Pelosi and Reid send letter to Bush urging “phased redeployment”; Poll: 28 Senators would vote differently on war

posted at 1:40 pm on January 5, 2007 by Allahpundit

Drudge is teasing it but doesn’t have the text yet. HuffPo, however, does:

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people…

Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed… Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq…

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement.

If that bolded part sounds familiar, it’s because it’s Carl Levin’s plan. Or was Levin’s plan: he said yesterday he’d consider supporting a surge, so long as it comes with conditions like ending our “open-ended commitment” to Iraq.

Bush is going to announce the new strategy in a speech Wednesday night. I’ve got about two dozen surge links piled up that I need to disgorge, and this seems as good a time as any. So check back in a bit for an update to this post.

Update: On second thought, there’ll be plenty of time to talk about this next week. Most of the arguments pro and con are familiar to us all by now anyway — how much of a difference can even 40,000 troops make at this point, what good will it do if the government is in Sadr’s pocket, etc etc. Bush is getting his ducks in a row, though: Zal Khalilzad, the current ambassador to Iraq, will be point man for the new strategy to the UN; Gen. David Petraeus is being promoted to replace Casey as head of MNF; and John Negroponte is moving to State to manage the diplomatic side of the new strategy. Says Time:

Negoponte is expected to bring much-needed help and Iraq expertise to Rice at the State Dept, where she has functioned without a deputy and other key aides for many months. Negroponte was ambassador to Baghdad in 2004 and 2005 and, before that, U.S. representative at the United Nations. He has long been associated with America’s Iraq policy; as an experienced diplomat but also a hardliner, he was a frequent briefer for President Bush. “Secretary Rice has now said she wants to focus on Arab-Israel peace talks, and other pressing matters which she would not be able to without someone like Negroponte to take over Iraq policy,” one high-ranking State Department veteran told TIME.

Biden opts for the conspiratorial view as all leftists do and must, but it looks like Bush really is approaching this as his last chance to win. McCain defended his own pro-surge position in Vanity Fair by saying, “I saw the kind of impact of a broken army, a defeated army and Marine Corps, after Vietnam. And I’d much rather have ‘em take a strain and have some success than be defeated.” Bush doubtless agrees. The problem, as Michael Duffy puts it, is that “the surge is a strange half-measure–too large for the political climate at home, too small to crush the insurgency in Iraq and surely three years too late.” It’d be nice to have “some” success, as McCain says, but “some” can mean a lot of things, potentially at a steep price. Defending an honorable government is one thing but if all we’re doing is going to bat for the Sadrists, then maybe Batiste is right: “We have reached the point where we need to ask the question whether it is more important to preserve the country of Iraq with its façade of democratic government, or protect our own national security interests.”

Read this piece at CSM, in the meantime. There’s a debate going on in the Barney Frank thread about whether ethnic cleansing and genocide mean the same thing. In the case of Iraq, embracing one (via population transfer) might help prevent the other.

Update: I forgot to mention this Victor Davis Hanson piece today at NRO. He’s against the surge too unless Bush takes a raft of other measures like … sealing the border with Syria, preparing for regional warfare if need be, and reemphasizing the democratic idealism of the mission at every turn to an American public that no longer trusts the Iraqi government. How he plans to accomplish all this with 40,000 new troops is far beyond me, but that’s why he’s VDH and I’m the guy who posts Miss Piggy videos.

Update: The only name I’m surprised to see on this list is Kay Bailey Hutchison’s.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If those idiots only knew how dangerous they (and their ideas) are to this country. Move forward by retreating back? Beautiful French plan if I’ve ever heard one.

Centurion68 on January 5, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Because, you know, I trust Nancy Pelosi to be an expert on military tactics.

She plots arty in her spare time, donchakno.

Ringmaster on January 5, 2007 at 1:47 PM

My Muslim brothers in Somalia, don’t worry about the power of America, you already defeated it with the Help of Allah, and today, it is weaker than before. The Mujahideen already broke its back in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

I guess Pelosi and Reid got the memo from their terrorist masters.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 5, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Where is the brokeback parody of Pelosi and Hillary?
Oh, maybe it’s a reality show,sorry……

bbz123 on January 5, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point ….

