Disclaimer The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.
Admiral Painter seems to be taking quite a number of dumps without the requisite planning. First there was his minor boondoggle regarding his original support for the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, then his support for ethanol subsidies, and now he's come out with this regarding the Iraq War:
Republican Fred Thompson warned Saturday that suggestions the U.S. could maintain a long-term presence in Iraq "would not be a good development," and he conceded that mistakes were made that are only now being rectified. President Bush has suggested there could be a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq, very similar to what the nation has in Korea. But Thompson, who has been a reliable supporter of the war in Iraq thus far, was leery of a long-term presence in an interview with The Associated Press....His described his definition of success in Iraq:"The average person being able to go to worship without fear of being blown up. … Political leaders being able to meet without fear of being blown up. They key is stability, and that would signal a level of stability we haven't had."
Republican Fred Thompson warned Saturday that suggestions the U.S. could maintain a long-term presence in Iraq "would not be a good development," and he conceded that mistakes were made that are only now being rectified.
President Bush has suggested there could be a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq, very similar to what the nation has in Korea. But Thompson, who has been a reliable supporter of the war in Iraq thus far, was leery of a long-term presence in an interview with The Associated Press....His described his definition of success in Iraq:"The average person being able to go to worship without fear of being blown up. … Political leaders being able to meet without fear of being blown up. They key is stability, and that would signal a level of stability we haven't had."
Can anyone tell me exactly what this means? Sean? Last week we had news about Fred's "immigration plan" which sounded a hell of a lot like the status quo. We'll do exactly what we're doing now, only better somehow. It really took my breath away. And now we have this news about Iraq... sounding a lot like what we have right now. We're going to keep people from being blowed up, but we won't stay there forever... whatever that means.
We're basically coming back around to the original problem with "the surge". It works great, as long as troops remain there. The worry that everyone has, or ought to have if they don't, is what happens when we draw our troops back down. I expressed this concern from the get go. Was this a temporary gambit? If we begin to draw our troop levels back down would the violence escalate to pre-surge levels again?
And what's worse here is that a lot of Republicans aren't going to be happy with the idea of no long term presence in Iraq. There are plenty of people out there who want Iraq to turn into the next Germany or Japan. He may be upsetting his base more than he realizes. So what's your plan Admiral? Please don't tell me it has to do with Alec Baldwin.
Via Ol' Broad.