Comments on: Back from Iraq, Pelosi wants withdrawal now more than evah

By: profitsbeard

profitsbeard — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 04:22:13 +0000

Chief1942- You know damned well that as soon as the Congressional surrender group members hit the ground in Iraq that the jihadists sent the word out to not harm them, at all costs. Why would they endanger those trying to hand the war to them on the tin-plated platter? Pelosi could have walked down any street in Baghdad in an American flag bikini and wouldn't have gotten so much as a splinter. Our enemies know who their friends are.

By: Chief1942

Chief1942 — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:17:31 +0000

Where the hell are those IED’s when you want one? Just like the cops, never around when you need one;-)

By: Chief1942

Chief1942 — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:56:18 +0000

With the very restrictive ROE’s that have been put in place in an attempt to prevent any future “Haditha’s”,one could fairley attribute about one third of our troop’s deaths and casualties to those very same ROE’s. It’s a free-for-all for the “Hajis” while our folks have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

Of course if you’re sitting in an air conditioned office in the CENTCOM HQs in Florida making up these ROE’s in order to cover your political backside,holding out for that next promotion, then those numbers are all “collateral losses” oh don’t you see.

By: MirCat

MirCat — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:22:52 +0000

Think the troops will make her a sign?

- The Cat

By: brtex

brtex — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:00:12 +0000

Babs,
I think most on this blog agree with you, I know I do. Thank goodness for the internet, otherwise we would be sitting around listening to idiots like Wolf and Katie and feeling like we were the only ones who felt that way.

By: Entelechy

Entelechy — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:24:48 +0000

Senate not going Nancy's way - and she was holding up the vote in the House in order to get the 'green light' from the Senate first...

By: Tony737

Tony737 — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:46:18 +0000

Oh, Nancy wants us out of Iraq even more now, eh? That just makes her that much more a friggin’ traitor! I suppose the Troops told her we should get out now? Or is that only what she heard … selective hearing.

By: Rightwingsparkle

Rightwingsparkle — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:41:53 +0000

I think it’s best to trust people whom most respect, to give us a perspective on the war.

It’s ridiculous to imagine that we cannot win this war. The question is if we have the will to do it.

By: right2bright

right2bright — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:32:40 +0000

Pelosi with Harry? I thought she was going to clean up the corruption in congress. I think Harry has some explaining to do regarding some desert property he bought for a couple of hundred dollars an acre. From someone who he passed a favored law for six months later. And there is more, the tip of the iceberg.
It would do well for President Bush to not answer anything Reid presents, until Reid answers for his mis-conduct.

By: Limerick

Limerick — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:53:33 +0000

Babs…by ‘insulting’ you I meant by my patronizing ‘Klingon’ analogy.

We all get pretty frustrated. Not half as much as the troops do I am sure. I too want the ROE’s changed. The point I was most trying to make was that ROEs maintain order. Thats it. I want the ROE loose not tight. What I don’t want is a free for all.

By: gekkobear

gekkobear — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:42:28 +0000

“Sadly, there was nothing that we saw there that would say that the plan we have been proposing should be changed,’’ Pelosi said of her visit.

So, we can expect more non-binding resolutions? Useless hand-wringing and posing for the camera? Complaints about BOOSH?

Or do they have a plan that has any scope outside of Washington D.C. that would actually have any impact on their the troops, or the “insurgents” in Iraq itself?

By: Romeo13

Romeo13 — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:32:10 +0000

She said she told al-Maliki what she has said repeatedly at home for many months

This is the key to the whole thing…

Just who in the HELL does she think she is??? She’s telling an allie, from her position as Speaker, what HE needs to do?

Uhhh… isn’t that why we have this little thing called the STATE DEPARTMENT???

And what is that little law about treating with foreign governments when not empowered to do so?

Pres. Bush needs to grow some, and call her and all the defeatocrats onto the carpet!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:31:31 +0000

Pelosi Calls For Withdrawal After Middle East Tour: Typical Brain-Dead Liberal…

Surprise, surprise … namby-pamby Nancy wants a withdrawal from Iraq:(HT: Allah at Hot-Air)Three days in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan have made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even more certain of her view that moving troops out of Iraq is the best wa…

By: Babs

Babs — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:27:19 +0000

Thought we were having a debate… You didn’t insult me. I am just crazy/wild over the ROE’s and how they are not achieving the results we are looking for and the civilian deaths that they bring…
Couple that with “the surge” and, you have a military Mom gone wild!!!
I never said that we should “shoot everything that moves”. Only those things that move that are also armed and in civilian clothing should be shot… ON THE SPOT!

Actually, this is my whole point about the ROE’s. Please review the comments of Lakeruins. I think he/she sums it up rather nicely. Why are our ROE’s so restrictive during a time of war? One would think that we are dealing with a bank robbery in Los Angeles rather than a part of a war on global terrorism and the intention of bringing democracy to a Mid East nation.

We wil neve achieve our objectives with the current ROE’s. The rest of the world has their noses buried in an entirely different play book.

By: Speakup

Speakup — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:19:44 +0000

Pelosi on “The O’Reily Factor” I dare you Nancy.

By: Limerick

Limerick — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:08:26 +0000

Obviously Babs I have insulted you…for that I apologize. Believe me when I tell you that I want fingers on the triggers also. I do not, however, believe that shooting everything that moves to be proper or moral.

Wishing the best to your son as I’m sure you do mine. We will simply have to agree to disagree on ROEs.