Hey Nancy and Harry, says who? You and the rest of your liberals spineless cohorts, and Olbermann, Matthews, Russert, Stephanopolous, Wolfie, Katie, Williams, Gibson, Sheehan, Zahawiri, Ahmadinjad, etc.

Hey Bryan and Michelle, please do report back to us ASAP on the perilous condition of our brave fighting men. Tell us all the stories about how they have reached the breaking point.

Liberals know nothing of Duty, Honor, Country. And, they continue to bash our troops, each and every time they make a public statement about the war.

I spit on them.

fogw on January 5, 2007 at 1:53 PM

training. logistics. force protection. counter-terror. a renewed diplomatic strategy.

What great new ideas! Yippee!

/new year’s resolution to make positive comments

RushBaby on January 5, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Two years. *sigh unto hyperventilation*

I think Pelosi, Reid, Levin, hell – all of the Donk military expurts should be deported redeploy to Okinawa with Gen Murtha, but that’s just me. Sorry, Okinawans.

MostlyHarmless on January 5, 2007 at 1:54 PM

“Phased redeployment” = cut and jog.

flipflop on January 5, 2007 at 1:57 PM

We need to find a way to change the Dem donkey mascot to a pig instead – that way, it will be impossible for the jihadis to work with the Dems (despite the fact that the Dems would continue to bend over backwards for them).

Rick on January 5, 2007 at 2:01 PM

That didn’t take long.

You were expecting maybe…. a brokeback backbone?

I would expect more serious legislation investigations nont far behind.

Kini on January 5, 2007 at 2:01 PM

nont=not

Kini on January 5, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Redeploy Stretch Pelosi to the Botox clinic and the cadaverous Dingy Harry to the mortuary.

JammieWearingFool on January 5, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Um … when, exactly, was this “… a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed”? I’m drawing a blank on the last time we did an actual 12-18 month surge of 20+ thousand troops in Iraq. With the specific intent of locking down Baghdad, cleaning it out, and shutting off the terrorist pipelines from Iran and Syria. Please enlighten me.

nukemhill on January 5, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Oh well. There is a secret part of me that thinks the Poles want to speak German anyway.

Defense Guy on January 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Liberals know nothing of Duty, Honor, Country. And, they continue to bash our troops, each and every time they make a public statement about the war.

fogw on January 5, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Yes, but don’t call them unpatriotic.

Rick on January 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Redeployment my rear end!!! This is the cut and run scenario that will end with no redeployment and the excuse that the American people didnt want to go there in the first place.Sneaky hag….and Pelosi too.

spazzmomma on January 5, 2007 at 2:08 PM

And so it begins……… two years of giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

These Michael Foxtrots surround themselves with sycophants, “yes” men, and idiots who can not see the extreme damage they are about to do, as long as they are in front of the TV cameras and are enjoying thier celebrity.

The world is upside down…. we are in grave peril when Sadam gets pitty and movies are made of killing President Bush.

PinkyBigglesworth on January 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Is this a bone thrown to Mother Sheehan and her ilk to get them off the Donks’ backs for awhile? “See, we’re trying to bring the troops home.”

When will the Donks call for a phased redeployment of Ethiopian troops from Somalia?

Mallard T. Drake on January 5, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Was it written in french on white cloth?

right2bright on January 5, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Too bad voters can’t require Pelosi and Reid to redeploy to another country. I understand Somolia is very nice this time of year.

.

GT on January 5, 2007 at 2:13 PM

What good will more troops do if their hands are tied like the troops currently in Iraq. We need to take the gloves off if we really want to make a difference.

jman on January 5, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Why don’t se use the Ethiopian army to fight the islamists everywhere? Seems like they understand what needs to be done.

lorien1973 on January 5, 2007 at 2:19 PM

I’m gonna be on our Nancy and her posse of Dhimms like white on rice (Dr. Condaleeza Rice!).
Everytime she and Dingy Harry come up with bad ideas like this, my Congressman and Senators are gonna hear about how much I hate it, as well as the evildoers themselves and I encourage you all to do the same!
Just because San Fran Nan was crowned Queen yesterday doesn’t mean that she can dictate orders to our Commander-in-Chieft.

Jen the Neocon on January 5, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Don’t Cut, Just Run

Our enemies will die laughing.

JammieWearingFool on January 5, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Our forces can never be beaten by jihadist scumbags, they can be beaten by spineless pansies in positions of power who lack the will to win.

