Thinkin’bout Stuff

I’m a project manager. This is significant because I’m trying to picture what I would do if my boss came to me and said: “I want that work done by Fall of 2008. Let’s take a checkpoint on July 1, 2007 and if the project is not on schedule, I want it done by December of 2007; if it is on schedule, we can stay with the September 1, 2008 deployment.”

The answer is simple… I’d tell him to stick his “plan” where the sun don’t shine, and President Bush should do the same with the latest great idea from Pelosi and Co.

From AP:

House Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the Fall of next year.

(Pelosi) told reporters the measure would mark the first time the new Democratic-controlled Congress has established a “date certain” for the end of U.S. combat in the four-year-old war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

What’s really great about this idea is that we not only know when we will be leaving Iraq, we know who will win and, as a bonus, we also know when and where the terrorists will be setting up shop. Most importantly, the loss will be in the can before the next election so if Hillary Rodham Clinton (she of three names) or Obama (only one name needed here) are elected, they will have four years to point to the failures of the Bush administration. If the surrender.. err.. redeployment were not to happen until 2009, the blame would need to be shared with the next president, and we already know that the anointed one has proclaimed that to be unacceptable.

According to an explanation of the measure distributed by Democratic aides, the timetable for withdrawal would be accelerated if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not meet goals for providing for Iraq’s security.

As described by Democrats, the legislation will require Bush to certify by July 1 and again by Oct. 1. whether the Iraqi government is making progress toward providing for the country’s security, allocating its oil revenues and creating a fair system for amending its constitution.

They said if Bush certified the Iraqis were meeting these so-called benchmarks, U.S. combat troops would have to begin withdrawing by March 1, 2008, and complete the redeployment by Sept. 1.

So there you have it. At worst, al-Qaeda can expect us out by September 1, 2008 if the Dems have their way. But if the terrorists try really hard, they can make it nearly impossible for Iraq to meet the conditions for the later withdrawal and get us out of their way as early as December 2007. Then all will be right with the world… at least their world. We will have lost a foothold in the region that was won by the brave men and women of our armed forces, only to be handed over to the enemy by a liberal congress who would prefer to make believe this is all just some misunderstanding that could be settled if only we could arrest Osama bin Laden and sentence him to spend a few years in jail alongside that other major threat to world peace, Scooter Libby.

Digression: Anyone else having trouble with Scooter Libby facing jail time for lying while Sandy “Shamburglar” Berger walks around free as a bird after stealing and destroying classified documents in an apparent attempt to cover up Clinton administration blunders?

So, what’s the motivation here? Are the Dems looking to win this war or end this war? I think it’s pretty obvious, but let’s see what the AP article has to say:

In the House, Pelosi and the leadership have struggled in recent days to come up with an approach on the war that would satisfy liberals reluctant to vote for continued funding without driving away more moderate Democrats unwilling to be seen as tying the hands of military commanders.

The decision to impose conditions on the war risks a major confrontation with the Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress.

But without a unified party, the Democratic leadership faced the possibility of a highly embarrassing defeat when the spending legislation reaches a vote, likely later this month.

To make the overall measure more attractive politically, Democrats also intend to add $1.2 billion to Bush’s request for military operations in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is expected to mount a spring offensive.

The bill also will exceed Bush’s request for veterans’ health care and medical programs for active duty troops at facilities such as the scandal-scarred Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.

Democrats also are including funds for a health care program for low-income children. The program is popular among governors of both political parties, but the administration has not signaled its acquiescence to the additional money.

Ever hear the saying “Lipstick on a Pig”?  Let’s pretty this thing up with money thrown at popular programs so everyone forgets that the main purpose of the legislation is to set a timetable for surrender. Oh sure, we can still end this thing positively in that timeframe, but since we will already be telling the world we are leaving Iraq, date certain, all the bad guys need to do is hang in there long enough to wave goodbye as the last transport carrying US troops fades into the distance.

The motivation for this legislation is political, plain and simple. As far as liberal Dems are concerned, winning was never the issue; we must get out of Iraq as soon as possible regardless of the cost. For the more moderate Dems, they’re OK with leaving Iraq, but not at the risk of looking like they don’t support the troops. So, by setting a timetable with “goals”, if the goals aren’t met it’s not the Dems fault, and if they are met the need to be in Iraq theoretically goes away. So politically, the Dems can’t lose if this legislation is passed and signed. Unless you consider allowing the terrorists to move their home base from Afghanistan to Iraq without interference from the USA a loss.

Leaving Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Korea, and just about everywhere else is a great idea if you ignore reality… too bad the scary stuff doesn’t really go away when we close our eyes.

Other very smart writers who agree this is a bad idea: Morning Coffee, Wake Up America,

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pm and is filed under 9/11, Election 2008, Iraq, Politics, Terrorism, War, al-Qaida. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.