"Cut-and-run" vs. "keep our promises" -- that's the way I see the way going forward in Iraq, and from that you can be sure that I do not support "cut-and-run", and will not vote for a "cut-and-run" candidate, no matter what. Abandoning the Iraqi people to Saddam's butchery was one of our most grotesque mistakes of the last century.
I agree with you that we should do the honorable thing, but I do not think the people you think you are supporting agree with you in the same way that you think.
We did not go into Iraq with the primary benefit for the Iraqi people - but that is another debate.
I do not think the administration objectives now are to "keep our promises".
The Iraqi people are now worse off than before our invasion.
1. They have less electricty.
2. They have less sanitary water.
3. They have less safety in the streets.
4. They are in civil war.
5. They want us to leave.
6. Their economy is in shambles.
7. Our soldiers do not like being in Iraq. They are stressed out. Reservists are shoouldering a disporportionate share of the burden of this war.
8. Some of the most vulnerable of our soldiers are involved in torture and crimes against the Iraqi people. (It is not many, but far more than tolerable).
9. Eventually we will have to leave Iraq.
10. Leaving Iraq in an orderly manner is not "cut and run".
11. "Cut and run" is a political phrase that is being used to confuse people.
12. Every Democratic leader who advocates leaving Iraq, advocate an orderly withdrawal - including congressman Murtha.
13. The administration does not have a plan for withdrawal from Iraq.
14. The administration does not have a mission statement as to what our mission is in Iraq. Nothing that can be stated in a few clear sentences.
Saddam Hussein is not a good person, but neither are the leaders of N. korea, Iran, Libya, Cuba, China, Syria, etc....
No matter how bad they are, we can not take unilateral action to get rid of them. |
