Its called rotation. These guys get called up, and others who have been on active duty get to come home and be with their families.
My brother is in the Air Force, and he goes to Iraq in February.

I thought we were drawing down, Jon. The way I hear Hannity say it, the security situation in Iraq has never been better, Iraqis are moving back home in record numbers, and peace is at hand. Why then do we need to keep sending our soldiers there? In 2009, no less? This isn't what we signed up for when we agreed to this war. If it's over, then it's time to come home. If it ain't, we need to know why.

Our job won't be done until we get the al-Maliki government to cancel the oil development contracts they've signed with European and Asian countries and wise up and let the American companies handle the oil industry.

The way I hear Hannity say it

Well thats your first problem...quit listening to Hannity.

We may be drawing down...but its going to be a long time before we are out completely (we still have troops in Kuwait fer cryin' out loud)...and there are still people there that need to be rotated out.

quit listening to Hannity

No can do. How else am I going to keep up with the RNC talking points?

My buddy is in that brigade, and he's hearing September 2008 is when they will be shipping out.

It will be his second tour of duty in Iraq. His first tour ended when his tank was blown up and he was the only survivor.

His wife is due with their first child this June.

He is a life long Republican who thought the war would be over 4 years ago.

I told him to vote for Ron Paul.

It was never part of the plan to leave. That was one of those phony debates the Bush administration wanted us to have to distract us from reality. From the beginning the plan was to stay in Iraq forever and the permanent bases we've built prove it.
Okay, maybe not forever, but at least till the oil's gone.

"It was never part of the plan to leave."

Probably more true than your sarcastic quip would portray. I never believed that this would be a short term affair, unless you define short term to be decades.

"Okay, maybe not forever, but at least till the oil's gone."

Your being optimistic.

How much oil is in Japan, and how many US service men/women do we have their?

How many US service men/women in Germany, versus their oil reserves?

We will be in the middle east until we no longer have ANY interest in that region. I predict it'll be long after Hillary's two terms are up, followed by Jeb's two terms, followed by Chelsea's two terms, followed by Jenna's two terms. Three decades easy.

How much money is China investing in this war by purchasing US Bonds with all the money they make selling us suckers all those leaded toys and other tainted goods and foods?

Good lord Sally, I pray Chelsea uses permanent birth control and Jenna practices life-long abstinence.

I think Jack's main point was the fact Dems campaigned last November on pulling troops out.

But like the true liars most politicians are, they've done nothing.

I think Jack's main point was the fact Dems campaigned last November on pulling troops out.

But like the true liars most politicians are, they've done nothing.

The Democrats have tried, but their bills have either been vetoed or filibustered (this GOP Congress is the most filibustery in history). But, of course, you knew that.

(this GOP Congress is the most filibustery in history)
----

When did this Congress turn over to the GOP?

"The Democrats have tried..."

Oh okay...

"WASHINGTON - The Democrats' flagship proposal on Iraq is aimed at bringing most troops home. Yet if enacted, the law would still allow for tens of thousands of U.S. troops to stay deployed for years to come."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071123/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq

Doesn't sound like bringing all the troops home to me.

Dave J,.
The Dems could have stopped the war by not passing any more bills funding it. To say they tried to stop the war but they couldn't because of the veto, etc... is total BS. They could have and they chose not to.
Nancy Pelosi is an accomplice in this thing and 2006 was one of the biggest betrayals in American History.

Oh and Dave? Don't forget the $100 billion war funding bill approved by congress last May.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/24/iraq.funding/index.html

I was listening to a retired CIA expert on the Middle East recently on one of those right wing talk shows. He surpised me (and probably the host) by saying the following.

1. Most countries in the Middle East aren't countries but collections of tribes.

2. Most of the people living in the Middle East hate us because we support oppressive governments there.

3. In Invading Iraq we just opened up a big can of worms.

4. Now that Iraq is disintegrating as a country there will be at least a generation of score settling there before things settle down.

5. As long as there in oil in Iraq it is in our national interest to be involved there so we will be.

There it is folks our policy in the Middle East in a nutshell.

Greg C

Its called rotation.

The capacity of the Merican fighting (wo)man for abuse by its civilian leadership is astounding.

Back in December, Rep. Earl Blumenauer made the following pledge in a public forum on "peace and accountability" in the Hollywood Theater. The "Pledge" was an awesome 5 feet tall:

I, Earl Blumenauer, as an elected member of the United States Congress, commit to support publicly the establishment of a comprehensive plan for a rapid end to the U.S. war and occupation in Iraq.

I will vote NO on any appropriations bill that would continue U.S. military operations in Iraq.

Signed:
Earl Blumenauer
September 23, 2007

Then he went ahead and voted for another year of war (with strings attached). Turns out, it was all just political theatre, back in Hollywood. 'Course Blumenauer's aides are professionals at political theatre.

And by "December," i mean "September."

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...