From Der Spiegel:
“US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
Obviously — this is huge. The Democratically elected leader of Iraq says that Barack Obama’s withdrawal plan (1 or 2 brigades a month, somewhere between 6-8 thousand people a month) is the right idea. He went on to say:
“Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems.”
Dr. Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s foreign policy adviser had this to say:
“Senator Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki’s support for a 16 month timeline for the redeployment of U.S combat brigades. This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”
When Senator John McCain heard this he muttered something about “100 years” and how the colonized the occupied our allies should understand that we know what’s better for them than they do.
Loading ...
Yes, Sean, this is huge. It’s also proof positive that Boy Blunder is in official “Lame Duck” status.
January 20th, 2009 will be The End Of An Error.
Not shocked at all.
It is clear that Senator Obama’s position on Iraq has been shaped by the requests of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi people have been clear. They want an orderly withdrawal of American troops.
This is just confirmation of a previously present alignment of the sensible policies of Senator Obama, with the vews of the world.
Well, it’s also a confirmation that the misAdministration of Bush The Lesser is (cheney)in’ whacko.
Did you know that someone in the White House accidently published this information to a public distribution list instead of an internal list? These people are losing it!
al Maliki’s office: His words “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”
Thats the problem with translation … http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/
EPDem - The White House didn’t leak the story though. They simply sent out the story to the news media that already knew about it. I’m not sure what you were trying to imply.
“al Maliki’s office: His words “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.””
Not much of a misunderstanding. al Maliki says that a 18 month withdrawal is dependent on ground conditions. Still very consistent with Obama’s plan. — — — — — — — -
“The White House didn’t leak the story though.”
They most certainly did.
Sean2 — I am absolutly befuddled that someone as smart as you could believe such a line of rubbish.
If you think that statement from the Iraqi government didn’t come after someone very high up in our government called, very unhappy about the Prime Minister’s comments, you’re deluded.
Hmmm… let’s see, the Democratically elected leader of Iraq tells a major international publication on the eve of Barack Obama’s visit to his country that he agrees with the fundamentals of Barack Obama’s plan (and really, you think that “Barack Obama” is lost in translation?).
The Bush administration is working so goshdarn hard to not use the word “Time table” or “Time line” that they’ve gone to the absurd ends of coming up with silly shit like “time horizon.”
This administration and it’s bought and sold lackey in McCain should have so much to crow about, the surge has been a qualified success and Baghdad is more stable currently than it’s been since 2003, but they can’t help but screw it up by refusing to engage the Iraqi government in a substantive dialog about when we will leave their country, and the success in Iraq has come at the expense of our security in Afghanistan (you’ll remember, that’s where Al Qaeda, and the people who have sheltered and protected them actually are).
Can you guys do anything right?
lojasmo - No, the White House intended to send an email to an insider list with this story, but inadvertantly sent it to a much larger list than intended. But the story was already in the media. The only significance of the White House mentioning the story in the email is to show the White House has concern with this. But the White House did not leak the story inadvertantly. That’s totally not true.
Sean - There are more terror groups than just Al qaeda. The multitudes of terror links involving Saddam were too great to ignore. I don’t think thousands of Americans need to die before America can take action in her own defense. And I had friends who knew people since I live within an hour and change of the WTC. In fact, in 1993, my dad was at the WTC the morning it was bombed. So this is very close to home for me, and I want my country to be aggresive in going after any threat. Iraq had the wherewithal to develop wmd and share secrets with terrorists. That’s enough of a reason to take action. Twelve years of failed diplomacy got nowhere, and war, the last resort, became the only option left.
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq.
Those aren’t my words. Those are John Kerry’s words. He and I just happen to agree.
Well, a few problems here.
First, if we’d followed Obama’s original position that we pull out of Iraq immediately, the security situation would not have improved to the point where such a statement by the Iraqi leader would be possible.
Problem two for the Obama apoligists is that the position of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION all along has been that we will leave when the Iraqi people ask us to. So if this statement by Maliki were actually true, it would simply be a continuation of the long-establish Bush position, not an affirmation of the most-recent (and probably not the last) Obama position.
Problem three is that this German magazine is staunchly pro-Obama so naturally they would LEAVE OUT the critical qualifier on Maliki’s statements, which is that everything is predicated on the improved security situation. Again, we would not even be in this situation if we had followed the plan put forth by Obama prior to the remarkably successful surge last year.
I hate to rain on your fake parade. Actually no I don’t.
Sean — You gonna wave that bloody shirt until your arms fall off, or can you actually defend the invasion of Iraq on it’s merits?
Sean Broom | Actually knew people impacted on 9/11 and doesn’t feel that mentioning it is necessary to defend his opinion on Iraq or Afghanistan.
Sean, it’s completely necessary. Stakes are higher. This has been personal for me since 1993. There are a lot of dangerous people out there who could’ve killed my dad. I want everyone of them brought to justice. It’s a direct motivation behind my hawkish attitudes. Saddam has the wherewithal the hut Americans, called for attacks on Americans, financed attacks on Americans. 12 years of failed diplomacy, all options were exhausted. I’m not sure how much more clear it has to be made.
Sean2, You don’t know “clear”; you’ve been brainwashed. Obviously, you don’t know jack about Desert Fox or the wargames after the AAR, Desert Crossing.
BTW - one reason I’m so decidedly anti-Boy Blunder, is as a veteran, I know what this misAdministration has done to veterans. Including my brother; my fellow veteran.
So kiss my ass, you chickenhawk bootlicker, and quit whining about “it’s personal to me.”
And wake the (cheney) up.
Tommy — I would really rather you didn’t talk to people that way. No matter how personally you may take this. Sean
Sorry.
But here ya got some whiny bootlicker, claimin’ to take it personally ‘cause “some bad man mighta killed my daddy.”
If he took it so damned personally, why didn’t he get his ChickenHawk hide down to the Enlistment Office and sign his sorry butt up?
Oh, wait - it’s ‘cause he’s a republiCon, and republiCons want OTHER people to take the fight to the enemy.
And he obviously doesn’t know anything Rush Limbaugh or one of the other members of the ChickenHawks in the rightwingmedia have told him about counterterrorism during the 1990’s.
Here’s the problem with today’s republiCon party: Reagan said “Facts are stupid things” and these angry old white men are doin’ their damndest to prove it.
@ Loris-
“First, if we’d followed Obama’s original position that we pull out of Iraq immediately, the security situation would not have improved to the point where such a statement by the Iraqi leader would be possible.”
Please give a citation where Obama called for immediate withdrawal.
“Problem two for the Obama apoligists is that the position of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION all along has been that we will leave when the Iraqi people ask us to. So if this statement by Maliki were actually true, it would simply be a continuation of the long-establish Bush position, not an affirmation of the most-recent (and probably not the last) Obama position.”
Bull. The Iraqi parliment passed a resolution in May rejecting continued occupation. What has been done so far? Talk of a ‘withdrawal horizon’. What a load of pablum
“we would not even be in this situation if we had followed the plan put forth by Obama prior to the remarkably successful surge last year.”
You cannot prove that violence WOULD NOT HAVE tapered off without the surge. Violence is down, yes, but we have 15,000 MORE troops than we had before the surge.
Violence is down, because people that used to shoot us, now cash our paychecks.
This “surge” bullshit is, well, “bullshit.” It’s NOT the (slight) increase in troops that lowered the violence; it’s the change in tactics from “conventional warfare” to “unconventional warfare.” That it took so long for this change to take place only proves that the misAdministration did NOT listen to the Commanders on the ground.
And one would think that bootlickin’ chickenhawks would have vapors if they knew that those Sunni and Shia and Kurds that used to shoot and actually did KILL American Servicemen, are now on the taxpayer dole.
Which, of course, is why the misAdministration called it a “surge”, instead of a change in tactics. But bootlickers aren’t known for questioning the bull they are fed; they just cheerfully lap it up and lick some more.
Well, responding to Gen. Petreus on 9/12/07:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has called for the immediate withdrawal of all US combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.
“Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,” said Obama.
“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.”
Second, it’s pretty hard to say “Bull” when the President has said numerous times that when the Iraqis ask us to leave, we’ll leave. They passed a resolution against occupation, and? Resolutions are meaningless. When they want us out, they’ll tell us and we’ll be out.
Lastly, yes, we have more troops there now than before the surge. THAT’S WHY IT’S CALLED A SURGE.
loris I agree 100%,
Everyone knows that “The Surge” was simply sending more troops and nothing else.
It is the easiest to understand military strategy in history. Send more troops, then you win.
Have we won yet?…well no, but everyone knows we will win, and that when that day happens we Republicans will tell everyone “Mission Accomplished”.
Until that day these moonbats should keep their ideas to themselves, unless they have a better idea, which they don’t because everyone knows only Republican ideas work.
It is common knowledge that ONLY the Republican party has the track record of accurately predicting he outcome of our policy……other than the outcomes NOBODY could anticipate. That is why we Republicans will continue to predict the outcome of all future policy. We Republicans are 100% correct, and these Liberal Democrats are 100% wrong, and that’s the way it is.
Great Job loris
loris, 15,000 when ya got 150,000 isn’t a “surge”, it’s a cheap tip - 10%.
But you fell for it.
No surprise there.
I guess I’m not surprised to see you refer to the lives of 15,000 Americans as a “cheap tip”. The depths of the delusion you thrust yourself into to support Barack Obama and spew hate against George Bush and the American military is fascinating. And deeply troubling.
Worse news today for Obama, he told reporters on this World Tour that if he had to do it all over again he would still vote against the surge. I’m not a history expert, but I would think this has to be the first time a presidential candidate has publicly admitted he would oppose the success of the US military. Again, fascinating and deeply troubling.
“Second, it’s pretty hard to say “Bull” when the President has said numerous times that when the Iraqis ask us to leave, we’ll leave”
Is that why the White House has been having a fit of vapors ever since it was sugested that the Iraqis might be close to doing that?
loris, grow up. You have no idea of what the surge was about, and what it was designed to deflect from. Which, of course, explains your devotion to a guy that will go down in infamy as THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
I never thought I’d see the day I’d miss Richard Milhous Nixon, but Boy Blunder has caused me to see a whole bunch of ‘em.
And I never thought I’d see the day Spiro T. Agnew wasn’t the worst VPOTUS in history - but Spiro’s not the bottom of the barrel any more.
loris, I agree 100%,
What is most troubling about the DemocRats is that they are troubling on so many issues.
It is common knowledge the use of the word “troubling” takes down moonbats quite effectively, as Karen Hughes proved during the 2004 election.
Everybody knows that things we Republicans label as “troubling” are “troubling”. Anybody who disagrees is just a moonbat who hates America and wants to surrender to terrorists.
Great Job Non-Troubling First Day Commenter “loris”
The troops surge was 21,000 troops, not 15k. At the time, there were 132,000 troops in Iraq, not 150,000. Correcting your math makes the surge 16%, not 10%. Get your facts straight
Sean2, whatever. My point remains you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, because the “surge” isn’t really about “numbers”; it’s about “tactics” and the “tactics” that caused the decrease in violence was the switch from Conventional to Unconventional Warfare.
And considering General Shinseki testified it would take “several hundred thousand” troops to secure Iraq, makes the number of troops in Iraq “pre-surge” proof that Boy Blunder never has listened to the Commanders, until he didn’t have a choice.
But, since you brought up “facts”, let’s review what one ChickenHawk in the misAdministration of Bush The Lesser said, after General Shinseki testified it would take “hundreds of thousands of troops” to secure Iraq:
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, “wildly off the mark.” Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops.
Wolfie, a noted “Pentagon Official” as well as a noted ChickenHawk, also said this:
“It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.” –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003
Ken Adelman, a misAdministration official - who (of course) is a ChickenHawk - actually wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post called “Cakewalk in Iraq”
But, the most telling story of all those ChickenHawks who got it so wrong, is that the more wrong they were, the more rewarded they were. Wolfowitz got a promotion, and SlamDunk Tenet got a medal.
So much for “accountability” in the misAdministration of Bush The Lesser.
16% is still a cheap tip. (to re-use the analogy)
And Loris…The Iraqi people want us to leave, the Iraqi parliament wants us to leave…who exactly has to ask us to leave before we prepare to do so?
The Iraqi PM and Bush just agreed to a framework for withdrawal based on conditions and not timetables. Clearly, al Maliki wanted a conditions based withdrawal or such an agreement would not have happened.
Really, Sean2?
Are you talking about the ‘withdrawal horizon’ of which Bush has spoken? Translation: “in six months this will be somebody elses problem.”
Actually, lojasmo, in six months, it means Bush The Lesser goes down in history stuck in the quagmire Bush The Elder warned about.
Here’s what Bush The Elder wrote, in 1998, about Iraq:
“While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome. “
Well, just as Boy Blunder wouldn’t listen to his daddy; just as Boy Blunder wouldn’t listen to what General Zinni and Desert Crossing had do say; just as Boy Blunder wouldn’t listen to what General Shinseki had to say; just as Boy Blunder wouldn’t listen to what General Franks had to say, etc etc etc, Boy Blunder will now go down in history as the worst president ever.
You simply cannot spell “worst” without “Dubya.”
German magazine Der Spiegel caused quite a commotion this week by printing an interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in which he endorsed Obama’s Iraq plan by name. Some tried to downplay the significance of this endorsement by saying that Maliki had been misquoted by the magazine. But it turns out that Maliki actually got a copy of the interview before it was printed and had the option to make any changes. A writer at Der Spiegel sent us this tidbit of info:
The reason the magazine scores so many high level interviews is that the editors agree to allow the subjects to “authorize” the interviews before they go to press. It wasn’t just a slip of the tongue, in other words: Maliki not only endorsed Obama’s plans for withdrawing from Iraq, but his office then explicitly approved the endorsement before it was printed. The denials, then, were doubly facetious. Spiegel couldn’t say so, though, without revealing its embarrassing authorization policy.
Der Spiegel has gotten flak in the past for this policy. According to Ingrid Kolb, director of the Henri Nannen School for Journalism in Hamburg:
The long interviews that Der Spiegel publishes with famous public figures, their so-called talks, are known for this … They can go back and forth a dozen times, with each side bringing their argument a bit more to the point, refining it, improving it. In a best-case scenario, it serves the interests of both sides.
So much for Maliki’s message being lost in translation. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/22/maliki-s-endorsement-not-lost-in-translation.aspx
Odd discussions here, what with all the productive name-calling and insults, especially from the angry Two-Putt Tommy. Loris, in comment #17, provided plenty of quotes from Obama stating that we should withdraw immediately, so we can see somewhat of a shift in Obama’s position. It won’t be the last one. Despite the fact that our President is unable to articulate a case for war, and is not as articulate, ever, as Mr. Obama, the case for war was certainly there. The idea of “winning” is interesting in itself; there will never be a common definition of winning here. Al-Quaeda would claim that a withdrawal under any circumstances is a loss for America. We are in, for better or worse; “winning” to me means being able to get out of Iraq with a semblance of dignity and with an Iraqi government that is able to govern and with armed forces who can take responsibility for security.
The reason that Nouri al-Maliki is able to endorse “Obama’s plan” at all, and is not dead at the hands of Saddam, Qusay, or Uday in Abu Ghraib or elsewhere, is because of what Mr. Bush did. Iraq, if they don’t screw it up (and if they do, it’ll be their own fault) has the chance to re-invent itself as a free nation, free of the murderous dictator under whom a million people died, and of his sadistic sons who would rule for decades after Saddam. The Iraqi people under Saddam had a great life. Under Saddam, people could look forward to more of the usual under Saddam: tens of thousands of innocent people tortured to death year after year, another year of UN sanctions, the next gas attack from “Chemical Ali,” the yearly looting of the Iraqi treasury by billionaire Saddam, and knowing their sons would be sent off to die in Saddam’s next war, just like the Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait. Before Saddam was removed, anyone who spoke a word against the regime would be dragged off to prison, never to emerge. And the reaction of the American left? Total silence. Crickets chirping. Abu Ghraib wasn’t the place where Saddam tortured and killed ten thousands of Iraqis each year, it was the place where Americans engaged in waterboarding and other means of torture. The left could have been outraged at both, but no. Outraged at America, but not at Saddam.
I don’t much care about the denials. If Obama’s timeline is right, it is from sheer luck. If the Iraqis are ready to take full control in sixteen months, then sixteen months it is, and it is due to the surge and to our training of the Iraqi military that sixteen months is even possible, not to the vision of Barack Obama, however much crowing he has done. I saw the press release as a show of independence from Bush on the part of the Iraqi government, but in any case it doesn’t seem to matter much. I agree we will leave when the Iraqis want us to, and when they are ready to fully govern and take responsibility for security in all the provinces. In the end, as a direct result of Bush’s removal of Saddam, the Iraqis hammered out a constitution, held the first elections ever, and have a relatively stable government that is democratically elected. Many homegrown and foreign terrorists have been successfully hunted down, even if all of them haven’t, and many of the Iraqi people see no hope in al-Quaeda or their ilk now that they have had a chance to observe the kindness of bin Laden’s troops first-hand. “Join us or die.” Some choice. The Iraqis have been given a chance for self-determination and self-governance that they would never have had without Bush’s war.
And since everyone on this blog wants to whine, I shall whine about the priggish and self-righteous French, whose vote was the deciding factor in the UN, and how they have helped not at all. They were in bed with Saddam’s regime, holding many oil contracts and making billions arming Iraq. Military hardware, courtesy of peace-loving France. The French were helping Saddam build a nuclear reactor when the Israelis decided they had to bomb it, as some may recall. Some allies they have been. They haven’t had a foreign policy success since Lafayette came to America for the revolution. Since them they’ve required America to rescue them from Hitler, colonized Africa and been ejected in multiple bloody revolutions, caused the Vietnam war, blocked us from removing Saddam in the first Gulf War when we actually had a coalition, and tried their best to block the removal of Saddam this time around as well.
You want a case for war? I didn’t tell Bush to make a case for war on the basis of a single factor. Anyone with a brain can give you a case for removal of Saddam, even if Bush couldn’t: starting a needless war with Iran that killed over a million people; torturing and murdering tens of thousands of Iraqi political opponents (real or not); violating 17 unanimous UN Security Council resolutions for many years; establishing a WMD program with the goal of building nuclear weapons; building chemical weapons and using them on their own people to kill entire villages; mass oppression of Kurds and Shiites; harboring terrorists; threatening the state of Israel with being wiped off the face of the earth and firing SCUD missiles at Israel; theft of billions of dollars from the Iraqi people; allowing the Iraqi people to bear the brunt of UN sanctions while living like a king; raping and pillaging the state of Kuwait and murdering many Kuwaiti citizens; burning the Kuwaiti oil fields. Will that do for a start?
al-Maliki did not “endorse” Obama. I have a feeling he knows very little about our politics, anyways.
I didn’t feel that al-Maliki DID endorse him. I tried to imply that when I put “Obama’s Plan” in quotes. The left is tremendously annoying on this issue; TwoPutt seems to be typical of the type of leftist that blames the President for everything, is willing to call him every name in the book, and apparently feels that the end of Bush and Cheney’s time in office will resolve all problems, especially if we have in his place a “world citizen” who is willing to go on a world tour acting as if he is already the President, kiss European booty, and publicly bash the person who actually holds the office, and to announce to the world that America is wrong, wrong, wrong. More negativity from Obama and the far left.
