Neat trick

On behalf of the troops liberals are urging capitulation in Iraq. 

Congressman Kucinich and insurgent leadership make same demands of Bush

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich, speaking on the House floor:

"But this war can end another way. It can end if enough members of Congress consider and cosponsor H.J. Res 55, a bi-partisan bill introduced last week, to require the President to initiate troop withdrawal no later than October 1, 2006. Thank the troops, and bring them home."

US 'in talks with Iraq rebels' - Sunday Times - Times Online: 

The Iraqis had agreed beforehand to focus on their main demand, “a guaranteed timetable of American withdrawal from Iraq”, the source said. “We told them it did not matter whether we are talking about one year or a five-year plan but that we insisted on having a timetable nonetheless.”

What esteemed company the authors of Res 55 find themselves in! The Americans were meeting with Ansar Al Sunnah, The Islamic Army of Iraq, the Iraqi Liberation Army, and Jaish Mohammed.

It's quite a neat trick to seek the identical objectives as the enemy while claiming that it's for the troops, or for the good of the country.

This comes by way of BlackFive.

Comments

[alina]

I don't think the objectives between liberals and "the enemy", which has always been a rather broad category, are the same. In fact, liberals want abortion and Islamiists want to completely control women-- even on the most basic level, their views are completely different. The mere fact that liberals want to give up on Iraq only means they realize their nation-building schemes might not have been so wise. From what I understand, quite a few Repubs on the hill are changing colors as well.

[Tom Bowler]

The specific objective I refer to here is declaration of a timetable for troops to leave Iraq. In my view that would be the first step on the way to accepting defeat in Iraq, which might be considered another objective the liberals and the enemy have in common.

That liberals want to give up in Iraq might say something other than that "nation-building schemes might not have been so wise". It might say they are simply opinion poll driven. Conducting our national defense on the basis of opinion polls might not be so wise.

My objection to the rhetoric from Kucinich, Durbin, and Kennedy is that it incites the enemy to step up their violence by giving them hope that we will quit the fight. I have no doubt that some of the troops they say they would like to thank and bring home will be killed as a result of their talk.

[Scott]

Did it ever occur to Kucinich that the soldiers want to WIN the war so their fallen or maimed comrades wouldn't have died in vain? Certainly not. His idea is only to get them out of harm's way regardless of objectives being met.