Monday, October 30, 2006

Jindal flip flops; now supports timetable for withdrawal from Iraq 

WAFB news reports that (Update: story has since been pulled.):

Louisiana Congressman Bobby Jindal says he's in favor of a military-decided timetable for withdrawing most American troops from Iraq over the next 12 to 18 months.
...
Jindal said, "I think it's well past time to make the Iraqi people, don't leave them defenseless, but it's up to the people in Iraq to decide how they'll live together."

Congressman Jindal says he does not believe American troops should be involved in nation building.

Bobby, what is this new desire for troop withdrawals and "timetables"? Have you turned into a Defeatocrat? Wha' happened, Wiz Kid? And this 12-18 month window; where did that come from? Is this actually what you're hearing, or did it just sound like a good number to you? What do you care, anyway? You'll be governor by then, right?

Let's remind Louisianans of your vote in June that declared Iraq to be part of the War on Terror, with no exit date. Here are excerpts from House Resolution 861:

Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;

Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;

Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

Honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror;

Declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

Declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

Declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

So, after conflating the War on Terror with the War on Iraq for three and a half years, now the Republicans get to say "Sorry folks, it wasn't worth it. Let's get on a timetable and leave whether there is a stable democracy there or not. You know, truth be told, some of us were never for 'nation-building' anyway... "

These Republicans deserve all the contempt and badgering and fearmongering that they piled on Democrats who were calling for troop withdrawal at the earliest practicable opportunity years ago. Truly, though, this is the GOP's war. They supported Bush's neocon pipedream, and Iraq is their baby. We wouldn't be in Iraq if Gore was President. It was this Republican President and this Republican Congress who made the fallacious case that took us to war, and if they decide-- 3.5 years later-- to leave sans "victory", then they deserve to get clobbered with everything they dished out to Dems.

So NOW Rep. Bobby Jindal has decided that an orderly withdrawal over the next year or so is just peachy. Well, Bobby, how does that square with the resolution you supported in June? You resolved to not set a date for withdrawal, and now you're talking about a 12-18 month window? You resolved to complete the mission, Bobby, and now you're saying it's "past time" for the Iraqi people to make decisions. You committed to Iraq because it is a central front in the Global War on Terror, and now you're talking about bringing our forces home... I thought we had to fight the terrorists "over there" or else they'd fight us "over here". That's what y'all told us, right?

Remember your uber-symbolic purple finger campaign for the 2005 SOTU? Ah, good times. Back then, you said that this "gesture will tell Iraqis, and the world, that we believe in their cause and will stand beside them and all peoples who embrace freedom". I guess you stood with them and believed in their cause until.... until... until what? What decisive event or realization occurred in the past four months to weaken your resolve, Bobby? Now you don't seem to care about democracy or nation-building, or any of the key commitments that you endorsed in that House Resolution 861. Why is that, Bobby? I guess the purple ink has faded.



Bobby, why did you support a massively expensive "nation-building" project if you don't believe American troops should be doing that sort of thing? Don't you believe we have a moral obligation to rebuild countries we bomb and invade and liberate? When was the last time you made your concerns about "nation-building" known to your constituents?

Most importantly, Bobby, don't you owe those who've lost loved ones in Iraq over the past 4 months an explanation? Precisely when did you decide to not honor their sacrifice with steadfast resolve for their mission? Your party told military families that winning in Iraq was crucial to preserving our freedom, and that timetables were anathema to victory. These families trusted you. Now, apparently, as the campaigning winds down and elections approach, Reps. like Bobby Jindal are "adjusting" their position on Iraq, the most important issue to Americans. Now, "timetables" and "withdrawal" are suddenly on the table; democracy and victory seem to be off the table. Realism seems to have set in, belatedly. But the war sure was a great political weapon while it lasted, huh?

In the past 4 months, while Bobby was changing his mind about his commitment to the Iraq war, this little girl's father was killed.



To what end, Bobby? To what end?

---
More on Iraq "timetables" here.
posted by oyster @ 5:05 PM
6 comments DiggIt! Del.icio.us

6 Comments:

"We wouldn't be in Iraq if Gore was President."

There wouldn't be a war on terror if Gore had been elected, not in the current iteration, anyway. In a Gore presidency, the towers would still be down, Al-Queda would be stronger, Hussein would still be running Iraq, and the whole mess would be seen as a law enforcement problem while the UN made resolution after resolution without really doing anything.

The one big difference is that America would be a whole lot less safe and we conservatives would all be on Prozac.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:54 AM  

Hmmm... if Gore were president he might have supported military efforts like the one in Bosnia, you mean? Where we actually increased world approval, performed a surgical military operation without diminishing our military readiness capabilities and be completely out of the "occupying forces" business all while even further reducing the already minuscule chances of further terrorist attacks?

Then again maybe the towers wouldn't have come down. Especially when you consider the massive level of effort put out by the Bush administration when it first took office to try and find all of the illegal activities the Clinton administration MUST have been involved in (and who found exactly NOTHING, making that administration the least indicted administration in recent American history when you consider that this massive investigation effort to find malfeasance in the performance of official duties amounted to exactly...zero.) When those very law enforcement officials had been preforming the far more important duties of, oh I don't know, maybe like TRACKING DOWN OSAMA BIN LADEN!?!?!? Here's a pretty good commentary if you'd actually like to get informed: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/09/road-to-911-redux.html

Pawpaw don't seem to know too much 'bout history, do he?

Then again if I had my druthers neither Gore nor Bush would be in the White House. We'd have a real president who remembers the principals this country was founded upon. If he had to be a Democrat he'd be a true Jeffersonian Democrat. By today's standards someone who is socially liberal (what you do is your own business, as long as you are not interfering with the rights of others... keep government out of my bedroom, thank you very much!) and fiscally conservative, willing to keep our country's government lean and ready to respond defensively at a moments notice. Of course to do that these days folks would have to actually vote Libertarian.

By Anonymous Lenny Zimmermann, at 9:22 AM  

OK PawPaw, you've covered your ass now.

By Blogger Michael, at 9:42 AM  

Did you see Richard Perle's comments in yesterday's TP basically admitting that Iraq would need a new, stable government (hint: that won't be a democracy, now will it Richard) so we can get the hell out.

Idiots like Perle get to send thousands of troops to their death, squander hundreds of billions of dollars on a pipe dream, and then say "whoops" and go write their memoirs?

By Blogger Mark, at 11:38 AM  

I saw that. I think he said that we need new leadership in Iraq.

He felt so sure that convicted felon and serial liar Ahmed Chalabi would be installed as Iraq's president. He'd become the George Washington of Iraq, and there would be an "End to Evil".

No one is more dangerously deluded than Richard Perle. That we have officials in high positions who take him seriously, is a thought almost too troubling to ponder.

Are there Perle masks available for Halloween costumes?

By Blogger oyster, at 11:45 AM  

Al Gore can read.

Instead of clearing brush on a ranch in during one of the longest vacations in presidential history, he would have read the August 6th, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief which clearly stated that terrorist cells were plotting an attack.

Bobby Jindal is so longwinded and circular in framing his arguments that he eventually tells a different story over and over again until no one really knows what the hell he's talking about.

By Blogger Schroeder, at 4:55 PM