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Iraq: Heading for the exit; Update: Does Bush think Iraq = Vietnam?

Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:03:23 +0000

[...] So we’ll get a benchmarks bill of some kind. It won’t be binding, but the White House is likely to seize on it if it’s anywhere near palatable. If not, the administration will probably set its own benchmarks–killing off X number of insurgents, seizing X number of weapon caches, turning over X number of Iraqi provinces to Iraqi Army control (which would be a good benchmark, provided the IA units given control are actually ready for it) or something like that. Americans are all about metrics these days, and setting benchmarks will play to that. The troops will probably meet the benchmarks, whatever they are, by summer’s end. Then the withdrawal will begin. We’re out for the most part by the end of this year or spring ‘08 at the latest, because at this point the politicians have all calculated that they don’t want this issue around for another election cycle. Hillary! said as much yesterday. And these crazy people actually have influence with the Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill. Speaker Pelosi says “run, don’t walk” out of Iraq. [...]

By: Babs

Babs — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:59:12 +0000

Pleeeese Limrick, read Lake Ruins most current comment. We are NOT talking about Klingons in Texas here. We ARE talking about ROE’s that severly limit the force of the United States Military for the good of the population that they are trying to protect.
The whole thing is insane. Which leads me back to my original question; who devised these rules, why are they secret and, how can we possibly win under these terms no matter how many men and women we put in theatre?
The only reasonable answer I have gotten to this question on this thread is that the IA does not subscribe to our rules of engagement… Well great, we will hold the coats (and get them cleaned) while “others” fight the war and get the results we are all looking for while we tie ourselves up in knots over arbitrary ROE’S. I just have to ask; how many have died for our morality on the field of battle?

By: ReubenJCogburn

ReubenJCogburn — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:50:56 +0000

I wonder what his response was; seeing its his neck on the line….

liquidflorian on January 29, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Yeah, it’s easy for them to say, isn’t it? For all of Maliki’s many flaws, you had to feel for the guy when he was stuck in the same room with a bunch of gutless morons who’d sell out every Iraqi in a heartbeat for political gain. They’ve been doing everything they can from the get-go to undermine the war effort and embolden the terrorists, and now they’re going to lecture him like a peon about what he’s doing wrong.

By: Limerick

Limerick — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:46:27 +0000

I’m gonna catch hell but oh well…

lets change the location…..Texas…..Klingons roaming the steets killing everything in sight…..would you, as a civilian in Texas, NOT arm yourself? So the military comes in hunting Klingons. If ‘everyone’ with a gun is to be shot on sight you are going to kill a lot of innocent people.

I fully support the ‘free fire’ concept. I want to see ‘highways of death’. I do not want to see another Pol Pot. But like it or not the politics will ALWAYS get in the way. You all have read thru my threads. I want to daisy cutter the whole damn sub-continent, but that is not going to happen.

ROE’s keep people like me from running amok. I trust the military to do their job, but just like the cops on your city streets they can’t shoot every man woman and child to lower the crime rate.

By: LakeRuins

LakeRuins — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:46:22 +0000

Babs

So, roving gangs dressed in civilian attire need to fire the first shot in order for uniformed military to take them out?

I say again, this is no way to run a war…

Some units have even further defined this to say if the unit is not endangered only an individual then return fire may not be authorized. meaning that if a sniper shoots one member of your squad and that sniper cannot be positively identified and his location determined then no action may be taken.
Thanks to Murtha with all of his whining about Haditha if your unit is attacked by an IED blowing up a vehicle you may not fire on the surrounding buildings even if taking fire unless the enemy can be positively identified and it has been determined that no innocent civillians may be hurt.
So yeah war is hell but peace is MF.

By: liquidflorian

liquidflorian — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:40:09 +0000

She said she told al-Maliki what she has said repeatedly at home for many months — that there must be political and diplomatic initiatives to match the military effort, and there are disappointingly few signs of such successes…

I wonder what his response was; seeing its his neck on the line….

By: Babs

Babs — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:37:43 +0000

The bottom line is unless you are participating in an organized offensive operation with a clear objective, such as the recent operation in Najaf, you better made good and damn sure that the person on the business end of your weapon is indeed not only a militant but he means to harm you or in most cases he has already indeed fired the first shot.

So, roving gangs dressed in civilian attire need to fire the first shot in order for uniformed military to take them out?

I say again, this is no way to run a war…

By: LakeRuins

LakeRuins — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:26:35 +0000

I retired from the Army in ’99 so I am now falling into the category of those who are a little too removed from the situation on the ground and certainly the tactics that are being employed today. I do know what a mess things become when the general public is exposed to the reality of war, and whether it is because folks here in this country refuse to believe that our young men and woman are capable of the acts required in waging war or because they truly believe that no use of violence should ever be allowed is not for me to determine.
My own experience with it has to do with Gulf War I and the so called Highway of Death. When the images of the total destruction that our military was meting out to the enemy the cries from our politicians to cease and desist became deafening. The war only lasted 100 hours not because of any particular military objective being met but rather because of discontent at home which made those in Washington uncomfortable. We are now suffering the fate of decision made a decade ago. It was decided back then that we would no longer trumpet our victories so loudly or advertise the defeat of the enemy on the front page. So now our heroes go unrecognized, victories on the battlefield are under reported, and there is no celebrating in the end zone.
Americans may love a winner but they are real confused on who the home team is.

By: Babs

Babs — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:25:57 +0000

quax1 – You make my point.

If we send another 20,000+ in to play by the existing ROE’s we will lose…