It seems that if any anti-war person suggest that we get out of Iraq, they are labelled as "cut and run" cowards.
Sadly, it’s not just those on the left who U.S. troops to start moving out of Iraq:
A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations …they’re also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday.
The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
So who exactly is against withdrawal? Seems like a small army of armchair warriors — not anybody intimately involved in the hostilities in Iraq.
I’m sorry, but when the Iraqi government and the top U.S. commander in Iraq are talking about troop withdrawal, you simply can’t label people who agree with them as "cut and run" cowards.
The Talent Show comments:
Interesting corner you’ve painted yourself into President Bush. If you go along with the plan, you’re essentially agreeing with the Democrats in regards to withdrawal. If you disagree, then all of your talk about Iraqi sovereignty was bullshit. After all, this is what the White House Spokesman said just one month ago :
Q [D]oes the fact that there is now a unity government change Maliki’s ability to say — to tell us, or ask us to leave?
MR. SNOW: We’ve been very clear, when the Iraqi government — we serve there at the pleasure of the Iraqi government. You know, if he says he doesn’t need us, we’re not going to stick around.
Kevin Drum adds:
Did you get that? No one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable.
President Bush would be flatly insane to turn this opportunity down. It’s precisely the kind of request he needs in order to declare victory, assure everyone that the job is close to done, and make it clear that he respects Iraqi sovereignty and doesn’t plan to occupy their country forever. There would be no loss of face and no loss of national honor.
Conversely, if he resists it, it would be hard not to conclude that he was doing so solely because a "broad, conditions-based timetable" also happens to be exactly the position of the vast majority of the Democratic Party — and he would rather chew off his own big toe than do anything that might turn down the volume on the domestic partisan jihad that’s been so politically successful for Republicans ever since 9/11. I guess we’ll find out soon.