I have changed my mind.

Just like the President, or anyone else on earth, except, apparently, you, can do.

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070524.html

So you were saying Frank ….

To prove you aren’t completely braindead, however, please tell us all what the difference is between our relationship with Iraq and Syria, Iran, North Korea and Mexico?

The opening paragraph:

The House last night brushed aside weeks of angry White House rhetoric and veto threats to narrowly approve a $124 billion war spending bill that requires troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin by Oct. 1, with a goal of ending U.S. combat operations there by next March.[emphasis mine]

Then why not Iraq?

Wow, Frank. It’s almost like you’re an idiot or
something:

The bill passed yesterday sets strict requirements for resting, training and equipping troops but would grant the president the authority to waive those restrictions, as long as he publicly justifies the waivers. The bill also establishes benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet: Create a program to disarm militias, reduce sectarian violence, ease rules that purged the government of all former Baath Party members and approve a law on sharing oil revenue.

Unless the Bush administration determines by July 1 that those benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home immediately, with a goal of completing those withdrawals by the end of the year. If benchmarks are being met, troops would begin coming home no later than Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1.

After combat forces are withdrawn, some troops could remain to protect U.S. facilities and diplomats, pursue terrorist organizations, and train and equip Iraqi security forces.

How is that someone could be so obviously misinformed about something they appear to be so passionate about? Do you ever stop to read anything about current events, Frank, or do ou just spew whatever the latest nonsense you hear on talk radio?

What else was I expecting from someone who seems unable to recognize his own contradictions. On the one hand you ask me:

The Iraqi’s statement includes the words, “…we asked that we should build our security forces and make them qualified”. Would you sign on for that or not?

And when I say “Yes” you respond:

It is not simply, “What Iraq wants, Iraq gets”.

We have a far greater
geopolitical interest in Iraq than simply getting the Sunnis and the Shiites to break bread together.

So Frank, do you care about allowing the Iraqis to govern themselves or not? Have you not just tacitly admitted that our interests in Iraqi outweigh the iraqis interest in Iraq? Why exactly should the Iraqi’s have to negotiate with us about the fate of their own country? If they want a timetable for withdrawal, on what possible grounds could the Bush administration, which says it wants a free, independent Iraq, say no?

You know what? Nevermind. You’re obviously totally misinformed on the key facts of the debate and you aren’t capable of being intellectually or factually consistent. Why would anyone bother discussing anything with you?

Mr Pipeline: What are you trying to say?

That the White House would prefer there be no timetable? Fine, so they disagree with the Iraqis.
Working out that disagreement is called diplomacy.

I think the administration is entitled to their stance, and they are entitled to negotiate it with the administrators of Iraq. It is not simply, “What Iraq wants, Iraq gets”.

We have a far greater
geopolitical interest in Iraq than simply getting the Sunnis and the Shiites to break bread together.

Yeah, it’s a real Haruhi-damn* shame.

*goddamn, if you will.

The U.S. government would have to agree to the timetable first, which they haven’t.

No,I do not support the idea of a timetable that is tied to nothing but the Democrats’ anxiety.

A thousand pardons for feeling a bit unsettled when tens of thousands of people are needlessly dying. If only we could treat human life so callously like you and “keep our cool”.

A timetable “tied to a benchmark” is not the same as a timetable tied to the Democrats’ political ambitions.

What are these magical “ambitions” pray-tell? Stabalizing the Iraqi infastructure? Reducing the number of insurgant-caused causalities? Building an Iraqi police adademy that ISN’T leaking feces? Because if you want to make those Democratic “ambitions”, we’ll gladly take them.

Whether I agreed or not, I would have to agree that they should have what they want. But they don’t want a hasty pullout. Would you agree, under those circumstances, that they should get what THEY want?

A timetable “tied to a benchmark” is not the same as a timetable tied to the Democrats’ political ambitions.

I’m afraid it is YOU who are trying to get me to answer your question your way, and I will not.

So, I’m asking YOU, would you agree to a timetable tied to the Iraqi’s wishes that they should build their security forces and make them qualified?

The Iraqi’s statement includes the words, “…we asked that we should build our security forces and make them qualified”.

Would you sign on for that or not?

Are you ready to accept the will of Iraq’s elected leaders and sign on for a timetable or not?

{Nimrod reaches for the Caps Key}

It isn’t our country, but it is our concern.