posted
Yeah, he talked about it quite a bit early on, before it became clear what a fundraising juggernaut his machine would turn out to be.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gained respect for Jackson after the remark. For all the pomp surrounding Jackson's considerable ego, Jackson making such a visceral remark off-camera shows that he is still invested in the black community.
There is a way to make blue-blood look good. The Kennedys did. Chris Dodd does it. John Biden does it. On being considered for VP:
quote: "I made it clear to him and everybody else, I never worked for anybody in my life. I got here when I was 29. I never had a boss. I don't know how I'd handle it."
posted
Impeachment hearings passed in the House. 9 republicans voted for impeachment hearings. Ron Paul notably, but perhaps not surprisingly, voted for the hearings.
EDIT: Paul's vote differs from his previous vote on Kucinich's impeachment articles. His position is based on supposed constitutional violations rather than Kucinich's which focuses on Bush's actions leading up to the war with Iraq.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Here's a somewhat more understandable version of what's happened (courtesy of AP).
The lone article of impeachment has not "passed" in the House. It has been sent to committee as have all Kucinich's previous articles of impeachment. In this case, however, the Speaker indicated that there would actually be hearings regarding the article. She pointed out that this was not, in any way, the first step to removing Pres. Bush from office. Rather it was just a forum for discussing the current administrations abuses of executive power.
To me, it seems like a cynical way of using the current Congress to play election year politics, by televising a list of grievances against the current administration.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The house sent Kucinich's impeachment articles against Cheney to committee last year. I guess it's Bush's turn this year.
Also, on the vote, 100% of the Democrats in the House supported it. As a side note, of the recent House votes listed at GovTrack, the Dems refused to break ranks much more often than the GOPers (for Dems, 98% support or higher on 55% of votes; for GOP, 98% support or higher on 34% of votes). The GOP got this "iron-fisted party" (to quote the DailyKos post) reputation under Tom "the Hammer" DeLay, but recently it's been the Dems who have been afraid to break with party leadership. Maybe Nancy Pelosi needs a catchy nickname: Nancy "the Screwdriver" Pelosi, perhaps.
<edit>Oops; I included both House and Senate votes. If we restrict just to the House, we have 65% for Dems and 41% for GOPers. Averaging over the 17 House votes listed, Dems garnered 98.7% unity while GOPers achieved 95%. Anyway you slice it, the Democrats are a more cohesive party right now.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: To me, it seems like a cynical way of using the current Congress to play election year politics, by televising a list of grievances against the current administration.
To me, it seems like Congress finally getting on record their objection to the abuses of the executive branch.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: To me, it seems like Congress finally getting on record their objection to the abuses of the executive branch.
I guess they have been pretty busy over the past two years. They were probably so swamped that the soonest they could get to this just happens to be a couple of months before the election.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I think you will find that when a party is in the majority, there is a strong pressure to tow the line to actually make that majority matter.
My hypothesis is that its a second order effect. I would guess that in 2005, when (IIRC) the GOP still controlled the House but Dems were widely viewed as "on the rise" that you saw greater Dem cohesiveness. I think it's a natural ebb and flow, but that it's not tied to power but perceived changes in power. By that hypothesis, the greater cohesiveness among Dems indicates a perceived continued ascendancy (which matches polling data for the upcoming election).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many "gaffes" does Senator McCain get to make before he stops being the candidate with foreign policy experience?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which recent gaffe are you referring to? His referring to the non-existant border of Iraq and Pakistan, or his twice referencing the present day non-existant country of Czechoslovakia?
Their excuse seems to keep being that he's constantly misspeaking. I think it's less damaging to his foreign policy experience than it is contributing to the "old man constantly forgets things" problem. I think at this point, the second problem is going to end up hurting him more. No matter how many little gaffes he makes, I don't think Obama will be able to dislodge his foreign policy cred with a nation that really isn't that interested in geographic or even geopolitical details like that. But Obama COULD successfully make him look like an old dottering mistake ridden fool. That only servces to make Obama look more young and vibrant, and McCain more old and knocking on death's door.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stopped caring about the election when I realized that they are closer to each other than either of them are to me. Both of them are going to ignore education and punt on criminal justice. They are both pro-death penalty, and to be honest, in terms of alternative energy, I think it's even money between them.
I took Bush's win in '04 pretty hard, and I'm not going to vote for Obama just to vote against McCain. And since I can't stomach voting for Cynthia "Don't you know who I am" McKinney, I guess it's going to be Nader.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Then you stopped caring for your nations future.
IP: Logged |
quote:Then you stopped caring for your nations future.
The world is not going to end if McCain is elected, and it's quite possible I'm not going to like a Barack Obama America.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
How would you know? He could very well go off his rocker and order some random country of brown people nuked.
IP: Logged |
quote:The world is not going to end if McCain is elected, and it's quite possible I'm not going to like a Barack Obama America.
I thought the same thing in 2000 Bush vs Gore. While I suppose the world has not technically ended, the difference between Bush and Gore has turned out to be far more consequential than I would ever have imagined.
The difference between the republicans and the democrats are indeed very small compared to the difference between political parties in most other countries, but Bush has shown us exactly how great the consequences of those small differences can be.
I'm quite confident that a Barack Obama America won't be my ideal America, but I'm also certain that an Obama America is far more likely than a McCain America to be an America I can live with.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: While I suppose the world has not technically ended
But it has ended in a general sense? Really? Things are that bad? We are that close to having the world end?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The federal government must not impose an overemphasis on high-stakes standardized tests. Such testing has a negative impact on student learning, curriculum, and teaching by resulting in excessive time devoted to narrow test participation, de-enrichment of the curriculum, false accountability, equity and cultural bias, and excessive use of financial resources for testing, among other problems. Federal law should be transformed to one that supports teachers and students -- from one that relies primarily on standardized tests and punishment. The government should encourage schools to infuse their curriculum with civic experiences that teaches students both how to connect classroom learning to the outside world and how to practice democracy.
quote:Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
Make Math and Science Education a National Priority: Obama will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. He will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels. Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
There are a lot of bells and whistles in Obama's plan, but I think it's still fundamentally wrong.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That still doesn't explain a vote for Nader. Nader's position on most things is closer to my own as well, but that doesn't actually matter since he has no chance of being elected President in 2008.
The simple fact is that unless there is some dramatic unforeseen change, our next President will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. Choosing to vote for Nader, Paul, or any other third party candidate, is a choice not to participate in choosing our next President.
Given the option of using your vote to help choose whether McCain or Obama will be our next President, or using your vote in symbolic protest of these options -- why would you choose the latter.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The simple fact is that unless there is some dramatic unforeseen change, our next President will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. Choosing to vote for Nader, Paul, or any other third party candidate, is a choice not to participate in choosing our next President.
I understand this, but I think I'm justified if I didn't have a horse in the Democratic Party.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think Obama is cashing on the plans of General Patreus (which Obama vehemently opposed). The surge has worked well enough for Iraq to start taking over their own security so we are not too far away from a troop drawdown. If we had done this the Obama way, we would have pulled the rug out from underneath Iraq years ago and plunged them into chaos. Now that Obama sees we are winning he wants to attach his name to Bush's success. Then again, this is Obama and whatever direction the wind is currently blowing is the direction he will change to.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Drive-by post from Alexandria, VA.
Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think the Iraqi PM is really putting the republicans in a tight spot.
The unspoken goal of the Republicans in Iraq has always been to set up permanent US military presence there. The right wing won't consider it "victory" unless the US is able to maintain a military presence in the region to protect oil interests and Israel. What's more, the McCain campaign is heavily invested in the argument that democrats want to "cut and run" and don't have the stomach to continue the fight against terror. Additionally, the republicans have been pushing the "surge has been successful" angle as evidence that the proposed democratic time table for withdrawal is unneeded.
The recent revelation that the Bush administration's current proposal included defacto permanent US military bases in Iraq (despite admin claims to the contrary) set off a fire storm in the Iraqi parliament. The Iraqi leaders know that their government will never be considered legitimate as long as US forces remain in Iraq. They know that setting a time table for US withdrawal is the primary thing they need to stabilize the country. Now they've put themselves on record in support of a Time-Table that closely matches the one Obama has proposed.
How can the republicans respond? If McCain supports the time-table the Iraqi's have requested, he is forfeiting the major card he's been playing against Obama. (Of course, I've always thought that card would fall the other way anyway since most American support withdrawal.) Despite that, its a change in position that won't play well with the hard core republican base and that could be a big problem financially for the campaign.
If McCain tries to go the other way and continue opposing a time-line for withdrawal, it will be hard to keep arguing that the surge has worked, that real power has been turned over to the Iraqi government, and that our efforts there have been "successful".
It sure looks like a lose, lose situation for McCain.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The simple fact is that unless there is some dramatic unforeseen change, our next President will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. Choosing to vote for Nader, Paul, or any other third party candidate, is a choice not to participate in choosing our next President.
I understand this, but I think I'm justified if I didn't have a horse in the Democratic Party.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Drive-by post from Alexandria, VA.
Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think the trip was a couple things. Before he even went, the trip was both necessary and fraught with possible pitfalls. McCain has said dozens of times that he should go, and when he went, it could look like he only did it because McCain challeneged him to rather than because he actually wanted to or needed to. Frankly I think CODELs are a big waste of time generally, but I'll make an exception for this one only because Senator Jack Reed is there with him, and he has a reputation on MidEast CODELs for getting around the handholding and talking to people on the ground that can offer unvarnished opinions on what is really going on.
McCain has spent Obama's entire trip hammering away at him, sometimes unfairly misrepresenting his positions and statements, but I think on the whole he's got the general gist right. The media precursored the whole trip as a giant potential disaster, but I think thus far it's been largely pretty mundane.
If you look at the regular news, you'd probably just see McCain breathing fire and Obama looking like a statesmen, which you'd think would be bad enough, but not really. If you look a little closer to the news this week, you see that the White House sent a peace envoy to meet with Iranian diplomats, and that Al-Maliki has agreed with Obama that there should be a timetable for withdrawel, added to recent disagreements with the White House over any sort of long term agreement on the composition of US forces in Iraq, which Maliki and others in Iraq have said will NOT be a permanant fixture, and many there favor a designated deadline for withdrawel.
Add to that some of McCain's recent verbal gaffes on things like where Iraq and Pakistan are on the map (or he's just confusing Iraq and Iran), not knowing (twice) that Czechoslovakia is no longer a country, and his previous Sunni-Shiite gaffes, and I think you have a feeble looking McCain lashing out, and a prescient looking Obama that the rest of the world wants to deal with and that Iraqi leaders agree with and appear to be supporting.
It's really all in how you frame it though. Despite these facts, recent national polling data shows McCain with a 20 point lead over Obama in "would the candidate make a good Commander in Chief?" On the bright side for Obama: 1. That's pretty much the only thing that McCain leads Obama in. 2. At present, this isn't about Iraq and terrorism, it's about the economy. The fact that McCain is spending so much time on the war I think proves how desperate he is to keep the country fixed on the issue because he knows that's how he wins. Obama to his credit is doing a halfway decent job of pivoting between the economy, where he is strong, and trying to bone up on his foreign policy cred to take that issue away from McCain.
But the bigger problem? Other than die hard politicos like anyone reading this thread, no one really gives a damn this far out. For all the hand wringing and tours and the tens of millions of dollars they've spent on ads (McCain REALLY pumped out the ad buy in June), the polls haven't budged, and Obama still leads by a couple points.
There's a lot of murmering in the blogosphere, even on CNN I think, about the McCain camp naming a VP this week, and most of that buzz is centered around LA Governor Bobby Jindal, who McCain is set to meet with later in the week.
And news for Lisa: Ron Paul is apparently holding his OWN convention as an offshoot of the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis next month. He just recently announced that he was moving it to a larger 18,000 seat venue due to overwhelming responses to his initial announcement.
Also McCain and Obama released their fundraising totals for June. McCain raised $21 million in June, his best month yet, while Obama raised close to $52 million. Hillary Clinton, with $25 million plus in campaign debt raised about two and a half million, retiring 10% of her debt. She used that money to pay small vendors that she still owed rather than the big ticket items like herself, or her campaign strategist Mark Penn who she owes upwards of a million dollars.
McCain has been spending through the roof lately on ad buys while Obama's spending, while decent, isn't really up there. It might seem countintuitive given that Obama has more than twice as much cash on hand as McCain, but the reason lies in public financing. McCain needs to drain his campaign coffers before the end of August when he'll get the 80 some odd million dollars for the general election campaign. Obama however needs to keep the war chest intact and puff it up as big as he can going into the real election cycle, which starts as soon as the conventions are over. McCain will likely continue to outspend Obama for the next month before Obama releases a floodtide of ads all over the country.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think Obama is cashing on the plans of General Patreus (which Obama vehemently opposed). The surge has worked well enough for Iraq to start taking over their own security so we are not too far away from a troop drawdown. If we had done this the Obama way, we would have pulled the rug out from underneath Iraq years ago and plunged them into chaos. Now that Obama sees we are winning he wants to attach his name to Bush's success. Then again, this is Obama and whatever direction the wind is currently blowing is the direction he will change to.
If we had done this "the Obama way" we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. What Sentor Obama opposed was starting this war in the first place. Ever since we invaded, though, he has proposed pretty much the same thing he is proposing now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can the republicans respond? If McCain supports the time-table the Iraqi's have requested, he is forfeiting the major card he's been playing against Obama. (Of course, I've always thought that card would fall the other way anyway since most American support withdrawal.) Despite that, its a change in position that won't play well with the hard core republican base and that could be a big problem financially for the campaign.
