Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama tours Iraq
Barack Obama is visiting Iraq today, marking the second major leg of his war zone tour that began in Afghanistan. Thus far, his trip has attracted widespread international coverage, which stands in stark contrast to the attention John McCain received on his recent and very similar trip.
The media fuss has left the McCain camp in a quandary, the International Herald Tribune reports. It says the Republicans seem unable to decide whether Obama’s visit to Iraq “is worthy of praise or an opportunity for payback for Obama’s unrelenting criticism of their own policy.” An AP headline sums up the surliness in the McCain camp at all the media attention Obama will get next week: McCain says he’s glad Obama is going to Iraq, sort of.
In an ABC News interview this morning, McCain–who had criticized Obama for developing his Iraq strategy without first revisiting the country–said he hopes Obama’s travels will give him an opportunity to see firsthand the success of the surge: “This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against. He was wrong about the surge. It is succeeding and we are winning.” McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker didn’t mince words, however, when analyzing Obama’s travel plans: “Let’s drop the pretence that this is a fact-finding trip and call it what it is: the first-of-its-kind campaign rally overseas. It’s a giant photo opportunity.”
back to top126 Comments to “Obama tours Iraq”
But of course the problem for McCain would seem to be even more problematic than that, since Bush has now accepted the concept of a withdrawal (announced Friday) and the Iraqis has expressed an eagerness for a timetable for withdrawal.
It would seem now that McCain is standing alone in the political spectrum in insisting on no withdrawal or more correctly withdrawal by the latter date of 2013.
The following seems to be a reasoanble summary of the situation:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/07/whats-new-13.html
Report comment to moderator
If I were McCain, I think I would trumpet that the surge has worked, security has been restroed, and it is now timme to withdraw troops in an orderly manner.
If he is elected he is going to be saddled with that position anyway (the status of forces agreement will be in place and will almost certainly contain withdrawl provisions of some sort), so it is arguably best to make an advantage out of a necessity.
Report comment to moderator
Remember the last time McCain was in Iraq?
He walked through a market in Baghdad and remarked how wonderful everything was.
He didn’t mention how he was surrounded by security with helicopters flying overhead for added protection.
This from the country Bush “liberated”.
Report comment to moderator
I still prefer McCain’s “wait and see” attitude when it comes to any type of withdrawal, and it’s quite possible BHO will no longer have a 16-month firm date by the time he talks with the commanders on the ground.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Obama is involved in a characteristic waffle on the issue of Iraqi troop withdrawals; Robert Novak today writes:
So, in his pre-trip speech last Tuesday, he reaffirmed the 16-month deadline (though in less robust style than on the primary election circuit): “We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.” But he added, cryptically, “We’ll keep a residual force” for “targeting any remnants of al-Qaida,” “protecting” remaining U.S. troops and officials, and training Iraqi security forces provided they “make political progress.”
How big would this more or less permanent “residual” force be? Obama did not say, but advisers leaked it could reach 50,000. That would be far too much for the candidate’s net-roots to swallow, but a token force of around 2,000 would be ludicrous. Obama will face a test of how he handles this after he meets in Iraq with the esteemed Gen. David Petraeus.
Also, Maliki has qualified an earlier statement approving Obama’s “timetable” by saying that suc a timetable would be subject to conditions on the ground.
As to the reality on the ground, consider the following from a New York Times report:
Smiles aside, the Anbar Sunni officer who was interviewed, Gen. Nassir al-Hiti, commander of a predominantly Shiite unit in western Baghdad, had misgivings about Obama’s planned pullout.
“Very difficult,” he was quoted as saying. “Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: For now, we don’t have that ability.” This from a general described last year by the U.S. military as “a lot more competent than most Iraqi officers.”
Report comment to moderator
BTW, if McCain were actually Musing (If I were McCain) I’d undoubtedly vote third-party.
Report comment to moderator
Obama Tours Iraq?
This means one thing and one thing only: a new major speech by Obama is in the works. There will be no references to Obama’s non-stop defeatism and surrender talk of the last couple years. In it, he will praise some of the very strategy that he has long condemned and pretend that this is what he thought all along.
In short, Obama will re-create his own reality, again, and no reporter will have the slightest memory of the profound contradictions.
Report comment to moderator
Any ducks?
Or sniper fire?
Or little girls reading poetry?
Or two-letter banners?
(Just wondering.)
Report comment to moderator
Does everyone know why violence is down in Iraq?
Bush and his enablers have been bribing the various factions to play nice.
So you know how long that will last.
Report comment to moderator
Correction: two-word banners
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 5,
actually this comment:
“Also, Maliki has qualified an earlier statement approving Obama’s “timetable” by saying that suc a timetable would be subject to conditions on the ground.”
was in the earliest reports of this interview. The latter qualification was not around this statement but around a general mistranslation argument which upon reviewing the original tape does not appear to be valid.
A full verson of Obama’s positon on Iraq withdrawal is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
where the following is perhaps the salient obserrvation:
“In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected.”
Report comment to moderator
Nick, maybe next “they” should try that approach on the US-Mexico border.
Or in LA.
Or in Congress.
Report comment to moderator
What is interesting is that Obama and Bush’s proposals are now very closely aligned.
McCain, as is noted in the material in post 1, is the odd man out.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Ah, so according to your post 13 a vote for Obama is a vote for a third term for George W. Bush! Wonderful observation!
Report comment to moderator
Do you think President Bush tweaked his Iraq proposals to become more in line with BHO’s, Musing, or was it the other way around?
Report comment to moderator
Do you know why Bush tweaked his Iraq proposals?
Because Afghanistan is turning into more of a debacle than Iraq and Bush (looking to save face as always) wants to transfer troops there.
Report comment to moderator
McCain is the courageous fellow who supported the surge back in January 2007 when it was a highly unpopular position that most pundits claimed would sink his chances of election. Obama at the time was playing popular politics by being against the surge and proposing bringing all of the troops home in fourteen months, which would have led to a military and strategiv disaster in Iraq and the Middle East. Obama later during the primaries was clear that he wanted all of the troops out of Iraq n sixteen months. It has been only recently that he has waffled on this position.
McCain, far from being the odd man out is the only candidate with a consistent position that America has serious and vital interests in Iraq and the Middle East. We can trust that he would act vigorously to protect these interests, while with Obama who knows what he would actually do in the White House. The man, as Shelby Steele has made clear, lacks a solid coherent core of character from which he bases any of his political positions. That’s why in both Illinois and Washington he has not accomplished anything of major political significance.
Report comment to moderator
This just out on the news:
Obama was inspecting troops in Baghdad. He pointed at a GI’s rifle and asked
“What is THAT?”
“It’s a RIFLE, sir”, the GI said.
Obama puzzles on that for a few moments. “And WHAT do you use THAT for?”
“I shoot the enemy with it, sir”, says the GI.
Obama turns white (which is quite a sight, although it seems to be happening more and more recently). He wobbles and his knees gives way.
His aides vigorously fan him with fans. He heroically recovers and the press corps breathes a sigh of relief.
“You SHOOT people?” There is a collective gasp from the press corp and all of Obama’s aides, as the implication of the great leader’s words sink in. As usual, his lightning-quick high IQ mind has arrived at the crux of the matter, long before anyone else has realized the horrible truth. Several of the press, mostly NYTimes reporters, pass out in horror, as they realize the import of his words.
“Well, yes sir, if they are shooting at me or if they are actively chopping off civilian’s heads or blowing up children and women, that kind of thing.”
Through the cries of outrage and hisses of disgust which are coming from the press corps, Obama gathers himself and tries to looks presidental and disapproving.
“Good God, man. What does it matter what THEY are doing? WE SHOOT people? This is TERRIBLE. I will see to it that this sort of thing is STOPPED. NO WONDER we are HATED by the WORLD so much.”
He turns to an aide, “Make a note immediately – when I am elected, we will STOP this – immediately. No rifles will be allowed in MY military. We will rid the world of such things – starting with US!”
An aide whispers something to him and a look of triumph comes over his face. “But”, he continued, “we will NOT destroy them ALL. No! We will use them for something GOOD, for HOPE, for CHANGE, for the KINGDOM OF GOD THAT I, I MEAN, WE WILL CREATE ON EARTH!” The crowd of reporters, throw their Obama hats into the air and weep tears of joy all over their Obama campaign buttons. Several throw their underwear at Obama.
“There is a horrible MEDICAL problem in the United States that WE can address with these things, these . . . er . . . ‘rifle’ things.”
The crowd goes crazy with adoration.
“It seems”, Obama intones, fixing his eyes with a steely far-seeing gaze at the far horizon, “that our brave physicans who serve so selflessly and courageously in the front lines of the ABORTION CLINICS, are developing carpal tunnel syndrome from repeatedly having to stab full term children they have aborted in the brain in order to kill the little devils. (I am told they can be quite tenacious, these little inconvient lumps of tissue.”
The crowd of reporters gasp in horror and some even weep at the injustice and horror of this, and blow their noses loudly.
“We will provide these rifle-things to abortion clinics to SHOOT these babies, er, I mean FETUSES. The rest of these things we will DESTROY, as we move into with the audacity of HOPE into a NEW future, and destroy the bad old America and make an America we can be PROUD of! CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!”
And, once again, the crowd of media goes wild. There is a stampede toward Obama and shortly he is completely buried in underwear, which is not pleasant, it being summer in Baghdad and laundry facilities not up-to-snuff.
Anyway, after a shower and a de-santitization, he ate lunch, looking very presidential all the time.
Report comment to moderator
When the top 300 Marxists and Socialists in America are traveling with Obama on his World wide tour with the MSM as the DNC’s mouthpiece and their slave masters of the worldwide left all turn out to crown their new messiah and pee all over themselves at the same time – a little red flag should go off in your head that they will soon have you in bondage, bent over a sofa and peeing all over you – as they blame you for it.
Americans do not like foreigners telling us what is right and wrong and what to do – since they have always been as wrong on everything as their slaves in the the USA that they control have been.
The more they fawn over Obama on this trip and the more haughty this elitists acts even as a group – the farther Obama will fall behind. Can’t wait to hear his German and French he is so fond of, after Spanish of course. Elglish is way down the list.
We have never wanted to follow their lead in anything. They have always followed our lead in everything and now is not the time to change -that or anything else.
Report comment to moderator
Nick: NEWSFLASH: It was the other way around!
Report comment to moderator
I always laugh when people talk with great reverance about the “surge”.
1) There was no Solomon-like decision involved in the surge. It was Bush playing his last hand. The equivalent of a “Hail Mary” pass at the end of a football game.
2) Whenever the word surge is used the word “progress” is sure to follow. No one ever defines what progress means in Iraq but Gen. Petraeus calls it “fragile and reversible”.
3) Does anyone think the extra 21,500 troops used in the surge (or whatever figure is used) would make that much of a difference?
Report comment to moderator
I would think of this more as a due diligence trip: Sen. Obama does need to get a feel for what’s happening on the ground.
As to being inconstant, per Shelby Steele (Peter Leavitt, 17), McCain has had more than a few policy swings himself.
Report comment to moderator
The President has been adapting his policy to a “time horizon” because the Iraqis are the ones telling the Administration that the USA cannot remain forever, not even for a 100 years, not even for 50. So perhaps it turns out that Obama and the dems have had the right idea on withdrawing all along.
Here is the audio translation from al Maliki: ”
“Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”
He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”
This is also what the Bushies have run up against in the SOFA negotiations.
On a separate note, a question for Llama: How do you define marxists and socialists, because I have to observe that you don’t seem to really have a good grasp on these two terms.
Drill, so when the bottom starts falling out of the Iraq issue, changing the subject is in order?
Musing, I think it highly improbable that the SOFA will be in place. Why should the GOI negotiate with a lame duck? They seem to have rightly assessed that they are better of waiting for the next Administration.
Report comment to moderator
Nick, the surge was not only an increase in troops but more importantly a major change of strategy that incorporated the best military and political thinking on how to handle an insurgency. We moved troops from safe bases directly into cities and towns to fight, protect, and help the people to recover economically and politically.
Don’t kid yourself that the surge is merely Bush rhetoric. It has become increasingly clear that the change of strategy has stabilized Iraq enough to allow the the budding democracy to achieve fifteen of the eighteen political objectives that our government including Congress judged to be critical to the success of the Iraq government.
Should the U.S. persevere in Iraq we bid fair to win this war and establish Iraq as an important democratic country in the heart of the Middle East. This may come as bad news for the Bush and U.S. bashers who are invested in an Iraq defeat, though it happens to be the truth.
Report comment to moderator
Musing says;
“What is interesting is that Obama and Bush’s proposals are now very closely aligned.”
That’s because Obamas position has changed to mirror Bushs’. Bush has said when withdrawl would begin all along. Those conditions now seem to be met. He’s doing what he said, when he said he would.
Obama on the other hand, has done a complete 180.
http://tinyurl.com/584rw6
From the link;
“On April 10th 2007, Barack Obama participated in a Town Hall forum for Presidential candidates sponsored by Moveon.org. This was three months after President Bush announced his plan for the surge in Iraq, but before it had been fully implemented. Obama promised the audience that if he were to have his way, he would begin unconditional troop withdrawals on May 1st, 2007, and that the last troops would leave Iraq by March 31, 2008.
Obama indicated that there was no military solution in Iraq, and had himself introduced legislation in January 2007 to force his timetable on the troops. That legislation, The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, would have also prevented the surge troops from being deployed.
And;
Today, we must look back at the clearly stated actions (retreat, no surge) that Obama wanted to take in 2007, and compare them to the results that we can see today of the change in strategy ordered by President Bush that the presumed Democratic Presidential nominee so forcefully opposed at that time.”
Obama has been wrong all along. If he’s right now, it’s only ‘cuz he flip-flopped, again.
McCain on the other hand has been consistent, opting to let the commanders on the ground decide.
And that is what he will do now as well.
Report comment to moderator
The Surge wasn’t more of a good thing, it was the termination of a bad thing. The “success” came from stopping the war, and going into a holding pattern. We started bribing rather than killing the enemy, and assisting rather than arresting, torturing, and incarcerating the bad guys. US soldiers didn’t like making nice with people who had tried to kill them, but they discovered that things got a lot nicer when they didn’t shoot at anything that moved. The Surge disguised our combat disengagement. It was our excuse for not withdrawing.
What a surprise — the fewer bullets we fired at Iraqi’s, the less violence there was in the country.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s followers have been accused of messianic like adoration but it appears the Buhs/McCain followers suffer the a even worse messianic delusion with their inability to ascertain the drift of Bush to follow Obama’s Afghan focused policy as opposed to its continued adherence to the Iraqi diversion. No one can seriously consider that without Obama’s promise to refocus US policy on Afghanistan that Bush/McCain would have remembered that a state of war existed on the other side of Iran. Coming from an administration which was ready to jump into a third war, the refocus on Afghanistan can only be ascribed to Obama’s campaign (and the pure commonsense of finishing the first war before starting a third)
Report comment to moderator
Those on the left playing gotcha now are the same folks who would have pulled out months ago, without strategic criteria, the same folks who disapproved of and would have blocked the surge. They’ve proven themselves natteringly irrelevant to the conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Sure, HRW. If it weren’t for Obama, your fictional hyphenate entity (B/McC) would have entirely forgotten Afghanistan. Natteringly irrelevant.
Report comment to moderator
And it’s all for show. He’s got to change this perception from the article below. It’s nothing but smoke and mirrors.
http://tinyurl.com/6k7xx9
Americans are afraid of this scenario, Barack H. Obama as commander-in-chief. The New York Times and CBS News released a poll this week; in it, Americans answered detailed questions about this possibility.
The poll’s answers shocked the strategists at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. An intensive international travel schedule for Obama and a refocus of the campaign’s message on defense and foreign policy speaks to this fear.
The poll says Americans consider him lacking in the abilities necessary to run the armed services. Conversely, the polls show John McCain blows Obama out of the water as a good commander-in-chief. Forty-six percent of respondents thought McCain would very likely “be effective” as commander-in-chief, as opposed to only 24 percent saying the same of Obama. In fact, 36 percent think it is “not likely” Obama will be effective in the position.
Obama’s talents lie in his gift of oratory and his ability to move people with emotion, but this does not necessarily make for a good commander. The chief executive’s job requires forward thinking, realistic assessments of the world’s threats, and the maturity to make judgments in a crisis.
Obama has been consistently wrong on Iraq. I, for one, don’t trust his judgement.
Report comment to moderator
Well McCain was ready to “bomb, bomb, Iran” or perhaps sell them more cigarettes. Their focus was Iran and Iraq not Afghanistan.
Report comment to moderator
To Peter #24
How can anyone in their right mind think Iraq is going to be a democracy?
An unprovoked attack by a predominately Christian country (the U.S.) and the blind support of Israel is going to install democracy on an Islamic nation at the end of a rifle?
Even if Iraq is ready for democracy they won’t accept it on those terms.
Report comment to moderator
AJ — criticizing Obama on military spending seems like a valid idea until one considers Rumsfeild went to war with the army he had not the one he wanted and the troops were using improvised amour plates on their APVs. We know the Republicans were willing to send troops with inferior equipment yet the article is more worried about some hypotheticals Obama might do.
Report comment to moderator
AJ [30]
Obama has been consistently wrong on Iraq.
In point of fact, he was right about the one thing that mattered: going in to Iraq in the first place. That’s old news, now. But that opinion sets him apart from the legion of Democrats too scared of the Republicans to think straight about our country’s priorities.
Now with the surge, we come to a point where we can say good riddance to a bad venture. And the sooner, the better.
Report comment to moderator
SeriousGeorge is quite right. Obama and the left, who not too long ago were ready to pull out of Iraq with their tails between their legs are now mindlessly claiming some sort of a victory brought about by some fictitious “holding pattern”. Those fallen soldiers were hardly involved in a “holding pattern.” When the history of the Iraq War is written, the real heroes, along with the warriors, will probably be George Buah and Dick Cheney who understood the importance of fighting and winning in Iraq and, notwithstanding some serious mistakes, had the fortitude to stay the course in the face of ferocious domestic and foreign objections to the war.
It is both amusing and appalling to observe the bleatings and whinings of those on the left who are having to face the probability that the Bush administration will be known in history as the liberator of Iraq and the major force behind the first serious democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
Report comment to moderator
Obama: Good morning, Iraq!
Commander on the Ground (saluting): Senator, good morning, Sir!
Obama: What’s new on the ground, Commander?
Commander on the Ground: For the Iraqi’s, not much, Sir!
Obama: Huh?
Commander on the Ground: The Iraqi death toll, Sir. It’s just like it was the last time you were here in January, 2006 — if not slightly worse. We’ve succeeded in returning conditions to the way they were then.
Obama: Is that good?
Commander on the Ground: Ha! I see your point, Sir. You have to consider the alternatives.
Obama: You mean, if we left?
Commander on the Ground: Yes, but not just us. The Iraqis, too. Lots of them are already gone. After we escalated — I mean, surged — we oversaw the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the country.
Obama: Thanks for your service, Commander. Remember to turn out the lights when you leave.
Comander on the Ground: Thank you, Sir. Actually, the lights have never been on.
Report comment to moderator
Well, the anti-war candidate has suddenly become a hawk on the warpath. He wants to make a dramatic shift of troops to Afghanistan from Iraq (kind of like we’re already doing).
Afghanistan “has to be our central focus, the central front of our battle against terrorism. One of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here.”
He is also in favor of giving more aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“We’re going to expect that Pakistan takes much more seriously going after al-Qaeda and Taliban-based camps on their side of the borders,” he said. “I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps.”
All of a sudden this frail antiwar lefty sounds like General Patton wanting to go around kicking butt. Of course, he hasn’t said anything new.
Report comment to moderator
So Bush “liberated” Iraq and is bringing democracy there?
If that is correct then let Bush bask in the glory of his accomplishment. Let him walk through the streets of Baghdad and Fallujah as people throw roses from the balconies and have Bush kiss their babies.
Bush is certainly not above self congratulations. Remember when Bush dressed like Snoopy’s Red Baron and landed on the aircraft carrier when he thought things were going well in Iraq?
Report comment to moderator
I remember Nick. I also remember you being as clueless about what it signified then, (an end to major combat operations against the Iraqi military), as you are now. Same old, same old….
Report comment to moderator
Nick asked; “Does anyone think the extra 21,500 troops used in the surge (or whatever figure is used) would make that much of a difference?”
Peter made a decent reply at #24 and I would like to add to it.
1. Before the surge, we were having military success defeating Al Qaeda and others nearly wherever we tried. However, far too many of them were able to hide, regroup and move to other places and continue their hateful work. We needed more troops (the Surge) to implement a new strategy which was to SIMULTANEOUSLY defeat Al Qaeda cowards in multiple communities and hiding places and to cut off retreat and reforming efforts by Al Qaeda and prevent them from moving to new territories.
2. Gen. Petreaus had learned that the noble-sounding political rhetoric about training Iraqi forces and passing the war tasks on to them had been premature. Patreaus knew that the US military had to rise and do jobs that the Iraqi’s were nowhere near ready to do, BEFORE we could realistically back off and start handing the job to the Iraqis. But now we are more ready to work harder on the training tasks.
The politicians were under pressuse to say waht made people feel better, but Gen. Petreaus just wanted us to win. And winning is our mission and we are getting that done.
The US leaders who preceeded the Surge were being contained by excessive political posturing. But they still did get us into a good position for Petraeus’ strategy to work well.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
Obama has not campaigned as an anti-war candidate. You might recall some months back the shellacking he took for saying we needed to attack al Q in Pakistan. He has been anti-Iraq war, that is true, but that is not the same as being anti-war. If you look at his campaign speeches you will find consistency on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Report comment to moderator
An incisive analysis of Obama’s ambiguous position in Iraq comes from an IBD article on 9 July including:
Speaking in Powder Springs, Ga., on Tuesday,[8 July] Obama rejected “this whole notion that I am shifting to the center, or that I am flip-flopping” on Iraq.
“Don’t be confused,” he said. “I am going to bring the Iraq War to a close when I am president of the United States of America.”
So is Obama refining his position based on changing conditions or not? “You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we are in now . . . about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009,” his foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, told the BBC. “He will of course not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a U.S. senator.”
Huh? So Obama can say anything he wants at any time, and we are not to take him at his word? His campaign Web site still says: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
He will do his best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We have brought democracy to the Middle East. Obama would bring abandonment and chaos.
People who somehow think Obama would handle the Iraq War issue wisely are whistling past the graveyard. It has become abundantly clear that Obama is merely a wobbly and crass liberal politician who is pretending to be a statesman.
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone remember the aircraft carrier stunt? Well … Yes. I remember, Nick. It was right after our forces decisively, and in short order, swept Hussein and his Republican Guard out of power. I believe we might have been celebrating a mission accomplished at the time.
Good grief. Are there any credible leftists left around here?
Report comment to moderator
The only reason Obama visited Iraq is that McCain called him on the carpet for spouting off ignorantly (and destructively) about the war the USA is currently fighting there even though Obama had not even visited there in years to see what was going on.
So this trip is just to buy some perceived credibility that Obama lacked before so that he can come back and give a “major speech” that his worshipful media sycophants can praise to the hilt regardless of its inevitable contradictions and ignorance.
No questions will be asked or answer after the speech.
Report comment to moderator
George Bush . . . understood the importance of fighting and winning in Iraq
. . . so why is Bush too embarrassed to call it like it is? Your cowboy is riding a happy trail to an “aspirational horizon”.
Today on TV, Petraeus declines to say that a 16-month objective for ending combat operations in Iraq is “dangerous.” Ambassador Crocker says the discussion about a timeline for withdrawing our troops is a “good thing.”
Al Maliki briefly found himself on a rendition flight after telling Der Spiegel he loved Obama’s view of the facts on the ground. Al Maliki demanded to speak with Bush, who interrupted a put on the Oval Office carpet to take the call. Al-Maliki described the conditions on the ground, and Bush told the CIA to put Al Maliki back on the ground.
Al-Maliki told Bush that if he wants any kind of a SOFA before he leaves office, he is going to have to give a timetable to the grand ayatollahs in Najaf and the Sadrists who are demanding one ASAP, and who are likely to sweep the government in the coming elections, if they indeed are held (after our elections, fortunately for McCain).
Surprise, surprise, our “Hussein” goes to Iraq and the facts on the ground are validating him.
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue,
On a separate note, a question for Llama: How do you define marxists and socialists, because I have to observe that you don’t seem to really have a good grasp on these two terms.
I can read and understand the definiton of them in a dictionary as well as any elitist intellectual lefty or one who thinks I can’t read or understand it.
Democrats are socialists by definition and marxists by avocation
Report comment to moderator
Nick Peters misunderstand even the most basic aspects of the Iraq war. Our mission was not “unprovoked” and anyone with the slightest awareness of what was going on knows this.
The provocations (by Saddam) that led to 30 nations deciding to ally to depose Saddam were legion. We have listed them many times.
Report comment to moderator
If you change your mind on 4 issues or less during a politcal campaign you are considered, normal (for a politician)and a flip flopper.
If you change you mind on issues 5-8 times during a politcal campaign you are a liar.
If you change your mind 9 or more times during a campaign you are a pathological liar.
McCain is a Flip Flopper, Obama is a Pathological Liar.
McCain is also a RINO and Obama is a Marxist.
See how easy this is once you know the definitions.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
I think the Obama cool-aid is drugged. You should slow down on that stuff. So you think the facts are validating Obamas 16 month pull out now. But he’s been advocating it for over 16 months already. If he had his way US troops would have been out by March 08. See the link in #25. Thanks to Bush, that may now be realistic, but it wasn’t when he first started talking about his timetable. Do you really think that would have worked? Dump out the coolaid and have some coffee. When your not so delusional, maybe you’ll be able to think more clearly and see that you, and Obama, are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
I’m just thankful that Obama hasn’t told our troops to shoot themselves in the foot with their rifles as any card carrying Marxists would normally tell all US troops
Well, the day is still young.
Report comment to moderator
1. The US military successfully deposed Saddam’s regime, leading an alliance of 30 nations to complete this task which they all agreed (along with our congress) was necessary for any real progress toward future peace in the Middle East. Instead of abandoning them for a worse fate, we stayed to help them recover.
2. Now, with Iraq as our ally and since the Surge, we are accomplishing that post-Saddam mission and winning the Iraq War against some of the most evil torrerists and jihadists in the world, including Al Qaeda invaders and invading jihsdists from Iran and other evil insurgents from within.
3. We shall build on our two recent profoundly difficult successes (above) to accomplish our mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well. We just do not have the option of failing in this global war on terrorism and jihadism.
But since a Republican is in office during these profound successes, they must be disparaged and condemned at all cost at every turn. If a Democrat had presided over these successes (with all the same sacrifices made), they would be hailed as heroes at this time!
Report comment to moderator
#49, excellent post by the REAL AJ.
Report comment to moderator
McCain is a burned out cold warrior who hasn’t the foggiest idea of what is going on in the world today.
Consider this, which he said two days ago:
I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia…
Or this, from October 2007
“The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and I don’t care what his objections are to it.”
There are multiple other instances of McCain referring to Czechoslovakia, a country which hasn’t existed since 1993, 15 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Coyote Blue: Come on, you are better than that.
You know VERY well that the Left (and the Democrats) have been hoping desperately for complete and utter failure in Iraq as soon as the first offensive was completed, purely on political (Bush-hating) terms.
They (the Left and the Democrats) know very well that too much of America any more has only the guts and fortitude to see a war through that lasts less time than a mini-series on television. After that this segment of America wants to go back to its beer and television and mindless entertainment.
So they (the Left and the Democrats) have played on that from day one. They tried to get us to cut and run BEFORE the surge, screaming we had failed long before the bullets had even stopped on the major offensives.
Then they tried to block the surge, saying that it would only increase the violence. Then, when the surge wa successful and violence plummeted, they have switched tactics (read some of the usual brainless posts above) and say that the Surge is working but only because of this or that or this other thing that is unrelated to the surge, blah, blah, blah.
Then they wanted a timetable before the Iraqs were ready to even discuss that, so that it would give the terrorists the reason they needed to hang on. Fortunately, THAT was blocked until the situation could be stabilized.
Now, things are looking like they MIGHT work out – and suddenly Obama pops up like a bad dream claiming somehow that he has been sort of planning this whole thing the whole time. And YOU swallow that malarky?
Well, maybe so. But excuse me for not.
He (Obama) is a media-created fraud; his domestic policies (i.e. his rabidly pro-abortion views and actions) are fair game when measured against his blathering rhetoric about ‘peace’ and ‘hope’ and ‘creating the kingdom of God on earth’ and ‘change’ and ‘making America something we can actually be proud of’. Most ESPECIALLY when he is off pandering for photo-ops in front of troops who are fighting a cause he has repeatedly tried to undercut, at their expense.
So to the blue blazes with your ‘changing the subject’ theme. It is pretty much all connected – it is all about the absolute perfidy of the man and the system that has manufactured him.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Drill.
Report comment to moderator
CB – “He has been anti-Iraq war, that is true, but that is not the same as being anti-war.”
OK. I should have said, “the anti-this-war candidate”. Basically, he is opposed to all wars he didn’t start. Democrats, by nature are anti-everything not started by Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
Charles Krauthammer, among not a few others, in an IBD piece Obama Hasn’t Earned A Place At Berlin Gate, calls attention to Obama’s rather overweening arrogance including:
Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times.
As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.”
Obama is actually a rookie senator with a rather thin record of accomplishment trying to pass as a statesman. Americans need to wake up about this.
Report comment to moderator
In #51 Joel Mark referred to Iraq as our “ally”.
I wonder why all U.S. personnel in Iraq are barricaded in the Green Zone and on military bases? Thank God Iraq is not our enemy.
Joel also noted 30 other countries formed an alliance with the U.S. to oust Hussein. I wonder how many of those countries regret doing that.
There is no doubt in my mind Tony Blair is still kicking himself for listening to Bush.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 14,
or if you look at the time lines, Bush has finally realized the validity of Obama’s positions!
Report comment to moderator
Having read on several more posts, I can answer my own question in #43 with a resounding no. Nary a trace.
nothing more to see here.
Take care,
SG
Report comment to moderator
As I stated earlier, Musing, you’ve now gone on record (your post 13) as stating that a vote for Obama is a vote for a third term for George W. Bush. Again, that was a wonderful observation!
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 15,
did you notice that Bush finally accepted the premise of a withdrawal timetable (to be sure with no dates) on Friday? Do you think that his acceptace of this point after much refusal was acoincidence?
My only puzzlement is that Bush does not appear to have tipped off the McCain camp to what was coming.
The reality is that Bush is now being forced to accept clear timetables which will apparently look very much like the Obama proposal. This agreement must be signed before the new president takes office. As such either McCain or Obama will have to live with the agreement at least for some period of time. The Iraqis want a commitement to withdrawal and we will have to give it to them.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 17,
and how will McCain deal with the insistance by a sovereign Iraq that they want a timetable?
Particularly since Bush agreed to the principle on Friday and the agreement must be signed by the end of the year.
One can whistle in the dark, PL, but the ship has left the dock and McCain is not on board.
Report comment to moderator
coyoteblue post 23,
because if we have no agreement in place by the end of December, the UN mandate will have expired and we will have no justification for remaining in Iraq at all (talk about a hasty withdrawal).
So all the indications I agree is that the Bush administration is moving rapidly to try to get some agreement in place before the end of the year.
Now the nature of this agreement may get very interesting. But this will be the agreement which greets the new president AND as you note, it probably will not countenance an extended presence in Iraq by the U.S.
Report comment to moderator
SeriousGeorge: Good grief. Are there any credible leftists left around here?
Probably the most incredible leftist effusion would be Musing’s: Bush has finally realized the validity of Obama’s positions!
We need to have some compassion for these folk, as the turn of events in Iraq has rather upset their Bush bashing applecart. Having been denied the Brandenburg Gate, he will be speaking
The next amusing scene will be St. Obama in Berlin pathetically pretending to be a Kennedy or Reagan.
Report comment to moderator
The Real AJ post 25,
and McCain’s has veered away from Bush’s then?
Sure, AJ, that why Bush made his announcment on Friday for accepting time horizons, and it would appear after much reluctance.
But this is a beuatiful attempt at spin!!!
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 65,
yuou really do have to be kidding!!
Then perhaps you can explain this change in Bush policy on Friday:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j–oMHou33dIanevJGd01Q7uoyzA
which I am sure was just coincidental with its timing around the Der Spiegel interview,
Oh wait, I get it. Bush changed his policy on Friday and now Obama is moving towards Bush’s policy of time horizons.
Oh wait, Obama has been for time horizons for quite a while.
Sure Peter.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 13,
what an interesting problem with reading comprehension!
To quote:
“What is interesting is that Obama and Bush’s proposals are now very closely aligned.”
wher ethe topic of course in the thread has been Iraq policy.
Are you saying that the only policy issue in the election Iraq?
If so then this is a lay down and if you supported Bush you will surely support Obama!
Excellent change of heart.
For me, I have many more policies of interest than that.
Report comment to moderator
Excuse me. I had intended in the above to point out another Obama gaffe when after Pres. Merkel denied him the Brandenburg Gate he chose the questionable Berlin Victory Column, as pointed out by the following:
But Andreas Schockenhoff, deputy head of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, told Sunday paper Bild am Sonntag: “The Berlin Victory Column is dedicated to the victory over neighbors, who today are our European friends and allies. To me that is an unfortunate imagery.” Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the Free Democrats said in the same paper, that the column was moved to its current location by Adolf Hitler. Brüderle added: “For him (Hitler) it was a symbol of German superiority and victorious wars over Denmark, Austria and France. I ask myself whether Obama was well advised to choose the Victory Column as a venue for a speech about his vision for global cooperation.”
This is what happens when a neophyte senator tries his luck on the world stage.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 51,
and of course since the effort has been so successful, in your opinion and apparently Al Maliki’s according to the Der Speigel iinterview, it is now time to bring the troops home.
Since pretty much everyone agree on the path forward, there would seem little reason to argue the details of how we got here.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
An agreement of some sort, yes. A SOFA, no.
Drill
I know that’s the line hard core conservatives have convinced themselves of. But it has little bearing on reality.
Xion
You have made an ahistorical assertion fact. Dems followed up on Teddy Roosevelt’s reforms nicely. The same can be said for some of Nixon’s social policies. Dems cooperated well with the President in the wake of 9-11, then he used that as a political cudgel. One can also point to Ted Kennedy’s cooperation with George Bush on No Child Left Behind legislation. But right, that kind of thing would not fit the stereotypes.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Bush’s timetable is based solely on conditions-on-the-ground. Obama’s is based simply on a date he has indiscriminately set.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Obama put his 16-month-withdrawal policy forth in April of 2007, before the surge and the subsequence military and political achievements (15 out of 18 that the Democrat-controlled Congress put in place) were achieved.
Face it, Obama is toast on this issue.
Report comment to moderator
To Outkast, Peter, Joel etc.
Seriously when is it going to occur to you the real reason Bush went to war?
Bush attacked Hussein to avenge and/or show up his father because he did not take out Hussein in the first Iraq War.
Bush even told his biographer in 1999 that if elected President he would attack Iraq. This is of course long before 9/11.
I know it is not going to happen but I would like to see Bush brought up on charges for war crimes after he leaves office.
Report comment to moderator
The point of the McCain camp and it’s denizens is, no matter what Obama does, criticize him, attack him, tear him down. It’s partisan carping of the highest order.
One has to give the Obama campaign credit. They’ve done a good job of keeping their man in the news and relegating McCain to responding to it.
Report comment to moderator
When is going to occur to you that we’re tired of hearing your non-stop blathering about “Bush stinks, Bush stinks, Bush stinks,” Nick?
Report comment to moderator
THE REAL AJ #49 cool-aide. . . Do you really think that would have worked?
You said Obama demanded “unconditional” withdrawals. The withdrawals required by the bill Obama sponsored were conditional:
“Authorizes the President to temporarily suspend such redeployment upon certification to Congress that: (1) such action is in the U.S. national interest; and (2) the government of Iraq is taking specified actions. Resumes redeployment if Congress enacts a joint resolution disapproving such suspension or suspension renewal.”
Authorizes, upon certification by the President to Congress, post-deployment retention of certain forces in Iraq to: (1) protect U.S. personnel and facilities; (2) conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations; (3) provide training for Iraqi security forces; and (4) conduct Office of Defense Attache functions. Terminates retention if Congress enacts a joint resolution disapproving such retention.
It would have worked. Additional troops didn’t matter. What mattered was that the US stopped doing what it had been doing before Petraeus took over.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 73,
so you say that Obama put forth his withdrawal proposal before Bush, in fact with specific dates in 2007?
Thanks I was not sure.
Of course this means that bush is moving to Obama’s position, not Obama to Bush’s.
I thought I had understood you to suggest otherwise, but I must have been mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 73,
but you have made a good case that Bush is increasingly accepting Obama’s model under the rubrik of horizons.
It seems clear that Iraq, a sovereign nation, is interested in strong formality here.
It would appear that McCain is the one who is out of step her, but again perhaps I am mistaken.
Are you suggesting that McCain is now willing to accept ever increasingly specific horizons? What about the issue of permanent bases in Iraq?
Report comment to moderator
Oh my it apepars that the depature goal has now received some specifics in the mind of the Iraqi government:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD922CNLG0
2010.
Hmm, January 2009 + 16 months ~= April 2010
What interesting math!
Report comment to moderator
#75, “One has to give the Obama campaign credit. They’ve done a good job of keeping their man in the news and relegating McCain to responding to it.”
Nonsense, Anlir. The Obama campaign is doing nothing unusual. It is the far leftist mainstream media that is keeping “their man” (Obama) in the news and relegating McCain to responding. No campaign could possibly do this on their own (though many have tried).
Report comment to moderator
#74, “Seriously when is it going to occur to you the real reason Bush went to war?”
1. It wasn’t just Bush. It was with the support of congress and in alliance with 30 other nations.
2. The reasons are many and Nick has never paid attention to our efforts to explain, so why try again.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, Like Bush and McCain, Maliki has premised his views on American troop withdrawal on continued improvement of military conditions on the ground. Also, Maliki in his statements about troop withdrawals is playing to the Iraqi public that will be voting in the upcoming provincial elections. This is well understood by most political analysts.
Obama has consistently premised his position on a flat out opposition to the war along with unconditional withdrawal of troops.
Your attempt to conflate the Bush-Maliki-McCain position with that of Obama is based on one of your characteristic moves of twisting words, though it is true that Obama is, also, clever at this.
You, also, have ignored the probable truth that had we followed Obama’s position against the surge and hastily withdrawn troops from Iraq, the situation in Iraq would be radically worse than at present.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH wrote; “Additional troops didn’t matter. What mattered was that the US stopped doing what it had been doing before Petraeus took over.”
I have heard this Democrat talking point all over the news today. It is nonsense. My post at #40 counters it.
I would enjoy hearing a response to #40 from either side.
In any case, no serious person thinks that additional troops did not matter. It was a huge factor and it is working.
Report comment to moderator
And of course back in 2004, McCain apparenlty agreed that if an elected sovereign Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, then we would in fact have to leave:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/
We would seem to be getting to the last pages on this document.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 83,
as has Obama as norted in the link I posted in post 11:
A full verson of Obama’s positon on Iraq withdrawal is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
where the following is perhaps the salient obserrvation:
“In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected.”
