Mark Thoma reproduces part of a National Journal article that points out that troop withdrawal can be very dangerous for the troops, and by failing to plan for it the Bush administration is increasing the odds for a chaotic, difficult, and dangerous withdrawal for the US troops when withdrawal does come.

I'm just curious, why does one one have to plan for withdraw and release those plans to the media? Seems more than a little stupid, although that's how liberals want it. You know, releasing our plans to our enemies.

I have no problem with benchmarks, and even a tenative withdraw date, but those should all be kept strictly secret. Putting a withdraw date in a damn a bill and telling everyone about is just beyond stupid. It only makes sense from a politcal stand point.

I'm just curious, why does one one have to plan for withdraw and release those plans to the media?

The clip clearly states that's not the issue. The issue is that there has been only limited planning for withdrawal because Bush does not want to even consider the idea.

Really, the plans being released to the media is not an issue? And the article clearly states that?

From your clip souce:

""The probability that it would leak to the press is too high, and no one in uniform wants to take that chance,"

Secondly..

"Knowledgeable Pentagon sources say that some planning for a possible drawdown in Iraq is in the "conceptual" stage"

Meaning your clip title is a lie, congratulations.

Third...

There is no evidence provided (if I am wrong, please post the supplied evidence from the clip source) that bush refuses even to discuss it. The only evidence provided is statements from retired Col. Richard Sinnreich who is not part of the Bush administration, meaning it is no evidence at all.

Your clip title = "Not planning"

Your clip source = "some planning for a possible drawdown in Iraq is in the "conceptual" stage"

You lied, sorry.

"Its pretty obvious that Bush won't even discuss a withdrawal in his public statements."

See my first comment on this clip.

You lied, sorry.

Well, I'll leave it to others to decide if I deliberately deceived people by saying "Bush is not planning for a withdrawal" when my clip says that there is some "conceptual planning" going on in the bowels of the Pentagon.

"Its pretty obvious that Bush won't even discuss a withdrawal in his public statements."

See my first comment on this clip.

There's a difference between publicly announcing, we're leaving at X time and releasing the specifics of the withdrawal plans, which is what I thought you meant.

I really think there are ways of discussing differences of opinion without resorting to name calling, BitDrifter. This is one of the problems that always ultimately begins to plague sites such as these. Civil discussion, where people can possibly learn from each other and exchange ideas, deteriorates into a name calling match. Please, let's try to make Clipmarks the exception to what is the general rule, and keep it civil, educational and informative. I do not mean we should never disagree, as that would be boring and uninformative. But let's disagree without the personal attacks.

Well, I'll leave it to others to decide if I deliberately deceived people

Quite funny. That is about 50% of what you do. Mostly in the suttle form of passive-aggressive appeals to ignorance.

Zasel, Please. Be more objective about the name calling garbage. Saying someone lied or that someone is ignorant is NOT a slur. Your PC attitude will cause more problems in discourse than your accusation of someon name calling.

Zasel, I don't appreciate your personal attacks and name calling. Please try to be more civil.