I saw Pelosi on TV the other night trying to explain why the Democrats have done nothing since taking power to end the war; they have only continued to fund it. She was not very convincing. In addition, the Democratically-controlled Congress has accomplished nearly nothing; anything they have passed has been more-or-less bipartisan. Pelosi and Senator Reid have done everything they can to block progress in the House and Senate on every issue. Bush is not to be allowed a success; the election of Obama depends on the failure of the war and the economy. I would go so far as to say that the Democrats actually want the war in Iraq to be lost in order to ensure Republicans do not win the election, and that they are perfectly happy for the cyclical economy to fall into recession so that they can blame Bush for all of it. The Democrats are the party of the negative: everything is lousy. There is nothing good in America and nothing good about the Administration. America is racist, sexist, homophobic, and divided. Now we have the “Wonder Boy” to tell us what to do, and go on a worldwide speaking tour to ensure that he lets everyone know how wrong America is and how he’s such a world citizen and thinks like a European. Gag. I have heard that the Islamists prefer Obama to McCain, and it is clear that Europe does. Given that Obama spends all his time bashing the President and agreeing with Europe on how wrong we are, I would prefer to vote against the candidate preferred ten-to-one by Islamists and Frenchmen. McCain is nothing like Bush, and most people know it; that tag is not really sticking. McCain is practically a Democrat himself. But Islamists and Frenchmen alike know who will take a more no-nonsense approach to the Islamofascist issue, and they want Obama elected. They want “someone they can work with” and “someone who they can talk to.”
The Democrats insist we are in a quagmire in Iraq. In fact they have to convince Americans that the war is lost. However, with America having changed its approach to Iraq, seeking agreements with Sunnis and others, who are turning on al-Quaeda in many cases, with violence way down, and with the surge having had a positive effect, Iraqi security forces are taking charge of security operations in most provinces now, with the rest to follow soon. The Iraqi government and Parliament are now able to see clearly the time when America can leave, because Iraq is moving toward self-government after years of a murderous dictatorship. That is NOT “Obama’s Plan” — it is a timeline, or horizon if you’re Bush, that provides an exit path to the war when the time is right. We have seen how Obama completely opposed the war (but was unable to vote against it since he was a state senator at the time), how he called for immediate withdrawal (a really bad idea), and how he has taken advantage of all that has been accomplished to align himself with a sixteen-month withdrawal that, if Obama’s advice had been followed, would not today be possible. Under Obama’s policy, the UN would still be wrestling with Saddam and the number of Security Council resolutions Iraq would be in violation of would no doubt be over 20. Saddam would have continued his policy of torture, murder, and oppression to this day. By the way, is Iraq a “quagmire” or is it not? Will we see people clinging to the wheels of the “last plane out” of Baghdad like they did with the last plane out of Saigon? I don’t think so. If the Security forces in Iraq are taking responsibility, and terrorists continue to be hunted down and killed, and America is able to think about pulling out, it doesn’t seem like a “quagmire.” The “quagmire” is the hope and desire of the American left, and may or may not be reality. If we and the Iraqis think we can pull out in 16 months, it doesn’t seem like a quagmire to me. Bush has always said we would leave when Iraq could take responsibility for its own security and when Iraq asked us to leave. What Bush has strenuously avoided is saying exactly when that will be. If you give a date, the terrorists will know when the fight will be over. My belief is that insisting on a firm date is, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The time may come when Bush’s actions are viewed as the best that could have been done in the circumstances. No one was against invading Afghanistan, and it is clear now what a critical spot it is for the fight against terror and Islamist murderers. That is why the news is reporting that foreign fighters are leaving Iraq and heading for Afghanistan. The Iraqis are seeing clearly that the Islamists have no qualms about killing other Muslims and many of them are sick of it. They want al-Queda out, and want America to leave soon also — is that a big surprise? I would not have wanted to be President when 9/11 happened, when the Asian economy collapsed, when the outflow of American jobs that had been going on for years worsened (news flash to the left: jobs were leaving under Clinton and Gore; it didn’t just start the day Bush took office), when the demand for petroleum by China and India’s growing industries and when the banking and mortgage systems neared collapse due to greed and stupidity (news flash to the left: greed and stupidity are not unique to Republicans). One thing we have learned about history is that making snap judgments about what history will say is not a wise policy. History may yet come to view the post 9/11 era in a different way than that espoused by the far left.
Amazed I agree 100%,
Thank you for repeating the talking points we Repuyblicans are supposed to repeat. My favorite is referring to people you disagree with as the “far left”, as is so popular amongst every single Republican.
This talking point ignores the fact that a large majority of Americans agree with these moonbats who hate America and want us to lose in Iraq. Referring to them as the “far left” makes it seem like their opinions not only do not matter, but do not deserve recognition or respect. That strategy works great, and none of these moonbats will see through that.
Great Job!
You know at the point one of these pointy headed Republicans can exactly describe what victory in Iraq means and then factually prove that the money and blood spent there is not wasted I might actually think they are in it for more than the no-bid contracts. So far not a single war supporter has done either…
Do these idiots even have an idea of what those billions of tax dollars spent within our own borders would have done for the safety and security of American citizens, never mind the economic health of the country?
They are just useless buffoons like their leader George W. Bush.
I am far from a pointy-headed Republican, actually, but then again Democrats abhor stereotypes and would never make them.
These are not “talking points” from any Republican site. They are my opinions, so feel free to present counterexamples and discuss alternative views. But please try to do so by resorting to facts. For example, you could actually respond to a statement rather than including it in a blanket condemnation of the entire argument. You could provide facts, for example, that Saddam didn’t kill anyone, that he didn’t torture tens of thousands to death, and that he didn’t need to be removed; you could prove that Iraq isn’t free and that it didn’t have democratic elections, and so on. You could prove the surge didn’t work. Just because I don’t think you can make a coherent argument about any of that doesn’t mean you can’t. Give it a try. But when you fail to do so, then go ahead and fall back on name-calling, or say it was all about oil. I would point out that we didn’t need to go to war for oil; if we needed oil to flow out of Iraq, we just needed to visit our friends the French, Russians, and Chinese (who had ALL the oilfield contracts with Saddam’s government locked up, not to mention the military supply contracts) and just lift those sanctions. Much easier and cheaper.
“Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy” seems like another moonbat to me. But after a careful watch of the news, I do not hear anyone repeating any talking points other than liberal ones. The media will not run a story on Obama’s changes in view on Iraq, for example, and run video of him saying “pull out now.” It won’t happen. The love is just too great. So why don’t you lefties out there find some counterexamples of where the media have actually presented a story like that? You won’t, because they don’t.
In terms of spending billions, there is no guarantee that the billions, spent domestically, would have done what “amuseinc” claims. Since the Democrats out there already believe Iraq is a failure and there is no useful definition of “winning” in Iraq, there is little point in arguing that taking the war on terror to the terrorists MIGHT have kept the focus on other locations. You have already made up your minds using your crystal balls. Like your views on all issues, from the inherent wrongness of war, rightness of abortion, and your opinions of those who have other opinions, you are always right. You do not need to rebut any arguments or even think about them, because you already know you are right. You are as didactic and opinionated and bullheaded as those on the far right.
I actually do not believe that most Democrats believe the far-left drivel that I’ve seen here. I believe the far left controls the Democratic party platform and nomination process, and must be appeased by any candidate who hopes to obtain the Democratic nomination. Obama, the self-elected man of destiny, out-liberaled Mrs. Clinton, as the press handled him with kid gloves and he was butt-kissed by adoring media and annointed as savior by Ted Kennedy and the rest of JFK’s family before the primaries even got going. I don’t like Mrs. Clinton, but she has a lot more ability and experience than Obama has. The fact that she was a serious contender for first woman nominated for President by a major party was overlooked; in the liberal pantheon of gods, “minority” apparently trumps “female.”
Now that Obama has the nomination, he can begin his long walk to the middle, where most people are, and leave the left alone there in outer space. If Obama wins, he will win because he has managed to appeal to the 80% of Americans who are not the fruits and nuts of the left or the arch-conservatives of the right. Why do I think it’s 80%, you may ask? I think that because Bush the Younger at one time had an approval rating of over 90%. Moderates and right-wing extremists agreed with him and supported him. The other 10% would rather have died than support the President. Simple subtraction of 90 from 100 gives 10%, which I figure is about the percentage of yammering lefties. It just seems like there are more than that because they scream so loudly. My own family is staunchly Democratic and has been for generations, and NONE of them are willing to stoop so low as to call people names and sling mud the way TwoPutt and his lefty comrades are. They may disagree with Bush, but they do so respecfully. This is the problem with the left wing of the Democratic party, which is all we seem to hear from (the moderates are either at work or out looking for work and have less time to whine). The far left are generally mean-spirited and nasty. But they are few in number. If they weren’t few in number, then Obama could win without appealing to moderates. Obama knows he cannot do that, as Mr. Clinton knew back in his day. So, while you get the nomination by appealing to the Michael Moore types, you still have to move to the center where 80% of America wants to be governed. Remember when Clinton reformed welfare, instituted “don’t ask don’t tell,” and acted like the moderate he wasn’t? Remember how upset the left was? They felt betrayed because Clinton actually responded to the views of his constituents — the American people. As to whether Obama’s approach of touring the world as a “world citizen” and telling everyone “everything America does is wrong” will work with the salt-of-the-earth Democrats the way it works with the Loony Left, that remains to be seen. It has already turned some of my family against Obama. They were turned off by what they saw and heard while he was on tour, and by his conducting himself as President and not as candidate for President, and for his presumptuousness. Before that they supported him or were undecided. Now they are either going to vote for McCain or not vote.
I think T. Boone Pickens is right. Wind power IS the future. And Obama’s speeches should provide enough wind power to solve the energy crisis. Too bad he emits Carbon Dioxide, and lots of it.
Amaze, I agree 100%,
These are not “talking points” from any Republican site.
You moonbats could provide facts, for example, that Saddam didn’t kill anyone, that he didn’t torture tens of thousands to death, and that he didn’t need to be removed; you could prove that Iraq isn’t free and that it didn’t have democratic elections, and so on. No republican site has ever tried this argument.
The media will not run a story on Obama’s changes in view on Iraq, for example, and run video of him saying “pull out now.” It won’t happen. The love is just too great. Everybody knows no Republican websites have ever made these arguments.
The far left controls the Democratic party platform and nomination process, and must be appeased by any candidate who hopes to obtain the Democratic nomination. Obama, the self-elected man of destiny, out-liberaled Mrs. Clinton, as the press handled him with kid gloves and he was butt-kissed by adoring media and annointed as savior by Ted Kennedy and the rest of JFK’s family before the primaries even got going. Not only has no Republican website ever made these arguments, but this statement does not show any deep hatred for people who disagree with us.
“Yammering lefties” is not a talking point, neither is “lefty comrades”, furthermore these terms show a fair and balanced analysis.
These looney leftists may disagree with Bush, but they do not so respecfully. Those of us on the right know how to treat people we disagree with respectfully, by calling them names like “looney left”.
Obama’s approach of touring the world as a “world citizen” and telling everyone “everything America does is wrong” will work with the salt-of-the-earth Democrats the way it works with the Loony Left. This is not some theory that is being repeated as a talking point we Republicans are supposed to say, this shows independent analysis and just good journalism.
There are some who might say your posts are the absolute definition of a long partisan opinion piece spattered with hatred and talking points. They are just moonbats who hate America and want us to surrender to terrorists.
Some may point out you comments are littered with the very same tone of disrespect you criticize the left for. That’s just these looney leftist moonbats acting all crazy.
Great Job, Highly Intelligent Commenter and Non-Douchebag Amazed
Much shorter and much more poetic Amazed… still lies but his cut and paste job deserves some notice for its’ skullduggery.
Lear:
Close pent-up guilts,
Rive your concealing continents, and cry
These dreadful summoners grace. I am a man
More sinn’d against than sinning.
King Lear Act 3, scene 2, 57–60