And now it is a reasonably clean triad (or quartet?), at least if McCain maintains consistency with his 2004 interview.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, yeah – we know Joel. There’s a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy by the Media to elect Obama. Obama himself is a complete moron (or at least the Anti-Christ) and is completely incapable of running an intelligent campaign. Except, the VLWC of the Media is covering it all up. It’s a conspiracy of the highest order I tell ya!
Report comment to moderator
#87, Anlir wrote; “Obama himself is a complete moron (or at least the Anti-Christ) and is completely incapable of running an intelligent campaign.”
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read on this post. I disagree with you on this and with your name-callinng. And if you were mocking the presumed views of others, it was still stupid.
The word “stupid” above was used only in relation to the content of the comment in question.
Report comment to moderator
I question the wisdom of anyone who considers giving time-table plans or information to our enemies. It only helps them make plans in their mission agianst us. If we were a serious nation of serious people, we would not be suggesting time-tables. We would know that this war on global terrorism will take decades and that the more silent we are about our plans, the sooner we would win.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 89,
but of course as I have noted, our allies have been establishing the time table, and as McCain noted, since they are a sovereign country, we must abide by it.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest the genie is probably out of the bottle and unlikely to return of his own accord.
Iraq appears to have been poking around for some time to try to establish a timetable.
They are now establishing a time table.
And the U.S. will be forced to honor it.
Now if the U.S. gets really ornery, perhaps we can get the Iraqi government to back down on their objective here.
But looking at the present political dynamics does anyone think this will hold?
Iraq has apparenlty made about $70B off of oil recently: they are in increasingly strong financial shape
Iraq has become more confident of thier national security forces.
And Iraq is chafing under the occupation.
They have no reason to change.
McCain has made his position clear.
Bush has already caved on the key architectural aspect of “horizons”.
And Obama and the Al Maliki governmetn appear to be in accord.
And this can be reversed how?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, don’t kid yourself that Pres. Bush would be so foolish as to give Iraq’s enemies a timetable for American withdrawal. Unlike Obama he and McCain are fundamentally interested in winning this war in Iraq.
John McCain stated the following truths in an op-ed article that was rejected by the New York Times:
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
The fact is that McCain is crystal clear with his Iraq policy, while Obama apparently wants to withdraw from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground. Of course, as with many of Obama’s positions, mo one really knows his mind.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 92,
and Bush can resist the Iraqi call for a 2010 withdrawal how?
Report comment to moderator
Looking at the chain of events, I am puzzled that the administration apparenlty pressured Iraq for a clarification?
The mainstream media had basically ignored the story.
If the story was not sustained at the direct meeting with Obama today, it would have lost luster.
And there would have been no effort to retranslate the tape.
In short, every administration action seems to have been structured to sustain the story and get it verified rather than quietly letting it die.
If I had a conspiracy bent …
Report comment to moderator
Scroop #77,
“You said Obama demanded “unconditional” withdrawals. The withdrawals required by the bill Obama sponsored were conditional”
You seem to be mistaken with who said what. The quote you say I made, was not made by me. That was a quote, as I made clear. If you read the link you would know that what you read was attributed to Obama, not me. He used the unconditional withdrawl line in his speech, as the link clearly showed.
From the link in 25;
“On April 10th 2007, Barack Obama participated in a Town Hall forum for Presidential candidates sponsored by Moveon.org. This was three months after President Bush announced his plan for the surge in Iraq, but before it had been fully implemented. Obama promised the audience that if he were to have his way, he would begin unconditional troop withdrawals on May 1st, 2007, and that the last troops would leave Iraq by March 31, 2008.
Obama indicated that there was no military solution in Iraq, and had himself introduced legislation in January 2007 to force his timetable on the troops. That legislation, The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, would have also prevented the surge troops from being deployed.
Obama. Wrong then, wrong now. As you are on the details of the impact of the surge.
Musing,
McCain has clarified his position on Iraq. It sounds to me like he, and Bush are simply doing what they told us they would, when the time was right. Read this please.
http://tinyurl.com/5sm9cu
From the link;
Obama met with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad on Monday, and an Iraqi government spokesman said Maliki told the Illinois senator conditions on the ground should dictate troop withdrawals.
After a meeting with former President George H.W. Bush, McCain was asked whether it was conceivable for U.S. troops to be fully pulled out of Iraq in about two years.
“I think they could be largely withdrawn,” the Arizona senator replied, citing the success of the “surge” strategy of increasing U.S. troop levels in increasing security in the country.
“As I’ve said, we have succeeded. This strategy is not (just) succeeding, we have succeeded. And of course as we all know it has to be based on conditions on the ground.”
McCain said U.S. military success had made it possible for troops to return. “When you win wars, troops come home. And we are winning,” he said.
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said the senator’s comments did not reflect a shift in position.
“The two years in his answer today is consistent with his position that we can begin to responsibly discuss the reduction of troop levels in Iraq as long as they are based on maintaining the security and stability of the gains we made,” Bounds said.”
The only one of the three, Bush, McCain, Obama, to have changed what they said all along, is Obama. In spite of the way you, the media, and the Dems, try to spin it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark:
First, I want to acknowledge the truth of a fact that’s important to you. The US overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein, caught him in a hole in the ground. and picked up the 52 “cards” that comprised our deck of notorious Baathists. It was the largest manhunt in history — and it was a success you can tell your grandkids about!
Our “success” in killing terrorists also was impressive. Nothing stood in the way of US firepower! The terrorists who took a bullet bit the dust, every time. Our skill at brutalizing captives was equally impressive. The Supreme Clourt, the Democrats, and the gates of hell couldn’t extricate the bad guys we installed in our massive gulag.
And yet, the more we killed, and the more we arrested, tortured, and incarcerated, the more, not fewer, bad guys came out of the brickwork. The children to whom we gave Hershey’s kisses were growing up to be bad guys.
AQI, estimated to comprise 5% of the combatants in 2006, were present in Iraq as guests of the Sunnis — until the Sunnis disinvited them for interfering with their sectarian agenda. AQI weren’t defeated by Americans, they were sent packing to Afghanistan by Sunnis.
The “training” of the Iraqi Army wasn’t just premature — it was irrelevant to the “security gains.” Training is one of Petraeus’ tasks, but not a cause of any outcome. Nobody can look down their nose at the Iraqi army, however. Here’s why. No combat operation by any coalition troops have had much to do with the present circumstances. British commanders readily admit this, and scoff at Pentagon’s boasting of “turning provinces over to Iraqis” which previously had contained token British garrisons. Remember, the British have been withdrawing for a long while.
Here’s what really caused changes in Iraq since early 2007: 1.) US troops stopped killing so many Iraqis and started bribing them. 2.) Shia ethnically cleansed Sunnis from Baghdad, and hundreds of thousands fled Iraq. 3.) Sunnis chased terrorists out of Anwar, and thus out of Iraq. 4.) The Sadrists went to ground. 5.) Sectarians focused on acquiring rather than spending ammunition.
Report comment to moderator
The REAL AJ — can you supply an Obama quote containing the word “unconditional” as opposed to a summary-interpretation of what he said? The reason I’m skeptical is that Obama couldn’t claim to support an unconditional schedule while sponsoring a bill that called for a conditional withdrawal, as I cited above.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, what a lot of talk and backtalk without coming to much of an agreement.
Harris: In point of fact, he was right about the one thing that mattered: going in to Iraq in the first place.
In ‘02-’03, the available intelligence(as far as we knew, anyway) indicated that Saddam was developing and possessed WMDs. The available evidence supported the war effort, and the majority of the nation, including Democrats, went along with that. Those that didn’t, including Obama, weren’t especially foresighted-they had nothing objective to really support their position. They were the counterpart to those who voted against our joining WWI, and to those Northerners who initially opposed the military effort to subdue the Confederacy. They were stubborn, and in this case, lucky. They cannot be applauded for showing good judgment based on what they knew. That includes Obama.
The argument for the war can still be made(we THOUGHT there were WMDs, and we removed a despotic regime), but that is now rather irrelevant. We’re in Iraq-what’s the best course of action now?
