Jay Leno On Residual Forces

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 13:58


Discussion of residual forces is starting to reach way beyond the blogosphere. Here is Jay Leno last night:

If you watched, the three Democratic frontrunners said last night -- this is what they said. Hillary and Barack and John Edwards, they said setting a timetable for a complete withdrawal is irresponsible, because you can't project what the future situation will be in Iraq. And pulling out troops basically depends on the situation on the ground. Otherwise known as 'the Bush plan.' Hello?"

Back in April when Matt and I were arguing against residual force on MyDD, it might have just seemed like a couple of cranks with a blog and a pet issue. Now this is on Jay Leno, who lays out the Iraq blurring strategy that can partially result from residual force plans. It is absolutely mainstream.

This should be a big concern for all Democrats. Americans do not support a significant, long term troop response in Iraq. From a recent CBS poll:

CBS News  Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=706 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).

"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"

Less than a year: 49%
One to two years: 23%
Two to five years: 12%
More than five years: 5%
Other / Unsure: 11%

If Democrats want ot avoid the blurring strategy, they better start making it clear what size of residual force they intend to leave in Iraq. This is especially true of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Until they do, they will rightfully be skewered by the likes of Jay Leno and others, and their anti-war veneer will be severely damaged. I mean, if you can't promise Americans that you will pull all American troops out by 2013, and you also can't tell them how many troops you will leave in Iraq, then Leno is right: exactly how is this different from the Bush plan? It won't be long before quite a few voters start asking that question, and offering up a few more specifics will help provide a sufficient answer before it becomes a problem.

Chris Bowers :: Jay Leno On Residual Forces

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Jay Leno is a Republican tool (0.00 / 0)
who has allowed his show to become the place for bad Republican actors to announce their intentions to run for public office.

His "jokes" are intended to support his beloved Republicans. Don't get fooled into believing he's echoing popular sentiments.


I haven't watched Jay Leno ... (0.00 / 0)
...in a very long time, so you may very well be right. After all, calling what the Dem front-runners are doing "the Bush plan" might be a putdown on The Daily Show, but could be seen as praise on Leno.

The "Bush plan" is actually the NeoCon plan that would have had all but 30,000 or so troops out of Iraq by December 2003 (and ready for their next adventure). The question that should be asked of leading Dems is WHY they are unwilling to take a frimer stance regarding 2013. Do they really believe that it is in "the interests of the U.S." to have residual troops in Iraq? Or do they merely fear that if they say the U.S. should be out six years from now it will hurt them at the polls 13 months from now?

Why can none of them at least make the argument that if there are foreign troops carrying out protection duty in the years to come that these should be wearing blue helmets? They all (rightly) make a big deal of diplomatic efforts in the region. What is their hang-up?


[ Parent ]
As to Chis' poll numbers (0.00 / 0)
I would submit that those are responses to a question asked in an environment of Bush having no plan. It is pretty certain that the same question asked in a different environment would get a different response.

As I said in another post the public is pretty much behind a phased withdrawal that most people peg at being done over a one year period. And as the poll shows 35% are even willing to keep 'large numbers' of troops in Iraq for two years.

I am quite certain that given that a withdrawal would not begin until shortly after January 20, 2009 that the public would be willing to give a new Dem President the same latitude of at least one year - the same as they are willing to give Bush. And it is very likely that they would give a new Dem President with an understandable plan that was honestly explained much more time than that if needed.

Given the choice between a sensible plan that would eventually get most troops out even if it took more than a year - or a plan to get the troops out as soon as possible with the likelihood of having to send them back in if things got real bad again in Iraq or even worse spread into the region itself I would bet that the public at large would opt for the first plan to 'do it right the first time'.

In fact I think if a poll was taken today asking the public which plan they would opt for under a new Dem President that today they would overwhelmingly opt for the 'do it right the first time plan'.


Remind me again of the percentage ... (0.00 / 0)
...of Americans who think it would be just fine to have U.S. troops in Iraq in 2013.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox