Meanwhile, in Iraq...
Sen. Levin (D- MI) has now returned from Iraq and is the latest to join the 'Let's Ditch Prime Minister al-Maliki and Replace Him With A New Puppet' Club. That worked in Vietnam, right?
And said Prime Minister says that "Iraq's fractious leaders on Sunday agreed on the agenda for a political summit ... in a bid to salvage his crumbling unity government." To his critics, he says, "No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people."
Our President, though, says cryptically that replacing Maliki "up to the Iraqis".
Not exactly a vote of confidence in the government that thousands of soldiers have died to prop up, eh Mr. President? Why are we in Iraq again?
Finally, speaking of the soldiers, the AP reports that "the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring." It adds that-
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
-Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
-Breaking the military's pledge to keep soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
-Breaching a commitment to give soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable.
And since when has that stopped them from abusing our soldiers and hiding behind them?
Let's recap... We are not militarily capable of continuing this war because the army has been so abused. We have spent 4.5 years, thousands of lives, and billions of dollars propping up a government we're now ready to abandon. The war's biggest supporters here are now trying to pretend they've actually been its critics all along. Its consequences are expanding more and more outward the longer it goes on.
It's over. Time to cut our losses and come home. This will only get clearer the longer we stay.
And said Prime Minister says that "Iraq's fractious leaders on Sunday agreed on the agenda for a political summit ... in a bid to salvage his crumbling unity government." To his critics, he says, "No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people."
Our President, though, says cryptically that replacing Maliki "up to the Iraqis".
Not exactly a vote of confidence in the government that thousands of soldiers have died to prop up, eh Mr. President? Why are we in Iraq again?
Finally, speaking of the soldiers, the AP reports that "the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring." It adds that-
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
-Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
-Breaking the military's pledge to keep soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
-Breaching a commitment to give soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable.
And since when has that stopped them from abusing our soldiers and hiding behind them?
Let's recap... We are not militarily capable of continuing this war because the army has been so abused. We have spent 4.5 years, thousands of lives, and billions of dollars propping up a government we're now ready to abandon. The war's biggest supporters here are now trying to pretend they've actually been its critics all along. Its consequences are expanding more and more outward the longer it goes on.
It's over. Time to cut our losses and come home. This will only get clearer the longer we stay.