« Standing headline: another PETA publicity stunt | Main | Jerome Armstrong's Nutroots »

Cut-and-Run Fun

Hang Right Politics has a new feature called the Retreat and Defeat Meter. It "is a compilation of remarks made by Democrats and news items in support of their position of cutting and running in Iraq. The page will be updated when more cowardly remarks are made by Democrats. So it is a living, breathing document that will continue to grow over time." Be sure to see Ted Kennedy's category heading.

I would expand the collection to include a North Carolina Republican who is also in favor of a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq.

Cross-posted at Wizbang Politics.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cut-and-Run Fun:

» People Pundit linked with Cut-and-Run Fun

Comments (34)

"I voted to cut and run, be... (Below threshold)

"I voted to cut and run, before I voted against cutting and running!"

Name that quoter?

I hope it includes our top ... (Below threshold)

I hope it includes our top general's assesment. What a coward, that General Casey.

And also, that coward Bush who thinks Gitmo should be shut down.

To 914: "Who... (Below threshold)

To 914:

"Who is john kerry?"

"I'll continue with "Faggy Democrats" for $500, Alex".


The list seems to be more t... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

The list seems to be more than a bit short. There has GOT to be more than just that.

jp2 - perhaps you'd like to... (Below threshold)

jp2 - perhaps you'd like to provide a link to that... don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting.

And shutting down Gitmo has to do with Cut and Run tail-tucking defeatocrats how exactly?

Kathy:You're missi... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:


You're missing jp2's point. If any Republican ever does something that a Democrat has ever proposed, then the Democrat was right and the Republican is retreating.

Thus, leaving Saudi Arabia in 2005, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, is tantamount to surrendering to Osama Bin Laden, who called for a US withdrawal from Saudi in '01, when he was justifying 9-11. The intervening reality of the fall of Saddam (who was the reason we were in Saudi in the first place) is conveniently ignored.

Similarly, if we we complete the drawdown of forces in Germany, it will be final proof that the USSR was never really a threat, because, after all, we're leaving Germany, which was why our troops were placed there in the first place. Intervening realities (e.g., collapse of the USSR) are again irrelevant.

So, if General Casey has said that we can draw down our forces once the Iraqis have achieved a certain level of security, and they do so, it's really proof that Murtha and Kerry were right in calling for a drawdown years earlier.

That hurt my head, Lurking.... (Below threshold)

That hurt my head, Lurking.

Lurking,Its not fa... (Below threshold)


Its not fair looking at the oppositions playbook.

"Darnit I forgot My wetsuit... (Below threshold)

"Darnit I forgot My wetsuit and brandy snifter again?"

Final Jeopardy

Name the quoter?

Can't think of the fat lose... (Below threshold)

Can't think of the fat loser's name....but:

"Who is the Fredo Corleone of Hyannisport?"


What General Casey said is ... (Below threshold)

What General Casey said is that it is now his opinion that we can start drawing down forces in the coming months. He didn't put a conditional "if" or "when" on it.

Lies, lies, and lies. You guys are looking pretty desperate at this point.

+10,000$ and We have a winn... (Below threshold)

+10,000$ and We have a winner!!its Moseby! Congrats..

In fact, I fear that in the... (Below threshold)

In fact, I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election.

I have called for the administration to transfer sovereignty, and they must transfer it to the Iraqi people as quickly as circumstances permit. But it would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process simply to lay the groundwork for a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops. That could risk the hijacking of Iraq by terrorist groups and former Ba'athists. Security and political stability cannot be divorced. Security must come first, and that is why it is so imperative to succeed in building a genuine coalition on the ground in Iraq.

John Kerry
December 3, 2003

(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT.--For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.

John Kerry
Senate Amendment 4442
June 21, 2006

Observe the asinine con jp2... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Observe the asinine con jp2 and Lee are trying to pull here.

Apparently, General Casey is not planning on drawing down the number of troops because he believes they have already met critical mission objectives, but because John Kerry and Jack Murtha say they want the troops redeployed.

In other words, the troops are being withdrawn not because of what is happening on the ground in Iraq, but the bloviations of Democrat politicians in Congress! If anything else, this is a serious attack on General Casey's integrity.

Such transparent and pathetic idiocy.

All this is based on Lee and jp2's implicit and clinically insane assertion that Republicans apparently want American troops stationed in Iraq forever, so therefore any time the number of troops is drawn down, Lee and his fellow Leftist compadres would attribute it to the commanding Generals over in Iraq agreeing with Democrats.

Let's be clear here; both Democrats and Republicans want the troops withdrawn out of Iraq and back home as soon as possible. The only difference is that Democrats want a withdrawal plan based on arbitrary timelines, while the GOP believe in a withdrawal plan based on events and met benchmarks.

Answer me this, Lee ... Is Casey predicting a draw down because he thinks the Iraqis would be able to take the load ... or because, like John Murtha, he thinks America's Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are "broken" and have "failed" and is reducing the number of troops whether the Iraqi military is ready or not?

Flip Flop, this is classic ... (Below threshold)



Walter Jones gets some resp... (Below threshold)

Walter Jones gets some respect from me, but first he destroyed it.

It was Jones who was behind the whole "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" thing at the House Cafeteria, and I can only commend him for finally coming to his senses.

But there are many more Republicans, for example RON PAUL voted against the war, and votes against current funding.

Is there someone out there in WizBangBlog land who thinks Ron Paul is a Democrat? I didn't think so.

Other Republicans include a guy who gets a lot of respect from me for his consistent voting on the war, the #2 in the House International Relations Committee (#1 is not running for re-election in 2006), James Leach of Iowa.

Not only did centrist Leach vote against the war, he voted against the lame-ass rule on the Hunter Amendment, designed to embarass Murtha, about six months ago. That was the Hunter Amendment that failed 403-3. Leach didn't vote for it, but he voted against the rule which prevented amendment.

There are lots of other Republicans, too.

For example, Lieutenant General William Odom, who wrote an article recently, Cut and Run? You Bet. He was appointed by Reagan to head the NSA.

Another great site for military and war academic Republicans against this war can be found here.

Answer me thi... (Below threshold)

Answer me this, Lee ... Is Casey predicting a draw down because he thinks the Iraqis would be able to take the load ... or because, like John Murtha, he thinks America's Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are "broken" and have "failed" and is reducing the number of troops whether the Iraqi military is ready or not?

Why don't you just quote what Casey said, rather than ignoring the facts by spinning your own version of what he said, and then trying to drag Murtha into this.

Whats relevant is what Casey said, not what Murtha might say or do.

Or are you spinning the thread away from Casey because you were caught on the short end of the argument, again?

Heh heh heh ...Oh ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Heh heh heh ...

Oh please ...

This is the exact same Casey who has said time and again during a myriad of press conferences since last year that he would recommend a reduction in the number of troops once certain benchmarks are met - e.g. a certain number of Iraqi troops are ready, formation of a government, etc.

He announces that he thinks it is possible to begin drawing down troops by the end of the year. Any reasonable human being who has been paying attention, especially to the Press Conferences where Casey talks about the progress being made in standing up the new Iraqi Army would know that he believes a number of his benchmarks would be met by then.

And you are here shrieking that he is basing his decision on the demands of Democrats in Congress. You're demanding that I take a statement in isolation (and even then deliberately misconstrue it), as if the man's past statements mean nothing or have no bearing on anything he says today.

No, Lee ... I think not.

You're getting desperate ... you're actually demanding that we all undergo selective amnesia to enable your stupidity to stand up.

I thought We were supposed ... (Below threshold)

I thought We were supposed to have fun with this thread? not be at each others throats like every other thread?

Everything does not have to be about politics and who's right or wrong all the time.

just a brief passing thought.........................................................................................alright back to the namecalling. ha ha ha

I knew you'd back down, and... (Below threshold)

I knew you'd back down, and not quote what Casey said and instead put out your own version of what he said... because you were caught lying again Martin.

Ok, you're back on my ignore list.

LEE,"You guys are ... (Below threshold)


"You guys are looking pretty desperate at this point."

Desparate for what ? You moron, Your the Minority stupid and the proven pack of liars. Laughs on you shit for brains.

Well, desperately avoiding ... (Below threshold)

Well, desperately avoiding the facts in arguments you can't win (like ol' Martin above) and resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks, for example.

Your side looks pretty deperate, Rob, when you can't win an argument and have to resort to child-like behaviour, such as yours.

914:I thought W... (Below threshold)


I thought We were supposed to have fun with this thread? not be at each others throats like every other thread?


*ahem* sorry about that, I'm...I'm sorry, I was doing so well there with my terrets and then...bang, just bang it was all out there before I could stop my fingers and run a spell check.

... (Below threshold)

Ha Ha Ha..

I have obbserved with inter... (Below threshold)

I have obbserved with interest the arguments and insults traded back and forth on this site.

But one thing is clear: What Gen. Casey is calling for is nothing more or less than what the plan has been all along, regardless of what the Democrats say or desire or claim. The more comfortable Casey, as top dog in Iraq, becomes with the iraqis taking control, and the more comfortable the Iraqis themselves become, then the more likely the drawdown will begin, and soon.

This has been Bush's position all along. He hasn't been that eloquent in saying so, and has foolishly let the Democrats set to much of the debate on Iraq, but things arehappening pretty much the way he's been saying they would happen, after they started truly dealing with the insurgency, that is. (Boy, was that ever a mistake!)

