John McCain: “We left Vietnam. It was over. We just had to heal the wounds of war,” he said. “We leave this place, chaos in the region, and they’ll follow us home. So there’s a great deal more at stake here in this conflict, in my view, a lot more.” McCain said he based his judgment partly on the writings of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader in Iraq who was killed in a U.S. air raid, and of Osama bin Laden. “The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it’s not the end when American troops leave. The battleground shifts, and we’ll be fighting them again,” McCain said. “You read Zarqawi, and you read bin Laden. … It’s not just Iraq that they’re interested in. It’s the region, and then us.”
Henry Kissinger: “If you mean by ‘military victory’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” he told the British Broadcasting Corp. But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam war who has advised President Bush about Iraq, warned against a rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, saying it could destabilize Iraq’s neighbors and cause a long-lasting conflict. “A dramatic collapse of Iraq _ whatever we think about how the situation was created _ would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region,” he said.
Charles Rangel: Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq. “There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said.
McCain wants more troops and Kissinger thinks we need to redefine victory but both men agree on the consequences of a rapid pullout. That seems to be the one fact that every serious observer agrees on at this stage. Charlie Rangel, on the other hand, is a f$@king idiot. Using this tactic (repeatedly) to undermine our national security efforts and literally frighten the American people is despicable. This is what passes for serious national security policy in the Democratic party. If you’ve followed Rangel’s idiotic draft ideas you’re probably aware that he’s even voted against his own proposals in the past:
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did something a little unusual yesterday. First he protested when Republican leadership scheduled his own bill for a vote.
Then he sent out a letter encouraging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it.
…“I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.
“It should be subject to hearings and to expert testimony. The administration should come and tell us about our manpower needs, about recruitment and retention, about the extent to which out troops are overextended. And they should give us their views about shared sacrifice. If they did all of those things in a serious way, they would have to admit that my bill is an option.”
He voted against it because it’s a cheap stunt intended to undermine our national security. Not even Rangel takes Rangel seriously.
Michelle Malkin: It’s a fitting symbol of what Democrat rule in Congress will be the next two years: A worthless, cynical expenditure of time and energy that accomplishes absolutely nothing.