• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Hank Curtis of Fort Collins writes:

For once, our “do-nothing” Democrat congress is equipped to do the right thing – nothing! Please, no more meaningless resolutions or “support the troops” bumper stickers. If Democrats lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home, then sit back, tighten your belts, and flip the switch to cut off the money. Simply vote “no” on any new war funding bills. There’s enough in the pipeline to safely evacuate American troops from Iraq in a phased timeframe. Better yet, leverage the standing committees Democrats control, and kill the funding bills before they ever reach the floor, effectively eliminating the concern of a filibuster.
Although withdrawal doesn’t solve the problems of Iraq and the region by itself, continued occupation only stokes the fires of conflict & resentment. In truth, no government in the region, Shi’ite or Sunni, desires a chaotic breakup of Iraq. The groups in power would be more willing to contain and fight al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadism, if it wasn’t viewed as knuckling under to the United States. U.S. departure would help lift those restraints.
Pulling out of Iraq will also ensure that we don’t get sucked into a regional conflict. Whether it’s for more oil or to hasten the coming Armageddon he believes in, Bush is itching for an excuse to attack Iran.
It’s time to say goodbye and good luck to the Iraqis – before it’s too late. Only a George W. Bush is capable of making the same colossal mistake of invading the wrong country twice.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

This latest talking point from the far right wing makes me laugh.

The Republicans in Congress do everything in their power to bring progress to a standstill (obstructing legislation and initiatives with the vast support of the American people) and then have laughable gall to actually blame the Dems for not being able to enact the will of the citizens of this country.

Pathetic.

Furthermore....I don't agree with Hank that not funding our troops on the ground...in fact putting them in harm's way by pulling scarce resource away from them...in order to force the Republicans to enact the will of Congress, the American and Iraqi people, the ISG, etc etc etc....is even an option.

Why would you play politics with our troops' well-being?

Wait...nevermind...the Republicans have been doing that since the war began by not giving them the resources necessary for success.

Again...pathetic.

Jay,

They are getting the resourses they need. the only thing that is lacking is the support from the Dems. They are back here at home cheerleading for the terrorist. The 08 election is far more important to them then protecting the troops.

Telling the terrorist that "the war is lost" pretty much tells it all.

Jay unwittingly adopted the cynical framing of his political enemies:

"I don't agree with Hank that not funding our troops on the ground...in fact putting them in harm's way by pulling scarce resource away from them...in order to force the Republicans to enact the will of Congress, the American and Iraqi people, the ISG, etc etc etc....is even an option."

Not funding the continued occupation of Iraq would result in the redeployment of troops from Iraq in a safe and timely manner. Who really thinks that George Bush would leave them in Iraq without proper supplies? That whole ridiculous scenario was invented by hucksters like Karl Rove to try and label political opponents as anti-military rather than anti-the continued occupation of Iraq.

Mr Curtis, "The groups in power would be more willing to contain and fight al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadism, if it wasn’t viewed as knuckling under to the United States. U.S. departure would help lift those restraints."

That is so naive. Al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadism was spawned and thrived in places like Afghansitan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen and Indonesia when the U.S. military had no presence there. The idea that they would be fought and contained if we just got up and left is nonsense on stilts.

"They are getting the resourses they need. the only thing that is lacking is the support from the Dems. They are back here at home cheerleading for the terrorist. The 08 election is far more important to them then protecting the troops."

Why do you guys on the far right even post this drivel? Do you know that the War College, the war planners for Iraq and the original generals in charge all demanded that for success in Iraq, "several hundred thousand troops" would be required? This is an assertion that was conceded by Abizaid last year. That said, what part of "don't have the resources for success" do you not understand?

"Telling the terrorist that "the war is lost" pretty much tells it all"

I don't know why you would disparage SedDef Gates like that. He had the balls to go before Congress and admit that we're losing the war....are you saying you disagree with his truthful testimony?

" Who really thinks that George Bush would leave them in Iraq without proper supplies?"

The majority of America...who fully believe that he needlessly sent them in to harms way.

www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I recently took a poll

1 Do you believe Jay gets his opinions from Moveon.org?

Yes 85%
No 15%

2.Does Jay think before he writes on the blogs?

Yes 10%
No 90%

3 Is Jay an idiot?

Yes 95%
No 5%

So it is official Jay is an idiot and doesn't think before he writes.

Sorry Jay! Those are the poll results and you know polls never lie.

jgd777...there is an Intro to Stats class at Metro this fall that will help you understand why attacking the validity of scientific polling only hurts your credibility.

I think Bush will be asking for even more..this morning he decided to go after Cuba too...Iraq, Iran, Cuba... that was the downfall of Napolean and Hitler, they spread themseleves too thin, if only George had a brain he would have realized that

POST A COMMENT

• Keep consequences for kids in mind
• Child welfare agencies must be fixed
• Illogical and unfair
• Spray the poppies
• A DIFFERING VIEW/Airlines are to blame for airport congestion
• Blackwater scandal
• Aggressive corporate takeovers
• “Bush prosperity"