(11 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
(Cross posted from Daily Kos. http://www.dailykos.com/story/…
It speaks to more than just Daily Kos, though. It speaks to what the netroots are, a cheerleading group for Obama on all decisions or a progressive movement. When Pelosi and Reid are to the left of the “progressive blogosphere, something is truly screwed up!)
What has happened? I opposed the invasion of Iraq back in 2002 and 2003. When I came to Daily Kos in October 2006, the vast majority wanted withdrawal from Iraq ASAP. Yet in some diaries this week, I saw many kossaks defending leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq after 2010.
Well, I never thought I would see it. Pelosi and Reid now are more antiwar than many who like to see themselves as crashing the gates. Yes, Pelosi and Reid now are more antiwar than many on Dkos
After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) complained that the level of troops — 50,000 — who would remain in Iraq is too high, other senior Democrats voiced similar concerns. Not one member of the Democratic leadership, except for Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), defended the new Obama plan, which will take three months longer than he promised and still leave a significant force structure on the ground.
More, after the fold. (Updated with “The Silence of the Liberals”)
Looks like the antiwar movement is in Congress and not much in the netroots anymore:
Most lawmakers left the White House quickly after the event. Aides later said that Democrats seemed no more pleased during the meeting than before. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) issued a positive statement, saying he “supports the plan to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq as briefed by Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates at the White House this afternoon.”
On Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) registered his complaints about the level of troops that will remain in Iraq even after 2010.
“I’m happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that’s a little higher number than I had anticipated,” Reid said.
Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the pullout “has to be done responsibly, we all agree. But 50,000 is more than I would have thought, and we await the justification.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) echoed his worries, saying: “I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can.” Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) issued a statement saying he is “concerned” about the level of troops that would remain in Iraq.
For a sampling of views by some kossaks, check out this diary from two days ago:
I didn’t agree with all of the diary, but I found many of the comments quite interesting.
Here was a comment in which I best expressed my view in response to someone who thought the diarist should be troll rated:
Interesting. (11+ / 0-)
Recommended by:mattman, RaulVB, xofferson, benny05, buhdydharma, Something the Dog Said, 0wn, david mizner, Marcion, BigAlinWashSt, sortalikenathan
So is the war okay if Obama wages it?
This is a good diary. One can disagree, but the comments like yours who seem offended that anyone actually have the courage of convictions to fight against this war should be troll rated tells me that too many don’t really care about the war.
I wish there was a draft. If people’s asses were on the line, there would be an antiwar movement.
My position, before you freak out, is that Obama’s direction is correct, but leaving 30,000 to 50,000 residual troops is too slow.
Fortunatley, the Iraquis have a treaty requiring us to leave by December 2011. So the occupation will continue for three years under Obama.
A strong antiwar movement might help Obama speed it up. But knee jerk support of whatever Obama chooses won’t do a damn thing.
“What we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed.” — Barack Obama
by TomP on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:30:30 AM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
After reading many of the comments, I was close to giving up here. If all we do is support President Obama’s policies, no matter what, than there is little purpose for the progressive blogophere.
I have been antiwar since I was 12 years old in 1967. I opposed the Vietnam War, the El Salvador and Nicarauga War, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I’m not going to change now, just because we elected a good President. I will support his policies when correct and oppose when incorrect.
When I see those whom we critcize so easily, like Pelosi and Reid, standing up for getting our soldiers out quicker, for not leaving a 50,000 residual force, and then read many kossaks who seem to place support for Barack Obama over opposition to the Iraq war, I see a netroots that has lost its way.
The antiwar movement has not:
Two days ago:
There’s still the prospect of some more friction from the left, however. Antiwar leaders want to see a clearer sense of how many residual forces will remain – today’s Times suggested the possibility of as many as 55,000 – and what precisely their mission will be.
They also want Obama to reaffirm his commitment to the Iraqi Parlimanent’s Status of Forces Agreement, which would set the end of 2011 as the deadline for all troops to be out.
“It’s important that the administration makes clear that it fully supports these firm deadlines,” Andrews continued. “And we need to be much clearer about the role the residual forces are going to have. We hope to see clarification when he makes his announcements.”
To be clear, I am grateful and overjoyed that Presdident Obama is bringing back 100,000 troops in the next 19 months. I wish it were quicker, but the choice to bring them home is the right one. But leaving 50,000 troops there for another year plus is not the right choice.
I like the direction, but the pace must be quicker.
All those who oppose the invasion and occupation should join with Pelosi and Reid and work to convince the Obama administration to cut the number of residual trooops left behind in 2010.
I agree with Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Murray and Feingold.
The Silence of the Liberals
As Obama launches “war on terrorism” II
by Justin Raimondo
Has anyone noticed Obama’s vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the “residual force” he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong?
Originally, none of those “residuals” were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told “some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions.” You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, “A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces.”
In short: we aren’t leaving.
I don’t care what the status of forces agreement says: that document has more loopholes than the bank bailout bill’s provisions for paying back the American taxpayers. Those 50,000 “residual” occupiers will simply pull back into their permanent bases, which are even now being constructed throughout Iraq, to be called on when our sock-puppets find themselves unable to tamp down the growing spirit of rebellion.
What kind of a “withdrawal” is this? It is one so burdened with contingencies, conditional footnotes, and amendatory clauses, that it falls beneath its own weight and collapses into a fair approximation of the status quo.
Antiwar voters who cast their ballots for Obama have succeeded in rolling the stone all the way up a rather steep hill, only to see it fall down the other side – and we are right back where we started. The next hill is called Afghanistan, and beyond that is yet another: Pakistan.
Yes, but myths die hard. It will take a couple of shiploads of flag-draped coffins – and perhaps a couple of alarming incidents in Afghanistan and environs – to wake up Obama’s liberal supporters to what they’re presently enabling with their silent complicity. In the meantime, the creaking wheels of empire are turning as we gather our forces for another even more perilous mission that will take us straight into the fabled graveyard of would-be world-conquerors otherwise known as Afghanistan. Why? How? To what purpose? A thousand questions raise themselves up, like the first crocuses of spring – but the Obama administration isn’t answering, because no one of any importance is asking. Just little old me – and, maybe you. And maybe Rachel Maddow, now and then: and that’s pretty much it. Surely the alleged “antiwar movement” isn’t interested – they’re too busy hailing Obama’s election.
We fought against the overwhelming majority in 2002. Now we must be derided again, this time by the Obama brigades as well as the right. But struggle we must.
Not In Our Names.
Doesn’t this tell us all we need to know? Reid and Pelosi don’t like, but McCain does.
Iraq Withdrawal Plan Gains G.O.P. Support
WASHINGTON – President Obama won crucial backing on Thursday for his Iraq military withdrawal plan from leading Congressional Republicans, including Senator John McCain, the party’s presidential nominee, who spent much of last year debating the war with Mr. Obama.
Now if McCain likes it, doesn’t that mean the netroots must like it? It must be good, right?
Give me a f..king break.