Let’s see how great retention is when they pull the rug out from under the troops. I wouldn’t blame any man or woman for getting out knowing that the hippy party in congress was never going to let them win a war.

They want their own vietnam, they have wanted it since this war began.Hell, they were calling it a quagmire 2 weeks into it…..that should show you what weak-kneed dolts they are.

quax1 on January 5, 2007 at 2:29 PM

I see lots of name-calling and rhetoric but no actual constructive criticism or articulated alternatives. It’s so easy to just sit back and type insults, productive too.

And let me guess, you do have a solution to the problem and it’s really easy too. All we need are Mecca and a couple of nukes and the world is once again safe for the oft-persecuted white, Protestant, English-speaking male.

JaHerer22 on January 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Look, it will all be academic in six months when the Dems end funding for the war. As they should – they certainly weren’t elected to win the war, they were elected to lose it. Can’t fault them for doing what they were elected to do.

Enrique on January 5, 2007 at 2:33 PM

There’s two ways you can go: pull out completely or remove the handcuffs from our military. Since Bush obviously isn’t going to do the latter, time to do the former.

PRCalDude on January 5, 2007 at 2:34 PM

I see lots of name-calling and rhetoric but no actual constructive criticism or articulated alternatives. It’s so easy to just sit back and type insults, productive too.

And let me guess, you do have a solution to the problem and it’s really easy too. All we need are Mecca and a couple of nukes and the world is once again safe for the oft-persecuted white, Protestant, English-speaking male.

JaHerer22 on January 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM

LOL!!!

Welcome to “being in power” and “having responsibility” for the war. What you accuse others of doing here is exactly what your left-wing bretheran have been doing since the first U.S. boot imprinted on Iraqi soil.

Buck up, little camper!

thirteen28 on January 5, 2007 at 2:36 PM

And let me guess, you do have a solution to the problem and it’s really easy too. All we need are Mecca and a couple of nukes and the world is once again safe for the oft-persecuted white, Protestant, English-speaking male.

JaHerer22 on January 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Dude, you’re going to get yourself banned. Besides, the destruction of Mecca is built into Islamic eschatology. Listen to Walid Shoebat.

PRCalDude on January 5, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Drudge is teasing it but doesn’t have the text yet. HuffPo, however, does

Get Used to this. HuffPo getting things first. Dems will likely leak things to those friendly confines before Drudge gets it.

lorien1973 on January 5, 2007 at 2:39 PM

I see lots of name-calling and rhetoric but no actual constructive criticism or articulated alternatives. It’s so easy to just sit back and type insults, productive too.

JaHerer22 on January 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Wait, that sounds familiar…oh yeah, it’s the Dems’ ’06 platform, and it was successful. You know what they say, JaHerer…”when in Rome…”

Rick on January 5, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Pinky should stick to reading People magazine. He’s such a deep thinker.

Andy in Agoura Hills on January 5, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain.

I’d like to see some of the quotes from a year or two ago when they were saying we didn’t have enough troops on the ground to do the job.

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” disputed the notion that sufficient troops are in place.

Gwillie on January 5, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Let me see here. In reviewing the history of the Middle East for the last 1500 years or so including all of the ‘stans I noticed that they were mostly responsive to and ruled by the toughest guy on the block. Now granted in recent history this has meant folks like Bin Laden and the Taliban, Hussein, Aytollah, and even Musharraf. Now if I take this at face value I, now I know I ain’t that smart and all, just might come to conclude that I can not reverse this mindset overnight and it might take a little bit of time. You know like maybe start a democracy or two and let them work through the issues and tailor make for their lifestyle and all. Now I realize Europe didn’t have this sort of problem switching from monarchies to democractic type goverments.
Anyway so in order to prove how democracy works the Dems have reached the conclusion that we need to show weakness to a culture that only recognizes strength.
I just wish they could Muqtada Al Sadr to “redeploy”.

LakeRuins on January 5, 2007 at 3:06 PM

I’d like to see some of the quotes from a year or two ago when they were saying we didn’t have enough troops on the ground to do the job.

Gwillie on January 5, 2007 at 3:01 PM

That’s just it, if you go back about 5 or 6 years and listen to (read, watch, etc.) the Dems talk about Iraq, you’d think you were listening to (watching, etc.) a bunch of “warmongers” – with them, it’s all about which way the wind is blowing.

Rick on January 5, 2007 at 3:10 PM

We need the “Run away!” clip from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, only with the faces of the Democratic “leaders” ‘shopped in. It’ll be getting a lot of use in the next two years.

ReubenJCogburn on January 5, 2007 at 3:12 PM

is mother sheehan satisfied yet?

Defector01 on January 5, 2007 at 3:14 PM

is mother sheehan satisfied yet?

Defector01 on January 5, 2007 at 3:14 PM

No. Not until we attack Israel and liberate Palestine.

Rick on January 5, 2007 at 3:16 PM

That’s just it, if you go back about 5 or 6 years and listen to (read, watch, etc.) the Dems talk about Iraq, you’d think you were listening to (watching, etc.) a bunch of “warmongers” – with them, it’s all about which way the wind is blowing.

It’s easy to talk about the need to do something when you know no one is going to do anything.

Gwillie on January 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM

And again, liberal minds are blind to the danger because they always believe what they WANT to believe, regardless of what the truth and history say otherwise.

Let’s just hope they don’t get us all killed.

NRA4Freedom on January 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM

I keep hearing a bit by George Carlin in the back of my mind, from one of his albums I listened to back when I was young and he was funny. In it he is doing a bit about war and peace and anyway on it he was using a John Wayne voice and saying “Pull out, pull out, . . Doesn’t sound very manly to me.”
It is the album on which he substitutes the rap word for procreation for kill in movie dialogue.
You wind up with something like
“Yes Saddam we are going to *uc% you., but we are going to %uc* you slow.”
Anyway no sense getting nostalgic. *sigh*

LakeRuins on January 5, 2007 at 3:49 PM

I see lots of name-calling and rhetoric but no actual constructive criticism or articulated alternatives. It’s so easy to just sit back and type insults, productive too.

And let me guess, you do have a solution to the problem and it’s really easy too. All we need are Mecca and a couple of nukes and the world is once again safe for the oft-persecuted white, Protestant, English-speaking male.

JaHerer22 on January 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Typical liberal, what he accuses others of doing he does. Can’t blame the liberals, they haven’t done anything. It is easy to critize people who make decisions, when you are one who sits on the sidelines, doint nothing, and critizes.

right2bright on January 5, 2007 at 3:55 PM

I see nancy and harryless have a plan…cut and run…no plan for winning the war on terror…FU nancy…

areseaoh on January 5, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Gwillie on January 5, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Very true.

Rick on January 5, 2007 at 4:09 PM

I see lots of name-calling and rhetoric but no actual constructive criticism or articulated alternatives. It’s so easy to just sit back and type insults, productive too.

JaHerer22 on January 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM

I think I saw JaHerer22 on the stage yesterday surrounding Nancy with the other children.

Constructive criticism …. No
Having fun …. Yes
Is it easy? ….. with you, hell yeh.

The liberal solution to ending the war in Iraq was defined by Rahm Emmanuel the other day. The Donks will begin hearings and investigations on how Bush conducted the war immediately.

Problem Solving 101. First, identify the real problem.

Oh man, I just give up.

fogw on January 5, 2007 at 4:10 PM

That’s it! It’s new speak at it’s finest. Redeploy=Retreat

Democrat=Traitor

Muslim=….er…better not go there….

Tim Burton on January 5, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Concerning the “List”……

Hind sight is a wonderful thing.

I wonder how would they have voted the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?

.

GT on January 5, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Concerning the “List”……

Hind sight is a wonderful thing.

I wonder how would they have voted the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?

.

GT on January 5, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Remember, liberals “evolve” over time – you know, like our Constitution does. What they “may” have done then or actually did do (like vote for the war) is irrelevant today.

Rick on January 5, 2007 at 4:45 PM

And let me guess, you do have a solution to the problem and it’s really easy too.

JaHerer22 on January 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Nobody said any of this would be easy. That is what is so disgusting about you libs and Donks. You see that we’ve met some resistance, so that’s it. Let’s pack up and go. It’s too hard. It’s not worth it. We can’t do it. Defeatist language.

So things are worth fighting for (liberty, freedom, democracy in case you needed a list). Ask the troops if they think is worth fighting for. Sorry if life is not a 30 minute sitcom where everything is resolved each episode.

Mallard T. Drake on January 5, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Update: The only name I’m surprised to see on this list is Kay Bailey Hutchison’s.

…and Landrieu. I thought her to be more realistic and sane…the others don’t function on Earth.

None of us get to make decisions like that…

Entelechy on January 5, 2007 at 5:10 PM

Good for America. It’s time we joined Europe in a policy of enlightened cowardice.

spmat on January 5, 2007 at 5:39 PM

And let me guess, you do have a solution to the problem and it’s really easy too. All we need are Mecca and a couple of nukes and the world is once again safe for the oft-persecuted white, Protestant, English-speaking male.

More scheiss from the scheiss-meister. ( if you don’t speak German, change the double-s to a ‘t’, and the second vowel is pronounced rather than the first )

No intelligent person can respond to this, in any language, and the Troll was not seeking debate. He only wants comment from one of you which is a variation on the “nuke Mecca” ones, which he will use against this blog

Entelechy, Hallo , cum te simţi? I AM too old for this, but sometimes cannot resist….

Janos Hunyadi on January 5, 2007 at 5:49 PM

As far as the “The List” goes, I’d like to tell our representatives the following: “Sorry, you chickensh*ts, but this is real life, and you can’t call “do-overs” just because the wind is blowing a different direction now.”

That is all.

ReubenJCogburn on January 5, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Hello back Janos. I’m fine, and never too old for most things. Neither should you feel like that.

This is great for you – just don’t take trolls too seriously. I could/would never go over and comment on Huffpo – the thought makes me queasy and what they post makes me sick, but to each’s own.

Enjoy your stay with your son and all the best,

Entelechy on January 5, 2007 at 9:34 PM

Thank you to the 15 on the list who stood by their vote, including Joe Lieberman.

Glynn on January 6, 2007 at 12:05 AM

I personally believe that the Iraqi government needs to employ a new strategy for winning in Iraq. The answer is simple; Iraq needs to employ some lobbyist on Capital Hill. Let’s face facts, nothing like money will influence buy their vote. And yes let’s be fair, both Republicans and Democrats will fall in place.

If you don’t believe me consider this. So far since the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 over 3,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have lost their lives in fighting. This has the American people and the NEW Congress in an uproar. Now let’s look at two groups here in the US with a large contingent of lobbyist at their disposal. Alcohol and tobacco related products.

Last year in traffic related accidents 12,945 citizens of this great nation lost their lives in accidents were alcohol was involved. Each year the CDC estimates that 400,000 people lose their lives due to illnesses brought on as a result of cigarette smoke. Guess deep pockets do make a difference.

So to quote one of our fine elected officials, Congressman William Jefferson, 2nd District of Louisiana,

“What’s in your freezer?”

SPIFF1669 on January 6, 2007 at 8:45 AM

In the old days the war policy of choice was to “kill em all and let God sort em out”. Well, that isn’t going to work anymore. We are involved in a war that will be the model for future conflicts against relatively small decentralized enemies in an urban setting. We need to be able to close with and kill them while minimizing civilian casualties as much as possible and still accomplish the mission. This will be accomplished through tactics and educating the civilian population.

We have been preparing for this type of warfare for years and now we are in the middle of it. We are perfecting our tactics daily and eventually we will have the expertise to defeat any attack the extremists will throw at us. The only enemy that has a chance at defeating us are the cowards whom hide under their beds with crapped pants, sucking their thumbs, and demanding a cut and run in Iraq. I am really angry with the reps for screwing themselves out of power and leaving our troops at the mercy of the dems and their traitorous base of moonbat libs.

csdeven on January 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM

We have been preparing for this type of warfare for years and now we are in the middle of it. We are perfecting our tactics daily and eventually we will have the expertise to defeat any attack the extremists will throw at us.

I think there is a simple fact here that a lot of the posters on here are ignoring: we are losing in Iraq. (If we’re not losing, the recent changes in command and with Rummy are odd, don’t you think? Who changes command and goes brass shopping when they’re winning??) And as far as I know, Bush is the commander in chief, his decisions from start to now.

Hard pill to swallow? Tough. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Moonbats, liberal media, traitorous base. You want someone to blame, buy yourself a mirror. Courage takes a lot of forms, one is the coward to face the consequences of your actions.

honora on January 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM