Every Republican Running For President, Except Ron Paul, Opposes Ending The Occupation Of Iraq

Even if President Obama wasted a million dollars on a flight jacket, a codpiece, props and elaborate staging-- like, say, an aircraft carrier-- I doubt any Republicans would have celebrated the real Mission Accomplished moment (video above) on Friday morning. Unable to reach an agreement with the ineffectual, grotesquely corrupt Iraqi regime on immunity for American troops training Iraq's army, the last of the U.S. military personnel left in the country-- nearly 40,000 men and women-- will, as the president put it, "be home for the holidays." Apparently their jobs will be filled by private contractors/mercenaries.

"The President kept his pledge to the nation to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way, he has promoted our security in Afghanistan and eliminated key Al Qaeda leaders while strengthening American leadership around the world. Mitt Romney didn't lay out a plan to end the war in Iraq in his foreign policy agenda-- he barely even mentioned Iraq-- but he is apparently willing to leave American troops there without identifying a new mission. Mitt Romney's foreign policy experience is limited to his work as a finance executive shipping American jobs overseas."

That came from Ben LaBolt, press secretary for an Obama reelection outfit. I guess he doesn't count Romney's years as a Mormon missionary in France as "foreign policy experience." Romney was only one of the Republicans tripping all over himself to, essentially, call for another invasion and occupation of Iraq. As with all things Willard, there's no way to know what he actually thinks about any issue from day to day-- other than whatever President Obama does is bad-- even if it's pretty much doing exactly what the bipartisan foreign policy apparatus of the country set in stone long ago-- and even if it's exactly what Willard himself would likely be doing in the same circumstances. The Mormon bishop who would do anything to grab the White House:

"President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq."

Yes, he wants to keep the troops in Iraq. Or is saying he does as a political ploy. It was, after all, the Bush Regime that proposed and signed the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement dictating almost exactly what Obama did. So what exactly are Romney and the other 7 dwarves yammering about other than "Vote for me; I'm as dumb as a brick?"

Barbara Lee (D-CA), the only Member of Congress with the foresight to oppose Bush's attack on Afghanistan, had a more coherent response to the news than Romney.

Our U.S. military forces in Iraq will be home for the holidays. We applaud President Obama for holding to our nation’s agreement with the government of Iraq to bring our troops home by the end of this calendar year and for ending this costly and unnecessary war.

This move will save billions of dollars, improve our reputation around the world, and it is the right thing to do.  It also fulfills the object of legislation I introduced, The Iraq Withdrawal Accountability Act of 2011 (H.R. 2757), which would prohibit funding for any extension of the December 31, 2011 deadline, and fulfills the request I, along with 92 members of Congress, made in our letter to the President back in July. 
  
Let us celebrate this overdue and great victory for the progressive movement who have worked to first prevent and then end this unnecessary and unjustified war. And let us work to ensure our veterans receive everything they have earned.

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) have been stalwart critics of both Bush's and Obama's occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan). They released a statement congratulating the president on behalf of the Progressive Caucus which they chair, calling the announcement "a victory for America and another monumental step toward the end of the disastrous foreign policy of the Bush era."

We thank the president for fulfilling his promise to the American people to end this misguided war quickly and responsibly. For nearly a decade, Americans across the country spoke out against this war, and now we can turn the page on a troubled period in American history. This is a long overdue victory for not just the people of Iraq, but the progressive movement that consistently opposed this costly and unjustified war.
 
As the president honors his commitment to America’s voters, we must also honor our commitment to our veterans by ensuring that they and their families receive the full benefits they have earned. We owe them nothing less.

Romney and the rest of the GOP don't just want to keep the country at war, they adamantly oppose honoring the benefits to American vets who their party uses as pawns in it's foreign adventures on behalf of Big Business. Many of the Republicans were whining that Obama-- the elected president of the United States (and the commander-in-chief)-- should let the military officers decide when to end the occupation. That's the GOP foreign policy. Something tells me weird Bishop Romney would be uninterested in what Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Ret.), who served in Iraq as Commanding General of the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team (CMATT), had to say about it after the president's announcement:

The President made the right choice today in announcing a complete drawdown from Iraq by the end of the year. His decision honors the commitments of the United States: to a sovereign Iraqi nation, to the brave American troops and diplomats who have served for almost a decade and to the American people. The United States has provided opportunities for Iraqis to ask for an American troop presence beyond the date agreed to by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in 2008. They have not asked for that. It would be inappropriate to keep troops without Iraqi legal immunity for our servicemembers. Hundreds of thousands of dedicated Americans have served our country in Iraq, and nearly four thousand five hundred people have given their lives to support Iraq's transition to a sovereign democratic nation. Today we thank and honor these men and women and mark a promise kept to Iraqis, to Americans and to the values they serve.

UPDATE: OOPS!

There are a bunch of minor candidates running who actually do support President Obama's decision to end the Iraq occupation-- Buddy Roemer, Fred Karger, Gary Johnson... there may be some others. None of them are permitted by the GOP Establishment to get anywhere near the televised debates. Last January, for example, Karger told New Hampshire media "I think the only surge we should do is to surge out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We have lost so many American lives and there are so many wounded warriors returning home.” And on Gary Johnson's website, he is also pretty clear that he doesn't go for the Military Industrial Complex line being automatically parroted by the Likes of Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, et al. "Given trillion-dollar deficits, America simply cannot afford to be engaged in foreign policy programs that are not clearly protecting U.S. interests. There is nation-building and rebuilding to be done right here at home... With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people. Saddam Hussein has been out of power in Iraq for nearly eight years. America must leave so Iraq can have a chance to grow into a responsible member of the world community."