Musing, I get what you’re saying about Bush coming around to a timetable. But he isn’t really coming to Obama’s position. Obama has always said that he favors setting a timetable immediately. That goes as far back as Jan. ‘07, at least. He was wrong. Read this. Notice that this isn’t some conservative blog. The author opposes the original war effort and criticizes McCain, which I disagree with. But read this part:
(On Obama and the surge): While he doesn’t directly say so, my direct impression is that knowing what he knows now, he would still oppose it.
How is that possible? Maybe Obama’s forgotten what the situation was in Iraq 18 months ago, but I haven’t. The country was spinning madly into civil war, and casualties — both civilian and military — were horrendous and rising daily. Pulling out at that time, it was widely understood, would have resulted in genocide and anarchy, and the entire region was at risk of being pulled into the maelstrom.
Yet even though I’d opposed the Iraq war vehemently and vociferously in 2002/3, I argued in favor of the surge — because it offered a hope, however slim, of heading off a complete meltdown. I took a lot of heat for saying we should try; that I was naive to “hope”; that it was too long a shot (and it was indeed a long-shot) … but folks, the situation today is vastly improved from late 2006 / early 2007.
It’s been incredibly expensive, in lives and resources. That’s true. But would Obama seriously have been happier with the inevitable outcome without the surge? I think, on this question, I’d love to have a direct answer:
Senator Obama, knowing what we know now, would you still oppose the surge?
/endquote
So, Obama’s judgment was also off when he opposed the surge. Furthermore, Bush’s position hasn’t changed. Withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground and on the advice of his military leaders. There was going to have to be some type of schedule/timetable once it began. Security has undeniably improved, so it can be argued that conditions are beginning to fit the criteria for commencing withdrawal. It also appears that the Iraqis may hurry up the process a bit.
If Obama waited long enough, his position-”time to start withdrawing”-was eventually going to line up with Bush’s or McCain’s. That’s all that’s beginning to happen here.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t yet seen one of the liberals comment on Peter Leavitt’s post in #5:
So, in his pre-trip speech last Tuesday, he reaffirmed the 16-month deadline (though in less robust style than on the primary election circuit): “We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.” But he added, cryptically, “We’ll keep a residual force” for “targeting any remnants of al-Qaida,” “protecting” remaining U.S. troops and officials, and training Iraqi security forces provided they “make political progress.”
How big would this more or less permanent “residual” force be? Obama did not say, but advisers leaked it could reach 50,000. That would be far too much for the candidate’s net-roots to swallow, but a token force of around 2,000 would be ludicrous. Obama will face a test of how he handles this after he meets in Iraq with the esteemed Gen. David Petraeus.
And:
Smiles aside, the Anbar Sunni officer who was interviewed, Gen. Nassir al-Hiti, commander of a predominantly Shiite unit in western Baghdad, had misgivings about Obama’s planned pullout.
“Very difficult,” he was quoted as saying. “Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: For now, we don’t have that ability.” This from a general described last year by the U.S. military as “a lot more competent than most Iraqi officers.”
Report comment to moderator
From NRO; Obamas Disastorous Interview About Hunting Osama bin Laden;
http://tinyurl.com/6ggxs8
“Also note that CBS’ Lara Logan forces Obama to concede that his oft-touted call to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistani territory is actually current U.S. policy.
Logan: Isn’t that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if the U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said no, that they wouldn’t fire or wouldn’t go after him?
Obama: I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, well, you know, you shouldn’t go around saying that. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that that should be our policy, and will continue to be our policy.
Logan: But it is the current policy.
Obama: I believe it is the current policy.
Logan: So there’s no change then.
Obama: I don’t think there is going to be a change there.
And that Obama and Logan get stuck in a merry-go-round of “I’ll get the Pakistanis to destroy the training camps”/”What if they won’t?”
Obama: I think that in order for us to be successful, it’s not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We’ve got training camps that are growing and multiplying…
Logan: Would you take out all those training camps?
Obama: Well, I think that what we’d like to see is the Pakistani government take out those training camps.
Logan: And if they won’t?
Obama: Well, I think that we’ve got to work with them so they will.
Logan: But would you consider unilateral U.S. action?
Obama: You know, I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it’s absolutely vital to the security interests of both the United States and Pakistan.”
Change indeed. Amatuer.
Report comment to moderator
Good point< Musing, at #90, but it does not change a wit of what I said at #89. I still challenge the wisdom of those who would give timetables to their enemies, whether it’s Maliki or Obama or whomever.
Report comment to moderator
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Barack Obama, in 2007, arguing that the Surge would fail.
Report comment to moderator
The good news out of Mosul is that Al Qaida’s last urban stronghold in Iraq is gone, thanks to the surge.
But US victories don’t get all that much play in the American press.
The Times of London, however, carried a piece by Marie Colvin reporting that “American and Iraqi forces are driving al-Qaida in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.”
Report comment to moderator
Unlike Obama [Bush] and McCain are fundamentally interested in winning this war in Iraq.
When all circumstances pointed to a fiasco, Bush reduced the notion of “winning” to staying — and to monopolizing the authority of saying when to leave. Conversely, “losing”, for Bush, meant letting Democrats say when.
Bush & McCain’s mistake was to think that “the facts on the ground” had sworn a loyalty oath to Republican interests.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: I tried explaining that news (your post 103) to Musing a day or two ago, and even supplied him with an internet link, but he still refused to believe it. You can lead a horse (or donkey) to water, but I guess you can’t make him drink . . .
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: I tried explaining that news (your post 103) to Musing a day or two ago, and even supplied him with an internet link, but he still refused to believe it. You can lead a horse (or donkey) to water, but I guess you can’t make him drink . . .
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about the double post. I thought I only sent it once.
Report comment to moderator
#71 There are exceptions to every rule. What is frustrating is that a man who listened to 20 years of God D@#m America and spent his political career undermining the military and the US Presidency is now pretending to talk presidential.
The only reason we are now talking about withdrawal is because the policies Obama spoke against are working.
Report comment to moderator
The Real AJ popst 95,
so are you saying that McCain , Obama, and Bush now all three have nearly identical policies?
I had not seen McCains modification of his stance, but indeed one had reasonable certainty that this was coming: see my post 2.
And now Bush and McCain have moved to Obama’s long held position, and this topic is presumably ended as a serious issue of dispute. We will have much wind being blown and much work to do, but the trajectory is set.
And of course the final headline is Obama greeeted by Iraqi leaders supporting 2010 witrhdrawal.
And our next topic for the election? Energy anyone.
Report comment to moderator
Scoop Moth post 97,
indeed Obama did not support an unconditional withdrawal, and I have posted the material from the New York Times editorial containing the sewords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
where the following is perhaps the salient obserrvation:
“In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected.”
One behavior which seems certain, some conservatives just seem to have a reading comprehjension probloem: if the material is not consistent with their preconceptions, they ignore it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 101,
then you would seem to be challenging Bush, McCain, and Obama.
Good luck.
Peculiarly, I at some level agree with you. However, the hard intrasigence of the pro-war forces made any reasonable compromise here difficult. As I look at the material it seems that there are indiciations that Iraq has been trying to get the U.S. to commit to withdraw for about a year. I suggest that if we had compromised with the Iraqi government then, this would have played out differently.
When one balks forces for too long they build up and sometimes the dam break is not neat.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 1056,
but of course you and I deiscused the material in a bit ago.
I believe you first suggested that Al Qaeda was gone from Iraq.
When I pointed this article you, you appeared to change your model to we were pushing Al Qaeda out of Iraq.
And of course the news clip itself has the important observation that Al Qaeda is not yet out of Iraq.
It was an interesting conversation AND I found some of your responses truly astonishing.
And it is not clear that it has any impact whatsoever on the future trajectory in Iraq.
Report comment to moderator
xion [post 108,
and is that how this will be viewed?
An alternate argument that will be raised is that this is what should have been occurring AND Obama’s support for it helped bring it to fruition.
