out. I have no problem with that, nor do I think of it as a loss.

    RHackett-

    At least you’re for something. That’s more than I’ve heard from anyone else in this blog.

    Ok, so you’re for a timetable. Can you tell me the difference between setting a timetable and slowly withdrawing our troops WITHOUT telling the enemy when we’re leaving? (which is most likely what Gen. Patreaus will recommend)

    I mean….as far as war is concerned, doesn’t make much sense to tell our enemy about our next move….right?

    Unless you disagree with that premise of course.

  22. RHackett
    August 27, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    What’s the harm in making the timetable public? Keeping it secret allows for a continual movement of the goal line. Making it public ensures accountability.

  23. d'Anconia
    August 27, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    RHackett-

    “What’s the harm in making the timetable public?”

    Making the timetable public is the equivalent of telling the Germans when we would attack and desist in D-Day. You tell me the harm on that.

    As far as accountability is concerned, I already addressed that issue with Dan. It’s called elections. Like it or not, that’s the only method of accountability in our system of democracy.

    We don’t disagree that much in principle RHackett. I want to win this war though, and I really don’t get the feeling that you do.

  24. RHackett
    August 27, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    Making the timetable public is the equivalent of telling the Germans when we would attack and desist in D-Day. You tell me the harm on that.

    How so? We’ve already invaded. Bad analogy. A public timetable let’s the Iraqis know the clock is ticking down. They’ll know that taking month long vacations is detrimental to having their country in order. As it stands right now there is no sense of urgency while someone else’s blood is being shed and that same person is paying the bills.

  25. d'Anconia
    August 27, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    Ok, maybe the analogy I came up with in a hurry wasn’t the best, but you get my drift. Sure, setting a public timetable lets the Iraqis know that the clock is ticking but it also lets the insurgents and Iranians know that our resolve is dwindling.

    Between lazy Iraqis with no clear goal and crazy terrorists with a goal AND a timetable, I’ll take the former.

  26. RHackett
    August 27, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    And I’ll take the option that saves American lives.

  27. d'Anconia
    August 27, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    What about the option that saves the MOST American lives in the long run?

  28. RHackett
    August 27, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    Since your argument relies upon a forecast or hypothetical it has no merit.

  29. d'Anconia
    August 27, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    The same can be said about your argument as well. You’re assuming that leaving Iraq means less American casualties (military & civilian); something you have ZERO evidence to prove.

  30. Northcountystorm
    August 27, 2007 at 10:54 pm

    d’An—- I’d suggest Hacketts logical assumption trumps your illogical one. I get your point about telegraphing to the enemy but here’s what our present policy is telegraphing to the Iraqi’s and Al Quida: here are our U.S. troops for you to kill and maim and as a bonus they serve as a great recruiting tool for you, drain the American budget, put enormous strain on the U.S. military, and distract the U.S. its mission of mfighting gloabl terrorism, all while the puppet government in Bagdhad is making noises while on vacation that Damascus and Teheran would be suitable replacements as bankroller and security force.

  31. d'Anconia
    August 28, 2007 at 12:26 am

    NCStorm:

    what do you think will happen in Iraq if we leave?

  32. August 28, 2007 at 4:46 am

    what do you think will happen in Iraq if we leave?

    You weren’t asking me, and NCS can answer for himself, but it’s pretty clear that all hell will break loose. The problem is, the hellish loose-breaking is going to happen whether we leave in 20 days, 20 months, or 20 years.

    We can go ahead and do the 20 year thing, which will mean more kids (of all nationalities) will die and we’ll saddle the coming generation of Americans with even more debt than we’ve already doomed them to.

    I’ve got a couple of the members of that coming generation right here in my house, and they’re none too pleased with the terms of the mortgage we’ve arranged for them. They want us out now. If you like I will ask them to come on the site personally and speak to this point.

  33. RHackett
    August 28, 2007 at 6:43 am

    The same can be said about your argument as well. You’re assuming that leaving Iraq means less American casualties (military & civilian); something you have ZERO evidence to prove.

    Not true. Removing Americans from an environment that is hostile lowers the probability of them being killed due to hostile actions.

    That’s common sense.

  34. Northcountystorm
    August 28, 2007 at 9:50 am

    Who needs to respond personally when there’s Dan and Gila serving up better responses then I?

    I’d only add this comment: all hell has already broken loose for the Iraqi’s.

    And now a compound question for d’An: how many US troops will it take to acheive the victory you mentioned above and how long will you be prepared to support keeping them in Iraq?

  35. d'Anconia
    August 28, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Gila-

    I’m sorry but “all hell will break loose” does not appropriately explain what would happen in Iraq if we left. You have to take in consideration the vacuum it would create. Iranians/Al Qaeda/Taliban/Hezbollah would all pitch in to fill that void and before you know it Iraq will be Pakistan with Ahmadenejad instead of Musharraf.

    If that happens, we won’t be complaining about the mess in Iraq, but the mess in our homeland instead. In my opinion leaving Iraq before it is secure will undoubtedly lead to more American deaths than if we stay for as long as we need to.

    NCStorm-

    How many US Troops will it take?
    I don’t know, I’m not a General, and neither are you.

    How long am I prepared to support keeping them there?
    As long as we can continue to recruit heroic Americans to voluntarily fill the positions in Iraq. Focus on voluntarily.

  36. August 28, 2007 at 11:00 am

    d’A: ok, I amend my previous comment to the following.

    If we leave Iraq it will create a power vacuum into which Iranians / Al Qaeda / the Taliban / Hezbollah will rush and before we know it Iraq will be Pakistan with Ahmadenejad instead of Musharraf. The problem is, this is going to happen whether we leave in 20 days, 20 months, or 20 years.

    We can go ahead and do the 20 year thing, which will mean more kids (of all nationalities) will die, even more new terrorists will be recruited, and we’ll saddle the coming generation of Americans with even more debt and international terror than we’ve already doomed them to.

  37. d'Anconia
    August 28, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Gila-

    Fair enough. We agree to disagree on that, because I certainly don’t believe that the possibility of defeat should translate to withdrawal. There is always a possibility of defeat. It still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to win.

  38. Publius
    August 28, 2007 at 11:37 am

    d’Anconia-
    “try to win”
    How do you define “win” in this situation?
    How will we know when we have won in Iraq so that we can begin to move out?
    Nobody seems to know…

  39. August 29, 2007 at 1:31 am

    There is always a possibility of defeat. It still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to win.

    I don’t have a problem with trying to win, but at this point we’ve tried enough and things are just getting worse and worse. We have spent too many lives and too many dollars and all we have to show for it is MORE terrorism. If that’s not a reason to leave I can’t imagine what is.

    We have tried long enough by any reasonable standard.

Comments are closed.