But he also said it did not change the political mindset of the iraqi government, which is the goal. Anytime you increase the number of soldiers anywhere, it does squash local contempory activities. It is called "police state '. And slightly off topic, why are they advertising Palin's son is going to iraq, and show pictures of him ? Haven't they learned from the prince william fiasco ?

It's NOT the surge.  The surge was only a minor factor in the change in Iraq.  The Awakening groups and mercenaries, paid for by the United States, are  greater factors in the improvement.

http://greytheory.blogspot.com/2008/08/its-not-surge.html

It's NOT the surge

No, it's not and I wish Obama had had the guts to say so. The three big factors in the reduction of violence were:

1) the so-called "Anbar awakening," which preceded and occurred entirely apart from "the surge," where local Sunnis got fed up with al-Qaeda in Iraq and wanted to get rid of them - i.e., expelling the very same forces that the Shrub gang and BillO say would have used the area as a "staging area" for attacks had it not been for "the surge";

2) the Sadrist ceasefire, which also predated and occurred apart from "the surge";

3) and perhaps most importantly but least often mentioned, the success of ethnic cleansing in Iraq to the point where Sunnis and Shiites have little contact with each other and Baghdad has been turned into a city of walled-off enclaves.

Because of that third point, I also wish Obama had had the guts to say "the surge" has not worked, in fact it has been an utter failure because it's goal was not a reduction in violence but the advancement of political reconciliation - which simply has not happened, not anything close.

But - I am just managing to resist the temptation to say "of course" - he didn't. Instead he wanted to make the smallest, narrowest challenge possible and in so doing left himself open to being described as endorsing George Bush's "defeat" of al-Qaeda.

I agree with your points, although paying $300 a month to Sunnis (aka the Awakening), gets my vote as more dominant. Obama was attempting, in my view, to be precise and thorough. Faux News and Papa Bear don't want precise and thorough, they want bumper sticker simplicity.

For another opinion, Bob Woodward is paraphrased, from his new book, as claiming the Surge is a misnomer:

"Overall, Woodward writes, four factors combined to reduce the violence: the covert operations; the influx of troops; the decision by militant cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rein in his powerful Mahdi Army; and the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and allied with U.S. forces."

Obama should have never ever ever ever ever ever EVER gone on O'Reilly.

Who wasn't thinking there? 

This is the 2008 equivalent of Jimmy Carter granting an interview to Playboy Magazine and admitting he had "sinned in his heart."

And the posters above are 100% right on with regard to the campaign being unable or unwilling to educate the public about the true causes of the reduction in violence (amazing what happens when you ship out several million potential adversaries via the refugee route and the main man, Sadr, is convinced by Iran to rein in his horses). The bill is still not in for arming the Sunni against Al Q'eda. Don't expect a public that enjoys being talked to like kindergarteners in a convention to appreciate the distinctions, so maybe Obama people are just realistic.

None of the factors that have led to reduced violence in Iraq would have happened if there was not enough time for them to evolve. The surge was only one of the strategies that gave the Iraqis that time. President Bush, despite other shortcomings, persevered and Iraq has benefited.

None of the factors that have led to reduced violence in Iraq would have happened if there was not enough time for them to evolve.

And you based this on what exactly?  The Iraqis lived without blowing each other up when Saddam was in power so it makes sense that they could live the same way without Saddam.  I think the huge increase in violence was the Iraqis way of telling us to get out of their country but the Neocons have big plans in that part of the world and leaving was not an option.  Most Iraqis have now abandoned that strategy and hope to get invaders out by acting as they would if we weren't there but, again, the Neoconshave big plans in that part of the world and leaving is not an option.

I'm sure the Iraqis will all look back on this as a positive experience. Cept for those who arn't here any more, or are huddled as refugees elsa where.

None of the factors that have led to reduced violence in Iraq would have happened if there was not enough time for them to evolve.

That is one of the most bizarre arguments I have ever come across.

It is equivalent to beating someone up and then later, as their bruises fade, taking credit for their "improving condition" by saying you'd allowed "enough time for" that to "evolve."

Obama did talk about the change in Anbar with the U.S. paying thousands of Sunni's $300.00 a month to fight with the Americans. Also he mentioned Sadar calling for a cease fire all this before the surge. Why he stopped talking about that is a mystery to me. What is important now is what will become of the Sunni soldiers that we have been paying there salaries. Maliki doesn't want to bring all of the Sunni soldiers into the Iraqi army, only a few of them. It seems to me those who don't get picked will just do what they did the last time that happened. Join up with Al Qaeda or just fight Shiites. Anbar isn't the rosy picture Republicans want to portray. The only trouble is it might not be a problem until after the election.

I agree with the last comment.  It was a fiasco when it was revealed that the young prince had been deployed.  It put his whole mission and unit at risk.  It was also brought to my attention that revealing when and to where a soldier is to be deployed, especially if specific dates are used is usually considered a criminal offense, in that it jeprodizes Armed Services security.

 

While I understand Obama's argument that the Surge did not work because “a surge would tell Iraqi leaders they can continue to avoid reaching a political solution.” [Barack Obama 1/6/07, http://exemployee.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/compliments-of-citizenx-obama-opposes-troop-surge-in-iraq/]

Barack Obama *was* wrong, regardless of whether he admits it or not.

(I actually don't care if he admits it, only that he was wrong.)

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have finished work on a draft security agreement that would see all American troops leave Iraqi cities by June 30 and the rest of the country by the end of 2011, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.

[Aug 20, 2008

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD92M6IH81]

Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have finished work

Oh for pity sake. The "political solution" the "surge" was supposed to advance was among Iraqis, not between the Shiite-dominated central government and the US. That "solution" has not happened and is nowhere in sight.

Let it also be noted that the agreement you cite does what the Shrub gang insisted loud and long we must never do: set timelines. Apparently, they were wrong. I'm sure their apology will be immediately forthcoming.

I know it's hard to accept, but Obama was wrong. The Surge brought about " draft security agreement that would see all American troops leave Iraqi cities by June 30 and the rest of the country by the end of 2011" .

Deal with it.

The Surge brought about " draft security agreement

No, it didn't; this sort of agreement was something that had been in the works for a few years, starting well before any talk of "the surge." The US pressed for it in order to justify a long-term US military presence in Iraq; the sticking point was the Shrub gang's refusal to include deadlines or timetables for troop withdrawals, something the Iraqis demanded as a condition of an agreement.

What has changed is that with time running out and no guarantee of a McCain White House to continue current policy, the Bush team capitulated and in order to get a pact they agreed to what they said from the very beginning must never ever be done: setting deadlines.

Your ability to believe whatever is convenient for you to believe is quite astonishing, including as it does the ability to delude yourself into thinking "the surge" succeeded because even though it never achieved what it was supposed to achieve, it did achieve something else - which it didn't. An impressive display of fantasizing.

And please don't bother going "Oh yeah? Obama said!" which is roughly as good a comeback to "So's yer old man!" First, because he didn't say "the surge" succeeded, he said violence is down. But - again since you're apparently a slow learner - a reduction in violence wasn't the goal of "the surge" but a means to the end of political reconciliation among Iraqis. There is no such reconciliation. "The surge" was a failure.

Second, because even if he had said what you falsely believe he said, I wouldn't care: My statements are not controlled by what Barack Obama says and such a shift on his part would not show he was wrong to oppose "the surge" but wrong to think it worked.

David Wright should be apologize on the air.

Obama: "Because there's an underlying problem with what have we done. We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility, and we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month."

I wish he would have added this:  "and Bill, while we are at it, YOU were wrong about the need to invade, WMD, how easy it would be after we invaded and you have continually mischaractorized the patriotism and motives of those who have had reservations about this whole project from the beginning".

You know, if we are going to go back and play the blame game, we should at least be thorough.  It seems that the administration and their friends have been wrong continually.  They should have to eat crow as well!

As for the surge, I am not convinced that it is the sole reason why things have calmed down in Iraq and if it is the sole reason and if victory is so vital for the survival of our nation, then why don't we reinstitute the draft, start rationing and have a real surge so we can be done with this and send everyone home.  This war has lasted longer than WWII.  Bush wanted a modern shock and awe victory that wouldn't inconvienence joe sixpack.  The result has been this slow bleed.  I guess I am expecting too much from the rush hanitties and foxes.  They want to point the finger without taking their own inconsistant rhetoric seriously.

Bill, while we are at it, YOU were wrong about the need to invade

As I recall, BillO said something to the effect that if no WMDs were found in Iraq that he would apologize and never again trust the Bush administration. So it would have been nice to see that thrown back at him and ask him where his apology is.

Yeah, I know, in your dreams.

I guess Senator Obama going on O'Reilly must of pissed of some of the O'Reilly and FOX haters.  I saw that part on the Factor and thought it was a good interview, Bill O is full of hot air but he does a good interview.

Bill O is full of hot air . . .

You should have quit while you were ahead. 

Bill O is a talking head who panders to his masses - predominantly the white, right, post-WWII crowd - in simple and sophmoric terms.  There is no analysis, no depth of disussion and no sustenance to his positions beyond the rhetorical and emotional.  I literally thought he was going to have a stroke the time I saw he and Geraldo get into over crimes by illegal aliens.

He's about bombast and cutting off those who disagree with him - verbally or technologically when he cuts a microphone before being exposed the fool.

There was a small sense of rationality to the BO/BO' interview because he's undoubtedly on a short leash after the Murdoch/Obama meeting.  But even in these exchanges, he fights for the sound bite (no, no, no, no. . . admit you were "wrong") as if those "gotchas" vindicate the fecklessness of Bush's folly.  It may in the minds of O'Reilly's core audience, but not to those of us with a slightly larger brain stem.

PALIN [video clip]: I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong, too.

Er... I do believe this has been the wingnut excuse for the whole war.  Bush was wrong because everyon else was i.e.  "Well Saddam fooled everyone".  Palin is describing exactly what Bush did and what his media supporters continually say despite plenty of prewar warnings to the contrary from knowledgable and reputable sources.  Yet somehow if everyone else was wrong its ok.

Obama is saying something different.  What a strange thing for her to say.

 

Why did Obama do this? Why did he meet with Murdoch and Aires and agree to go on Oreily. So stupid.

They should have thrown fox from the convention and begun a complete blackout of all things Democratic from Fox News. Obama could say, " if you see something on Fox about me or about any Democrat, it's second hand nonsense. I want the American's who watch Fox to know it is more than just a slightly biased news organization, it is a cultic mouthpiece for the GOP and they can have fun filling their 24/7 hatefest without me."

Maybe they are working on a Mccain appearance on the new rachel maddow show, in the interest of fair and balanced ????

you never know what Rachel will do or McCain.

Oh, I think it was wise of Obama to sit down with the Big Giant Head--particularly since Palin has yet to meet with anybody other than People.  Bill-O can no longer whine about how Obama won't meet with him.  Let's see if he won't fair and balance it out and start getting on the Moose Meat Mama's case.

No, I won't be holding my breath.

i saw an up close image of the giant head yesterday and I swear something has changed in his facial structure. He looks different.

This is the wrong tact to take.  Maher has this right, reasonable meetings with any "news" (shudder) organization is required.  Failure to engage Fox is no better than letting Palin get away without any Sunday morning appearances or unscripted interviews.

I think the analogy is off.  A Democrat going on FOX "News" is akin to a republican going on Air America.  I would never expect McCain or Palin to go on Air America and Obama and Biden should not go on Fox "News".

Heard several Republicans on "The Young Turks" the other morning, all of which were treated with more respect by Cenk than O'Really afforded Obama.

The reason he should not have gone on O'Reilly is simple: just look at that stupid chair they had him sit in, with side views that make him look like a little kid.

And it didn't take Einstein to figure out that they were going to ask him questions that will lend themselves to the splice and dice tactic, and then immediately bring body-language experts on to destory any semblance of gravitas he may have still possessed.

Next big idiotic mistake of the Dems? Just wait until they "agree" to a sit-down debate with Palin and Biden, which will make Joe look like he's taking a meeting with her. 

As a potential President Obama demonstrated that he is not afraid to sit with his detractors and fierces opponents.  He fared very well.  Palin and McCain, however are demonstrating their cowardness as well as their juvenile tactics (he won't sit with CNN because of the interview with Tucker Bounds  - Waaah!)

It's still smoke and mirrors.  Why doesn't Palin and McCain admit that they never should've gone there in the first place?  Perhaps Palin should be held to her own words...that when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a national security issue you can pretend everyone was wrong too.  Maybe she *would be held to her own words if she wasn't so afraid to face the press.  Is this America or what?  She's up for the 2nd highest job in this country and she won't face the press?  That's the pitbull and barracuda we keep hearing about?  I'd like to see how she'd respond when she doesn't have notes to keep referring to.

 -- falsely suggesting that Obama said -- mmfa

Well here's one that mmfa can't spin:

 --  we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq, and the Al Qaeda came there after we invaded, as you know. OK? We've defeated them. -- BOR

 --  Right. Absolutely. -- Obama

Under Obama's plan, al-Qaeda would not have been defeated. Under the surge, which McCain pushed...we have defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq...so sayeth Obama.

Well King, this case is closed...except for mmfa, who will continue to cook up more silly parsing and word-smithing to pander to their liberal base...LOL

 

Under Obama's plan, al-Qaeda would not have been defeated. Under the surge, which McCain pushed...we have defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq...so sayeth Obama.

The people we were and are fighting in Iraq are the Iraqis.  They want us to get the hell out.

al-qaeda was not in iraq prior to the invasion.  so we have spent half a trillion dollars and 4000 american lives to remove al-qaeda from a country where they had no presence before.  sounds like a great strategy.  now, how about all those countries that actually have al-qaeda? 

The problem, Wes, is that Obama admitted to things that the far left doesn't believe to be true.  But they are stuck because he's actually a "credible" source.

 

He said violence has been reduced and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.  The problem I have with all of this is we're debating tactics of an illegal war when we should be talking about war crime charges against the Bush administration for commencing he illegal war.

That should be: "the illegal war"

You should talk to the Speaker of the House about that.  If you've got it, then bring it.

The Speaker of the House is an invertebrate.  We would have been better served with Kucinich, Conyers, or Wexler as the Speaker.

"You should talk to the Speaker of the House about that.  If you've got it, then bring it"

It's not necessarily legal just because Congress passed it.  That's why we have a Supreme Court, to stop illegalities (aka unconstitutional) laws passed by Congress.  Too bad we currently have a Supreme Court too wrapped up in ideology to do their proper job.  And that we have a Congress too cowed to do THEIR proper job too.

there were a lot of people who said more troops would bring more security to iraq.  the question is, why does the bush administration not want to leave?  wasn't that the idea of the surge?  things going bad?  can't leave.  things going good?  can't leave.  the fact is that this has been a huge fiasco from day one.  the iraqis are saying they want us out in a couple years.  if we "won", what's the problem with that.

I don't know.  We'll see how quickly we leave once Obama gets elected.  I suppose the current administration is afraid of squandering any gains we've made this year.

we will still have been there far longer than all the rosy predictions.  and like i said, for what?  we removed al-qaeda from a country where they never were.

I believe that's preferable to not removing them.

Errmmm....

 

If we hadn't gone there illegally IN THE FIRST PLACE, then there WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A NEED TO REMOVE THEM.

It's a shame we interrupted their serene lifestyles. 

Before we invaded Iraq and forced them to swarm into Iraq and fight the evil U.S who had just liberated Iraq...they were busy with family picnics, trips to the zoo and making "we are the world" coca cola commercials.

They have been defeated...so sayeth Obama "right, absolutely".

Before we invaded Iraq and forced them to swarm into Iraq and fight the evil U.S.

Bush invaded a Muslim nation and it should have been expected that Muslims would be against that.

in iraq, they have been defeated "in iraq".  a place they didn't exist before.

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN    

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would not

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would not have

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would not have been

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would not have been in

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would not have been in Iraq

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would not have been in Iraq to

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would not have been in Iraq to be

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would not have been in Iraq to be dealt

No you f'ing muppet they were in AFGANISTAN,  f'ing up AFGANISTAN,  and killing people in AFGANISTAN, while setting up further terrorist attacks in AFGANISTAN. Maybe if we hadn't taken their eyes off the fact that Al Queda are in AFGANISTAN and went to deal with them there instead of, oh l don't know, INVADING A COUNTRY WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON YOUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OVER 3000 PEOPLE, then maybe the terrorist from AFGANISTAN would not have been in Iraq to be dealt with

Wow!!!

 

No idea what happened there!!

 

Sorry for the multiple posts, l seem to have McCain's knowledge of computers tonight!!

Guess you meant what you said.

Nice use of the limpaugh method, UK. And by golly, it DOES work!  Now it's true! 

Don't know if it got through to Wesley yet, though.  Maybe a couple more copy/paste routines and he'll start to understand it.

No apology needed.

If anything bears repeating it's your post.

"I believe that's preferable to not removing them."

Let me see if I have this right: you're saying we did the right thing to start a war to remove a group that wasn't even there yet...but would be there -  because we started the war.

I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around that kind of convoluted "logic"

You don't have me right.

I said that I believe it was the right thing to remove Al Queda once they were in Iraq.

That has nothing to do with agreeing that the war was a good idea.  However, I acknowledge that situations change, and it's better to deal with the current situation rather than wring our hands about what "should have been".  That road was not traveled.

the point is that you jumped in to defend wesley, who seemed to be claiming that the war was a success because we removed al-qaeda from iraq.  the answer to that was that they were not there to begin with.   obviously, if we are there, then yes, it's a good idea to remove them.  but so what?  if you want to discuss who was right and who was wrong, i'm not really inclined to listen to the people who got us into this fiasco and dismissed all the concerns that turned out to be correct. 

I pointed out that Obama's concession that the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" was contrary to what most far left posters believe.

I did not say the overall war was successful. 

you did say removing al-qaeda was preferable to not removing them.  again, so what?  that's beside the point that they were not there to begin with. 

I never disagreed that they were not there to begin with.  That's common knoweledge.

 

actually it's not common knowledge, because a lot of people do what wesley does, claim we removed al-qaeda from iraq, as if they were there before we invaded.  and again, you said it was preferable to not removing them.  again, they were not there.  so what you were doing was deflecting from that fact.  you made the statement, so there's really no need to act all puzzled when you get called on that.

You are arguing against points I never made. 

The point I agreed with Wesley on was that Obama said that the surge was more successful than most people believed it would be (the surge, not the overall war).  I said that is contrary to what the far left believes, as I have read that the surge was a failure countless times on these threads.  I stand by that statement and agree with Obama's comment.

You brought up the point about Al Queda not being in Iraq at the beginning, a point that I never made and don't disagree with.  I simply stated that since they came in, we should get them out.  You didn't disagree with that.

This whole thing was in no way (on my part at least) supposed to be a defense of going into Iraq in the first place.  It was simply an agreement with Obama's position, in contrast to the far left's position, that the surge worked in certain ways beyond what a lot of people have been saying.

I understand that we caused the problems in the first place with bad strategy.  Even O'Reilly agrees with that.

"That has nothing to do with agreeing that the war was a good idea.  However, I acknowledge that situations change, and it's better to deal with the current situation rather than wring our hands about what "should have been".  That road was not traveled."

You're using the same convoluted logic.  AQ in Iraq DID NOT EXIST before we started this war.  So it's disingenuous to say that NOW we should "defeat" them when they wouldn't be there to BE defeated if WE hadn't gotten their first.

That's the very definition of a "pre-emptive" war - to defeat an enemy that DOESN'T YET EXIST, but that WILL once you start the war.  It's also called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So you are saying we shouldn't have driven Al Queda out when they came into Iraq.  That's your stated position now.

Fine, I disagree.

Drove them out? Where did they go?

If you think the escalation has ended terrorism and made the U.S. safer, you're not paying attention. THE terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 is still out there because of the unforgivable error of the Republican leadership to dismiss any option except full scale invasion and war on a tactic. Your screech monkeys went on the tv and thugishly screamed at dissenters, called us traitors and losers. I will never forget how the rightwing punks intimidated the media for airing the liberal approach of bringing criminals to justice and ridiculed the left for disagreements with Bush.

You have no scruples. You are the party of Violence.

How righties can lend even the least defense to anything this administration has done to Iraq is absurd. You can argue all day that the ends justify the means, but sensible people know that the means are the ends.

as far as i know, Hungary...no al queda. let's invade...ruin a bunch of junk, then when al queda moves in? we can go about evicting them thereby making Hungary Al Queda free.

the press showed McCain proteected by Blackhawks, trooops, and still the public believeMcCain's lie about it being safe, or we're winning. They also believe Obama is mmuslim why they're asked silence or no answer.

 

Palin lies about plane, so does McCain twice and press does little and public can't see it sorry public seem really stupid

 -- they are stuck because he's actually a "credible" source. -- bruce

Yep...he's their candidate and after months and months of sputtering and stuttering about bringing the troops home because we couldn't defeat al-Qeada in Iraq or that the war was already lost...Obama torpedoed them with two simple words.

He agreed with O'Reilly by saying "right" and then punctuated that affirmation with an emphatic "absolutely"...and that has got to chap their asses.

Yep...he's their candidate and after months and months of sputtering and stuttering about bringing the troops home because we couldn't defeat al-Qeada in Iraq or that the war was already lost...Obama torpedoed them with two simple words.

You're going off Bruce's falsehood or lie.

If this has torpedoed Obama's arguement then what does it say of McCain's position of troops remaining in Iraq now that both El Maliki AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION have both stated that his plan for a 16 month phased withdrawl is the position they agree with?

 

Would this be a bad time to quote the member of the McCain campaign who said when he heard this, "Were f***ed!!"?

McCain doesn't have a problem with leaving in 16 months...or 1 month...or 1 day...his position is to leave as soon as possible...with a victory.

Now we are all getting on the same page after the surge caused the defeat of al-Qaeda...and Obama agrees that they are defeated, "right, absolutely".

 

and they are never going to declare "victory", it's always a moving target.

McCain doesn't have a problem with leaving in 16 months...or 1 month...or 1 day...his position is to leave as soon as possible...with a victory.

His position is 100 years and beyond.

Wesley:

 

"McCain doesn't have a problem with leaving in 16 months...or 1 month...or 1 day...his position is to leave as soon as possible...with a victory."

 

Denial is just a river in Egypt to you isn't it?

McCain on troop withdrawal:

 -- "It's fine with me, as long as it's condition-based," McCain said in an interview. "The agreement, I'm sure, will be condition-based. And the fact is that we have succeeded. And we're winning. And whenever you win wars, the troops come home." -- Des Moines Register Aug08

Now it's time for you to do your best Hannity impersonation and go get the 100 year quote...or some other such nonsense.

"And the fact is that we have succeeded. And we're winning."

What a baloney. Does McCain know what he means by success and winning? 

I'll bet he does...just like Obama stated to O'Reilly...

BOR -- we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq,

Obama -- right, absolutely

Your leader sayeth different than you.

Your leader sayeth different than you.

I think Obama and other Democrats have bought into the right-wing framing on this issue (it can happen to the best of us).  The people we were/are fighting are the Iraqis themselves who want us out and the Al Qaeda presence was/is negligible.

Sounds like "buyer's remorse"...

Sounds like "buyer's remorse"...

I disagree with Obama on some things.  He wasn't my first choice (Edwards) or my second choice (Clinton, who lost me when when she ran that 3AM ad).  Overall I'm happy with him though.

Wesley, maybe you can help me out.

If there were no AlQueda in Iraq before we got there, where were they? According to our leaders, they were in Afghanistan. Now, logically speaking, why would we go into Iraq to defeat AlQueda if they were in Afghanistan? Don't you absolutely believe that we should have concentrated our efforts to remove our enemies from where they were or where they could never go if Saddam was still in power? O'Reilly said "staging area" for the AQ but they couldn't stage there. Right, absolutely. Saddam wouldn't allow it.

Obama was against going into a country where AQ wasn't but suggested that we use our power to get the enemy where they lived. Months ago, he suggested the same thing but our President didn't listen. Now, McCain wants to get Obama/AQ in Afghanistan because they are not in Iraq. The sixteen month departure schedule also sound like McCain is following in Obamas footstep along with the Change idea. Maybe McCain should've picked Obama as his VP. At least he answers questions.

Wow, you logic borders on Republican thinking and a baseball analogy.."Hit 'em where the ain't."

P.S. Wesley, I think you tied UKObserver in repitition this evening...although his post was a computer problem(or operator malfunction) but your baiting with "RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY" is a bit childlike. A na nana na na would have been better.And yes, Obama said he'd go into Pakistan and McCain berated him...Didn't we just do that?

Prince,

I think we were justified in liberating Iraq. You, and others here don't agree...and I doubt any of those opinions are going to be swayed by any brilliant arguments on a comments board.

The fact is that we are there...that is the now...not what we should have done or who screwed up. 

A number of months ago Obama and the democrat leadership...like Harry Reid...declared that we could not win and in fact the war was lost...and necessitated a prompt retreat (withdraw if you prefer)  from Iraq. They opposed the military surge. They in fact, were wrong...and Obama has finally admitted as much.

Afghanistan? I agree that it wasn't handled as well as it should have been...but once again, that is in the past. I agree with Obama that we should surge in Afghanistan to roust the terrorists.

Victory in the war on terrorism has many definitions...unlike a football game with a determined amount of time to proclaim a winner...after looking at the scoreboard. 

So we're about to elect a new CIC who will lead the efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. As a conservative, I won't be voting for Obama but I'm not yet commited to McCain...for a lot of reasons.

But on the issue of fighting a war against terrorism...McCain is my choice. If Obama is the new CIC...he will be faced with the same monday morning quarterbacks who relish sniping at how Pres.Bush has prosecuted the war...and most importantly he will be asked to define victory or defeat...something he has yet to do.

If the war in Afghanistan gets tough will Obama have the nerve to continue the fight or will he declare that we give up and go home? I certainly don't know...but that is one of the judgements that voters will have to make.

This is not about Pres.Bush and the past...it's about the future.

I think we were justified in liberating Iraq. You, and others here don't agree...and I doubt any of those opinions are going to be swayed by any brilliant arguments on a comments board.

Bush illegally invaded Iraq which amounts to a war crime.

And liberation was the last thing on the Neocons' mind.  They needed a regime in Iraq that was friendlier not to America's interest but their interests.  The Iraqis know this; they're not stupid.

A number of months ago Obama and the democrat leadership...like Harry Reid...declared that we could not win and in fact the war was lost...and necessitated a prompt retreat (withdraw if you prefer)  from Iraq. They opposed the military surge. They in fact, were wrong...and Obama has finally admitted as much.

By the way it's the Democratic leadership (stop following Limbaugh; think for yourself).

You don't get it.  The Iraqis don't want us there.  Bush has decimated their country killing and wounding countless of them and relegating millions to refugee status.  If there is a hell, he'll be side by side with Saddam.

Also, Bush's invasion of Iraq has caused resentment towards us not only in the Middle East but around the would which makes it harder for us in the "war on terror" (I hate that term).  Bush and McCain have put the U.S. in a more  awkward and dangerous position because of their asinine decision to invade and to continue occupying that country.

Victory in the war on terrorism has many definitions...unlike a football game with a determined amount of time to proclaim a winner...after looking at the scoreboard. 

And those definitions are...?

So we're about to elect a new CIC who will lead the efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. As a conservative, I won't be voting for Obama but I'm not yet commited to McCain...for a lot of reasons.

The Iraqis will lead the effort in Iraq as it should have been years ago and will be under an Obama administration.  The Afghan situation will get more attention and we may find the Al Qaeda leadership.  We can also repair our reputation around the world.

But on the issue of fighting a war against terrorism...McCain is my choice.

McCain is a Neocon through and through.  He will fan the flames of extremism making America less safe and that's the last thing we need.

If the war in Afghanistan gets tough will Obama have the nerve to continue the fight or will he declare that we give up and go home?

I don't think we should stay too long in Afghanstan.  We ferment more and more hatred by staying in that part of the world.  We should take out the Al Qaeda leadership and leave.

This is not about Pres.Bush and the past...it's about the future. 

You stay in the past by voting for McCain.

and most importantly he will be asked to define victory or defeat...something he has yet to do.

I don't think he defines this because victory or defeat have no basis here.  The Iraqis have to take responsible for their country and they have been willing to do this for years now and they'll ultimately chose what path they take. We can't stay there and babysit adults.

WESLEY - "This is not about Pres.Bush and the past...it's about the future."

And what is WESLEY's future vision?

"My friends, if elected, I promise longer recess, chocolate milk in the cafeteria, and new jungle gyms!"

(crowd) Yaaaayyyyyy!!!! 

I think this backdrop of the Walter Reed Middle School in California is deeply symbolic. First the Cons invade the wrong country, fight the wrong conflict & refuse to leave; then put the wrong Walter Reed up for their convention & don't know the difference.

They're stubborn; they're willful; and they don't give a dam@#.

...And that's REALLY the change we can believe in, if Mac & Cheesecake win the Whitehouse. 

You think Bush has been incompetent?  You ain't seen nothin', yet. 

Wesley:  "Liberating Iraq? You remind me of the old line from Vietnam:  "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Wesley, we will agree to disagree. But I am not in the camp of the ends justify the means. The problem with this thread is that there were no AQ in Iraq until we invaded therefore we created AQ in Iraq and up to now too many people have died.

What scares me about McCain as CIC is that he seems ready and most assuredly willing to have victory elsewhere..Georgia/Russia comes to mind. I pray that if McCain wins, he talks with the Russians instead of calling them names. We've got to remember that they have nuclear weapons and the really bad guys want nuclear weapons. But that is for another day.

Goodnight and thanx for your explanation and for not writing, RIGHT, ABOSLUTLEY. Always a pleasure.

wesley, you quote mccain as saying we "have succeded"?  really?  our troops are coming home?  when that happens, we will have succeded.  declaring success and then saying the mission is not complete is a contradiction.

Your leader sayeth different than you.

This is the difference between conservatives and liberals.  When your leaders say something, you conform.  When our leaders say something, we question first and either conform or rebel.  As a matter a fact, these politicians are working for us and therefore should conform to our beliefs.

Please see my other post.

And by the way, Obama is not my leader. 

Nor mine.  He's just the guy that I think would be best to preside over the operations of this country.

It's the right that needs a leader to string a rope through their nose ring and drag them around so they feel like they're going somewhere.

Geez, it sucks to live in a country where the cattle can vote. 

Nicely put Wesley, but don't forget to mention that because of the success of the surge, the following was allowed to happen (which is the "political solution" Barack was looking for.)

Aug 20, 2008

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have finished work on a draft security agreement that would see all American troops leave Iraqi cities by June 30 and the rest of the country by the end of 2011, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD92M6IH81

A direct result of a successful surge.

Your leader sayeth different than you

One of those precious nuggets that offer sparkling clear views of right-wing thought processes. They can't conceive of independent opinions, there must always be "the leader" who tells them what to think. They have their various mills turning out pre-digested pap for them to swallow; for some it's the Bush gang, other have their Hannitys, their Rushes, their Fox Newses.

Because they think that way, they figure everyone else does and so can't imagine anyone on the left not simply repeating whatever "the leader" says.

He'll ask his staff and get back to us.

-- "It's fine with me, as long as it's condition-based," McCain said in an interview. "The agreement, I'm sure, will be condition-based. And the fact is that we have succeeded. And we're winning. And whenever you win wars, the troops come home." -- Des Moines Register Aug08

 

This is a lie.  The Iraqis have been saying for years now for us to get the f--k out but the Bush administration and McCain have forbidden it as though the Iraqis have no say in the matter.

Of course it has to be conditioned based. We are the OCCUPIERS of their Soverign country. Occupiers don't just leave without spoils of war. And by listening to McCain, things will really be spoiled if it takes UP TO 100 years. ABSOLUTELY.

Did we make al queda go away or did the Iraqis?  Iraq was not a hot bed for islamic terrorist before the invasion.  When the dust settles it will be OBVIOUS that in the chaos of our unnecessary invasion, these groups got a foothold there.  It is also OBVIOUS that many Iraqi's themselves do not like groups that blow people up indescriminately.  If anything, it seems the Iraqis are tired of killing each other, especially since the killing fields have already separated the various ethnic groups into enclaves with maybe millions of refugees cleared out of the way.  The ultimate political settlement within the country still remains to be resolved however.

The responsible thing to do would be to clean up the mess we have made.  If you think that is the purpose of the surge, we have a long way to go.  I have trouble with the concept of victory here anyway.  Do we win when the Iraqis stop killing each other?  Killing us?  Having groups calling themselves al queda?  Give us access to oil?  Have a democracy?  Have a dictatorship that is allied to us?  Become republicans? Become christians?

I am no native English speaker but I learnt that  a win, a success and a victory are all synonymous. It  is not  theoretically possible to be winning and have already  had success.

These are just buzz words so stupid patriots can vote for the Republican party. They have been playing this game for a long time.

Hopefully, it will not work this time. 

Roll up!! Roll up!!

 

Come one, come all!! Come and see as a right wing troll in a stunning peice of irony actually tries to defend his position by claiming that someone who is against his arguement is going to use a tactic which is a favorite of one of the most often quoted right wing blowhards in America, a man who if he told you he had a talking parrot you would stick your hand up it's rear end to make sure there wasn't a tape recorder there!! Ladies and gentlemen l give you Wesley, who manages to post without any form a self awareness the following:

 

"Now it's time for you to do your best Hannity impersonation and go get the 100 year quote...or some other such nonsense."

Well people now we know, denile is just a river in Egypt and Irony is a misspelt element on the preiodic table. Thank you wesley, don't forget to remind the peole to tip their waitress before they leave and pleae, try the fish!! 

 

Well people now we know, denile is just a river in Egypt and Irony is a misspelt element on the preiodic table. Thank you wesley, don't forget to remind the peole to tip their waitress before they leave and pleae, try the fish!! 

 

That should read:

 

Well people now we know, denile is just a river in Egypt and Irony is a misspelt element on the periodic table. Thank you wesley, don't forget to remind the people to tip their waitress before they leave and please, try the fish!! 

 

Damn these 2am postings!!

Now we are all getting on the same page after the surge caused the defeat of al-Qaeda...and Obama agrees that they are defeated, "right, absolutely".

Again, we were/are fighting Iraqis who don't want us in their country.  The sooner we get out and leave them to their affairs, the better.

Your statement is so breathtakingly silly it's hard to know where to start.

 

When the invasion of Iraq started there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq. They went there SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE we were in Iraq. When it was pointed out that more troops were needed rightwing politicians fell in lockstep with the bush administration and berated anyone who suggested that they were needed. After 4 years and nothing moving forward a combination of bribes to Al Sadr and other Sunni and Shite leaders, the Ambar Awakening, along with a "temporary increase" of troops who were there "to ensure that the Iraqi govenrment could take control of the country", gave the chance to remove Al Qaeda from Iraq who went back to their main strongholds in Afganistan (where they have dug in and will be harder to remove). Is that the surge you are on about? The one that REPUBLICANS WERE AGAINST AT THE BEGINNING? It's been said before and needs repeating, self serving lying hypocrites.  

Now watch your blood pressure, UK...Wesley may be stubborn and willfully ignorant, but don't compromise your health over him. Count to 10, and be glad he's not over to your house on holidays. ;-)