And of course Bush will have to sign at least the interim agreement to maintain U.S. forces in Iraq. I understand that the present authorizatio expires at the end of this year. Do you believe that this agreement will not contain some form of withdrawal language?
My personal sense is that Al Maliki out maneuvered Bush.
And this suggests that Bush was not thoughtful during the beginning of this war, was not thoughtful during the first year of the occupation, was forced to accept his failures by, as Peter Leavitt notes, changing the tactics during the surge, and was not thoughtful in negotiating the termination of this war.
This is Bush’s war.
It is a mess.
And Bush will own the mess.
And if there is any upside that comes in the near future in Iraq, it is not obvious how Bush will claim credit for it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing at 110,
How about instead of the times, we go with the actual speech/questions, in Obamas own words, from the speech we’re actually talking about.
Scroop;
Here’s a you-tube video of the internet townhall meeting that’s refered to by the author of the piece I quoted.
http://tinyurl.com/35lryr
3rd question, at about 6;45 of the 9:47 video. From what I can find, you are correct, he doesn’t specificly say unconditional. However, he makes it clear that he wants it that way, and that’s what the first version called for, but the political reality is he doesn’t have the votes for veto over-ride. He says he’ll consider compromise if they can’t. He said he’d support conditions on the next version, only if they couldn’t over-ride. It’s clear that unconditional is what he wanted. Well he couldn’t get the votes, so he compromised. And his bill still failed.
And if you listen to the whole 9:47 of it, you’ll also get to hear Obama describing how Iraq is a lost cause, the surge won’t work, and his call to have all combat brigades out by March 2008. He was obviously wrong on all his positions he mentioned. The last 15 months have proven it. If he had his wishes, Iraq would be a much different story.
And I also love this new thing I’ve seen from some of the more liberal posters here. They’ve been screaming for diplomacy, but when it’s safe to finally do so, and Bush does, the terminology changes. Suddenly diplomacy is simply called bribery. The US gives money to countries all over the world as part of diplomatic efforts. But in Iraq, no such luck. Oh well.
Report comment to moderator
The Real AJ post 114,
so let me see, are you arguing that Obama and McCain disagree on the policies which brought us to this position in the war?
Yep we can all agree on that.
We also seem to agree that Obama has not said that the withdrawal is unconditional: that is your interpretation, and it does not match Obama’s piece in the New Your Times.
I think the record is clear here and you agree with the record.
So what are you really saying?
You are saying in essence that life is not fair: Obama should not be at the center of this realignment.
But he is.
Now the only question is how will people respond as we move forward?
We know Bush’s answer: try to soften it and make the best of it.
You provided to McCain’s answer: he will move forward with it.
I have provided the Iraqi government’s answer: they welcome it.
I have pointed to Obama’s answer: he was at the center of this realignment and has favored it for some time.
And your answer?
I suggest you have not yet come to terms with the new reality.
Report comment to moderator
This weekend, the Iraqi situation changed. In trying to fight it, the Bush adminsitration rather helped to institutionalize it.
We can argue whether it is good or bad BUT IT IS CLEARLY THE DESIRES OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT and they are a sovereign nation and we will be able to remain there only by their leave.
And the only question which remains is how do we now move forward.
Report comment to moderator
Obama was right that 20,000 additional US troops wouldn’t reduce sectarian violence. They didn’t. Iraqis reduced the sectarian violence as a consequence of changing allegiances and tactics and the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. These changes weren’t produced by US combat operations.
An escalation of troops could have aggravated sectarian violence if they had continued to do the things they did before the anti-insurgency strategy. Joel Mark fails to recognize that combat operations were failing and had led to an unrecognized defeat in 2007. Additional troops doing the same thing would have dug a lower circle in hell.
The key was a different mission, not additional troops.
Report comment to moderator
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read on this post.
What? You don’t read your own writing?
Report comment to moderator
scoop moth post 117,
why I believe this is almost exactly what I thought I understood Peter Leavitt to have said!
If I rememebr right, PL kept focusing on how it was our change of tactics which changed the nature of the violence.
Report comment to moderator
They’ve been screaming for diplomacy, but when it’s safe to finally do so, and Bush does, the terminology changes. Suddenly diplomacy is simply called bribery.
I agree diplomacy includes bribery. The Sunni were bribed and AQI disappeared hence diplomacy succeeded and the surge was only a minor influence.
As for the ambiguity of a residual forces here’s where tactical considerations to the facts on the ground come into play. Obama’s plan fulfills the need for withdrawal framed within a response to conditions. I believe his plan has the better odds of a clean withdrawal and a “mission accomplished” than the Republican non-plan which will probably end with helicopter ride out of the green zone.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you say, bush is moving to Obama’s position, not Obama to Bush’s.
Exactly right. Maliki has signed on to Obama’s position, too. Bush is going to vote for Obama, for heaven’s sake! Where does that leave McCain? By himself. Screwed. For the next 100 years. Angrily claiming that Obama would rather lose a war than lose a political campaign!
McCain was also more extreme than Bush about Iran: Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. But now Bush is opening an interest section in Tehran! Another way in which Bush is kneeling before Obama.
Report comment to moderator
President Bush has a real job. He pays little attention to Obama’s craven spinning and posturing for his adoring media blushing bride.
I confess that I am sincerely disgusted with the ridiculous and cynical twists that leftists are throwing up to give Obama credit for exactly what he has constantly undermined for years now. Intellectual honesty has nothing to do with what such people will say.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, You have to give Obama credit for venturing his candidacy on a challenge to the status quo. He maintains the surge was a useless mistake. It’s past time to head for the exit, and he won’t let Petraeus tell him otherwise. He’ll deal with Iran. He’ll side with Israel against the god-forsaken Palestinians. Bush never had half his cattle.
Here’s why Bush wants Obama to win: Obama’s surrogate, Cass Sunstein, has promised not to prosecute the Bush administration crimes. That’s disgusting even to you, Joel, since you’d demand a presidlent to be true to conscience. But in addition to all his other excellencies, Obama’s expedient.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 122,
but do you dispute that Bush has moved to Obama’s position with respect to withdrawal? As has McCain?
The difference of course is:
- Obama proposed this path earliest (record is clear here)
- Bush appears to be executing against this model (his adminstratio has to negotiate the agreement)
- McCain is complaining becuase he has to support it
If Obama is now leading us into defeat (a highly arguable point) so are Bush and McCain.
In short, McCain appears to be demonstrating his inability to understand circumstances and move on.
Report comment to moderator
Musing asked, “but do you dispute that Bush has moved to Obama’s position with respect to withdrawal?”
Of course I dispute it. That is utter nonsense. Obama does not actually take “positions,” he only gives speeches.
Obama has nothing to do with what Bush’s positions are. As circumstances and needs change, new tactics may be needed, but Obama’s speeches are irrelevant to Bush’s decisions.
Obama says anything and everything he feels like no matter how much it contradicts what he said earlier (in the primaries). Sometimes, a real leader swerves into an action that Obama speculated on wildly when he was trying to please a particular audience. Then Obaamatrons start to rave over pretentions of that real leader is following Obama. It’s absurd.
Obama has propsed and re-postured down every possible path to please any and every audience he can. Bush is making policy and not paying attention to Obama’s posturing.
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 125,
so you dispute it?
So lets walk thorugh the sylogism.
1) Was Bush against any formal staments regarding withdrawal for American forces in Iraq, including time horizons, prior to Friday 7/23?
2) Did Bush accept time horizons for American forces in Iraq on Friday 7/23?
3) Has Obama been arguing for a schedule for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq (as in from the beginning of his campaign)?
Is the idfference in this aspect of the positons the basic details of whether or not to set a detailed schedule at this time horizon?
Ah I believe the vector is clear.
And which of the various news reports between now and last Friday have you not been reading?
Sure Joel!
P.S. and who has been changing their positions?
P.P.S. now shall we talk about McCain’s changing positions AND his contradictory statements even as he changes position?
P.P.S. and with Iraqi insistence on a solid framework for withdrawal we can resist this expression of their national sovereignty how?
P.P.P.S. and now let the dance begin!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!