The Democrats really have no business demanding a withdrawal or demanding a timetable. They should be doing as Bush is doing - relying on Gen. Casey's and his team's assessment of the situation, coupled I'm sure with other factors.

I understand their frustrations and understand the impatience of the American people to be done with this war and bring our boys and girls home. I want them home too! But the signs are there that a drawdown will be begin soon. Look to what Gen. Casey and the Iraqi PM are saying. There's lots of confidence there, especially following the end of Zarqawi and the subsequent massive sweeps/raids.

You liberals and your constant nit-picking and bickering and, sad to say, raw hatred of Bush doesn't help the war effort. Neither does our media's lousy reporting of it.

My only wish is that when our troops come marching home, we can all get together as Americans and praise them for a job well done, with no politics involved. Just fellow Americans thanking the bravest and finest among us.

We've been "drawing down" f... (Below threshold)

We've been "drawing down" forces right along. What is a *lie* is portraying the President as wanting to stick with a "failed" policy, no matter what.

The Democrats (or at least the ones foolish enough to suggest legistlation or vote for it) think that because most people would like this to be over (can I get an Amen?) that they should suggest a "time table" or some other variation of "they need to come home" that is NOT tempered with any assumption of success.

Bush (and his generals) say that the situation will dictate the schedule. Success is Bush's political position, so they have to have a *different* one.

This is how one side can be bringing people home and saying that it's time to "draw down" some troops while still being accused of "sticking with a failed policy", and the *other* side can be saying that it's time to bring troops home and be accused of "cut and run."

Because "cut and run" depends on the perception that unless we just pick up and *leave* our president would keep us there forever, because he wants to stick with a failed policy. It depends on calling for a time-table that will be followed if things get better there OR NOT.

"Cut and run" is plenty accurate, even if people don't like being portrayed as having a pathological need to "advance to the rear."

Hey, What happened to th... (Below threshold)

Hey, What happened to the Ice Cream Man?? I wanted to listen to Earache My Eye again?

"Why don't you just quote w... (Below threshold)

"Why don't you just quote what Casey said, rather than ignoring the facts by spinning your own version of what he said, and then trying to drag Murtha into this."

I don't think the word "facts" means what you think it means.

This former Miss America is... (Below threshold)

This former Miss America is credited with the C.O.C. label?

Any takers?

Hint: Its a She and looks like its staring into space infinitly?

Facts: selective quoting as... (Below threshold)

Facts: selective quoting as fodder for lefty talking points. NOT!

JBYes, but it make... (Below threshold)


Yes, but it makes them feel like their still in control/power.

"Why don't you just quote w... (Below threshold)

"Why don't you just quote what Casey said, rather than ignoring the facts by spinning your own version of what he said, and then trying to drag Murtha into this."

I don't think the word "facts" means what you think it means.

Posted by: JB at June 23, 2006 08:57 PM

Facts: selective quoting as fodder for lefty talking points. NOT!

Posted by: JB at June 23, 2006 08:59 PM

I left the choice of quotes up to him, and he still couldn't "get it up". Are all of you Republicans this impotent, or is just he pompous blowhards who shrivel under cross-examination -- (like those who use their middle initial to try to gain respectability, sheesh).

Unfortunately, their words and arguments always give them always give them away, as do yours JB.

Or perhaps you can produce a General Casey quote of your choosing that supports Martin A. Knight's arguments?

Folks, Lee isn't really too... (Below threshold)

Folks, Lee isn't really too stupid to see the difference between troop reductions as objectives are reached and those on some arbitrary timetable - he just hopes you are.

And the moral of the story is: Don't be.


Lee seems to be one of the ... (Below threshold)

Lee seems to be one of the resident gadflys here. I wonder what Gen. Casey would think of Lee's absolutely weird interpretation of his words.

The only thing I can think of is this Lee is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The drawdown has been planned for a long time, and it has nothing to do with anything that Democrats and liberals are complaining about. That would be a stupid way to fight a war. It has nothing more (or less) than the situation on the ground and the overall security climate in Iraq. That's just one of the reasons why a timetabl for drawdown is brainlessly stupid.

All of us here are just distant observers. And those on the right unquestionably want us to win. Those on the left, well, we really do have to wonder sometimes, based on their words and actions. Gen. Casey, President Bush and company are much closer to this than we all are so I think that whether you like Bush or hate him, he and his whole team know a hell of a lot more about what's going on than you do, and hence are much better judges of the situation than you, the media and even the Democrats in Congress that are trying to thwart him at every turn.

It doesn't matter whether you think he's incompetent or not. He's the President, his plan is in place, most of the troops love and respect him as c-in-c, and as long as he is c-in-c, he'll make sure that they come home victorious, and not with their tail between their legs.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy