How does the W Admin bail from Iraq and still be righteous?

I think the writing is on the wall.

Yesterday, I read that several "moderate" Republican legislators finally said something straightforward and honest in the White House on the subject of Iraq. Of course, they were doing it to save their political asses but that's how democracy is supposed to work. I also saw that evil Dick Cheney was in Iraq having 'frank' discussions with the civillian Iraqi leadership about the progress that the US (as represented by evil Dick) expects them to make.

It is clear to me that the way out of Iraq for the W Admin is to blame the elected Iraqi leadership for all the ill that is going on there. This will provide the spinning political cover that Republicans need to bail out and claim the high ground. They will effectively have their cake and eat eat too, riding this wave of bullshit back to legislative and executive electoral victory in 2008. The American people will buy it.

PS. Today I see W is opening the door a bit to accept some 'benchmarks'. This is a great device to assign blame on the Iraqi leadership in the near future. Watch Rove spin this into a victory for the Republicans.

Bravo again, Speaker Pelosi

I did not think it possible to pass such a measure as she did today. The military funding bill with Iraq pullout date is a HUGE accomplishment for the reasonable people of the USof A. I would follow her nearly anywhere.

Let me see if I've got the spin straight here...

The US needs to send more money and more soldiers to Iraq to do good, serve George Washington's ideas of freedom, save the world from Islamofacists, blah blah blah.
The UK (our strongest ally in this crusade) is pulling money and soldiers out of Iraq because things are going so well in their sector.
Is there a particular reason why our strong ally won't transfer some of their bodies and equipment into the US sector before the US pours more blood and money down the drain? Isn't that what allies and a 'coalition of the willing should do for each other?
I can't think of a way to spin that one. Even my cynical mind can't conceive of a one liner to twist it in favor of the Republican apologists. Better to avoid the question.

Let me take a REAL stab at answering it. The reason is that the UK government has had enough of this quagmire and they are leaving the US to mop it up. Labour must give in to public opinion a bit and appear sensible because a campaign is soon to start there. I can't say that I blame them. I wish Tony Blair would have had the balls and brains to walk away from it 2 years ago.

Speaker Pelosi on the Iraq resolution - She rules

For four days and three nights, more than 350 Members of Congress have come to the House floor to speak their conscience about the war in Iraq, and the President's escalation proposal. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the substance and the tenor of this debate.
There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. As the resolution states, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."
We owe our troops a debt of gratitude, for their patriotism, courage, and service. As a sign of respect for them, particularly those who have lost their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we observe a moment of silence.
We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the state for a New Direction on Iraq by passing a resolution of fewer than 100 words which supports our troops but disapproves of the President's escalation proposal.
One year ago Senate majority, Leader Harry Reid and I stood with House and Senate Democrats to propose our agenda for Real Security - to project our power and values to protect the American people.
Consistent with our Real Security agenda, Democrats have sent the President four letters, the first last July and most recently in January, urging him to adopt a strategy for success for Iraq containing these elements:
1. Change of mission2. Redeployment of troops
3. Build political consensus4. Diplomacy5. Reform reconstruction6. Refocus on the War on Terror
In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real counter terrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in mission will allow the number of US troops in Iraq to be reduced, diminishing their presence in the daily life of average Iraqi citizens, and minimizing the chances of these troops being caught in the cross-fire between warring Iraqi factions.
Ending the emphasis on a combat mission will also allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin within the next four to six months. Declining troop levels will require fewer bases and none of them will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman David Price. A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment.
Success in Iraq requires more than military force. As 3-star General Peter Chiarelli, until recently the Commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq observed in December, "We need to get out of thinking this is solely a military conflict where we must simply apply more U.S. or coalition and Iraqi forces against an enemy that we can destroy. All our nation's strengths -- diplomatic, economic, political -- must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process."
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically.
Iraq's neighbors have the greatest stake in Iraq's stability and the role it will play in the region. Leaders of those countries are best able to help Iraqi leaders improve security by reducing ethnic tensions. To this end, an international contact group should be established to support a political settlement in Iraq and preserve Iraq's sovereignty.
An international conference should be convened to broaden support for the reconstruction effort that is essential if Iraqis are going to be put to work building their country's future.
There has been little effective reconstruction in Iraq because of mismanagement and disappearance of funds.
In order for the reconstruction of Iraq to attract international support, it must be conducted according to practices which are honest, transparent, and accountable. They must be governed by the kind of process set forth in legislation introduced by Congressman Patrick Murphy and the Blue Dog Coalition. The United States should take the lead on accountability in reconstruction.
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraqi factions politically.
The U.S. must insist that Iraqi leaders make the political compromises needed for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that will produce an inclusive political system in Iraq. A good beginning would be to press Iraqi leaders to amend the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. The resulting political consensus will allow Iraqi security forces to challenge the militias on behalf of the nation and disarm them.
Proponents of the President's escalation are equating the War on Terror to the war in Iraq. As the esteemed Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Ike Skelton, has said, "Two conflicts. Two wars. And the two should not be confused. There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts together as 'the war on terror,' but the wars are truly separate and distinct."
The war in Iraq continues to detract from our ability to fight the war against international terrorism effectively. We need to finish the job started more than five years ago in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and address other conditions around the world in which the appeal of terrorism breeds.
The longer it takes us to resolve the situation in Iraq, the longer resources and attention will continue to be diverted from the war on terrorism. Our ability to respond to the escalating conflict in Afghanistan and other potential crises in the world is constrained severely by the deterioration in military readiness produced by the operational tempo in Iraq.
By placing so much emphasis on dealing with the problems in Iraq militarily, and not enough emphasis on sustained internal and international diplomatic engagement, the President's escalation plan repeats past mistakes.
The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success.
The bipartisan resolution today is nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President: we are committed to supporting the troops and we disapprove of the escalation.
Our troops are working together to protect America, and we, in this House, must also work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.
I urge my colleagues to support our troops and a New Direction in Iraq by voting aye on the bipartisan Skelton, Lantos, Jones resolution.

"We have a new strategy with a new mission: Helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad.”

This is the same old spinning word games on the same old "stay the course" strategy. And then there was this sameoldsameold gem from today's address: "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.”

Coupla things. Securing the people of Baghdad is not a new idea. It may be new to W, but it certainly has been thought of previously. Second, Democrats and Republicans alike have been proposing strategic ideas for YEARS that differ from the President's same old strategy. W's assertion that his opposition has proposed nothing is a huge lie. It is either a lie of ignorance or a bald-faced, knowing twist on the truth to smear opponents.

Now, I think W and his inner circle are more evil than ignorant but intelligent liberals can disagree about such things. I might be able to accept the premise that the W-ites are simply too stupid and insulated to have heard other ideas, but I tend to lean toward the notion that they have heard the other ideas, dismissed them outright, and are now righteously acting as if the plans never existed.

Remeber, WE voted this evil into power. We now eat the poo they feed us.