A Plan That's Not a Plan in Republican Spinworld:
Sometimes following Republican logic is a little like watching a ferret that just got into a meth stash. You're watchin' that twitchy fucker spin all over the place, and you wish that it'd just die already and get it over with instead of breaking all the glass in the apartment and bleeding and shitting everywhere.
So let's just get this straight: if your opponent voted against a tax cut, it's the same as if he voted to increase taxes; if you arrest seven crazed losers in their self-storage warehouse home in Florida because they told a cajoling undercover FBI agent, "Oh, fuck, that'd be fuckin' tits if we could blow shit up like the Sears Tower," it constitutes a "conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, namely, al Qaeda; conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists; conspiracy to maliciously damage and destroy buildings by means of an explosive device; and conspiracy to levy war against the government of the United States"; if you are told that a newly declassified report lists 500 missles in Iraq with chemicals degraded to the point that sour milk is just as toxic, you can trumpet that as discovered weapons of mass destruction and crow like a cock over a defeated corn cob.
But if the general in charge of U.S. troops in Iraq has a plan to withdraw at least some U.S. troops from that nation, then, no, really, that's not a plan for withdrawal - what the fuck are you Democrats talking about? 'Cause, like, see that's kind of exactly what Democrats wanted in the most recent debate of the damned in the Senate over the war. Sure, sure, no one expected John Kerry's "Yeah, I Know It's Two Years Too Late, But, Fuck, See, I Really, Really Oppose the War Now. Please Love Me" resolution to get much traction.
But the other amendment to a defense spending bill, sponsored by Carl Levin and a handful of other Democratic Senators, called for Congress to politely request that the Bush administration "change course from an open-ended commitment and to promote the assumption of security responsibilities by the Iraqis, thus advancing the chances for success in Iraq." It said, pretty simply, that "there must be a fair sharing of political power and economic resources among all the Iraqi groups," and that "the President should convene an international conference so as to more actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors," and, you know, disarm the militias. Pretty inoffensive shit, even quite gutless (an "international conference"?).
Then the amendment says, "the President should--
"(i) expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training Iraqi security forces, providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces, protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities;
"(ii) after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year; and
"(iii) submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise".
That's it. Take down some forces soon, and keep Congress informed. A total pussy of a nonbinding resolution. No timetable. Just a "pretty please, think about us." To Republicans (and a few Democrats- lookin' at you, Lieberman) in Congress, that was "cut and run," like the military was tell its soldiers to drop their equipment and dash crazy and naked back to Kuwait. And, of course, not unexpectedly, it was defeated, too.
And then comes the report that General George Casey plans to, well, fuck, begin a phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year. So, like, which part of the amendment was the most offensive to the Bush administration that it left Senate Republicans looking like chief shit eaters of the crazy monkey club? The Rude Pundit thinks he knows: the amendment called for a modicum of Congressional oversight. How fucking dare the Democrats think the Constitution gives 'em that right.
Kentucky's Mitch McConnell said as much on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos's hair: "[T]he Congress ought not to be dictating to the generals what the tactics are. That was the point. We want the conditions on the ground and the decisions of our commanders in conjunction with the new Iraqi democratic government to dictate the process, not the Congress trying to act like armchair generals dictating every nuance of the policy in Iraq. That was the point, and the Congress overwhelmingly voted on a bipartisan basis to reject the Congress dictating specific withdrawal time lines to the generals in Iraq."
So, keeping their collective "D'oh" in their sinister chamber of majority secrets, Senate Republicans have spun this like so many other things, by re-creating reality and saying that a plan for withdrawal is not really a plan for withdrawal. John Warner said that the plan is not a plan on Fox "News" Sunday with Mike Wallace's fecal remnant of a son: "The [defense] department's drawn up plans at all times, but I think it would be wrong now to say that this is the plan that we're going to operate under."
The Iraqis, though, they want some idea when troops are gonna be withdrawn. Warner puts the kibbosh on that thought, saying, "We will consult with [the Iraqis]. I'm confident our government will not let them make mistakes that would reflect adversely on troop withdrawals." Yep, democracy's great when you have a parent country there to tell you when you're doin' fine and when you need Daddy's intervention.