If McCain tries to go the other way and continue opposing a time-line for withdrawal, it will be hard to keep arguing that the surge has worked, that real power has been turned over to the Iraqi government, and that our efforts there have been "successful".
It sure looks like a lose, lose situation for McCain.
Give the Republicans more credit than that, they're masters at this. The average American isn't well informed on the inner workings and hold ups of the long term force agreement between Iraq and the US. I'd be surprised if the average American even knew we were in current negotiations for such an agreement.
Republicans get by this one just by not talking about it. McCain can continue to hammer away at Obama, and the White House's recent forwarding of an email praising Obama's plan and Maliki's comment will get buried and trampled over in the press for a couple days. And I have little doubt that the Democrats will let the matter drop because they just aren't good at this kind of politics (the winning kind I mean). The Iraqi government has sinced backed off of Maliki's comment, though since then Maliki has said that he thinks Obama will win the election (the guy certainly speaks his mind).
I personally think you're right Rabbit, in that this is a lose/lose for McCain. Either he has to reverse his position, or he has to side against the Iraqi government's demand for self-determination, despite the fact that he and Bush have said all along that they leave if the Iraqis asked us to leave. Somewhere along the line he's going to have to break a promise to someone. I think this is really going to come to center stage in the coming months as Bush pressures Maliki to make a deal before his term is up. If Bush really pushes and Maliki balks, or worse, plainly sets a date for withdrawel, that's going to be a dagger in McCain's campaign.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think Obama is cashing on the plans of General Patreus (which Obama vehemently opposed). The surge has worked well enough for Iraq to start taking over their own security so we are not too far away from a troop drawdown. If we had done this the Obama way, we would have pulled the rug out from underneath Iraq years ago and plunged them into chaos. Now that Obama sees we are winning he wants to attach his name to Bush's success. Then again, this is Obama and whatever direction the wind is currently blowing is the direction he will change to.
If we had done this "the Obama way" we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. What Sentor Obama opposed was starting this war in the first place. Ever since we invaded, though, he has proposed pretty much the same thing he is proposing now.
DK is trying to make policy and politics into the same thing, which is a clever way of trying to make Obama look like he'll do whatever is popular at any given moment. He was against the war when it started five and a half years ago, and it was incredibly popular then. He's been against it ever since, though though popular opinion has only just recently really come down on the other side of it, and all along his policy towards withdrawel has been pretty much exactly the same.
The politics of the issue however can change on a daily basis depending on what's going on. You're talking more about how they frame the issue rather than the issue itself, DK.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we had done this "the Obama way" we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. What Sentor Obama opposed was starting this war in the first place. Ever since we invaded, though, he has proposed pretty much the same thing he is proposing now.
We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program. Iraq would be able to continue defying the world and UN demands. Obama voted against the surge. The surge was the proper strategy and it worked. Senator Says He Still Doesn't Support Surge
quote: So far this month, five U.S. troops have been killed in combat, compared with 78 U.S. deaths last July. Attacks across the country are down more than 80 percent. Still, when asked if knowing what he knows now, he would support the surge, the senator said no.
"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."
quote: DK is trying to make policy and politics into the same thing, which is a clever way of trying to make Obama look like he'll do whatever is popular at any given moment. He was against the war when it started five and a half years ago, and it was incredibly popular then. He's been against it ever since, though though popular opinion has only just recently really come down on the other side of it, and all along his policy towards withdrawel has been pretty much exactly the same.
The politics of the issue however can change on a daily basis depending on what's going on. You're talking more about how they frame the issue rather than the issue itself, DK.
Obama is the one trying to downplay the surge, and make it seem like Iraq did it with just a slight bit of help from us. He is the one cashing in on the politics of the moment. Obama does this on almost every issue. He is for using public money only until he sees how much money he has. No policy change there. FISA Bill filibuster? Probably just a policy tweak. Standing by Reverend Wright? Not anymore. I suppose Obama's stuttering, stammering, constant 'uh's, and nonsense statements (Israel is a friend of Israel) when not speaking off of the teleprompter shows he is a feeble minded simpleton?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program. Iraq would be able to continue defying the world and UN demands. Obama voted against the surge. The surge was the proper strategy and it worked.
Why are you suggesting that if one opposes the war as it was carried out, that therefore you must also oppose any other action in regards to Saddam Hussein save ignoring him?
Obama said that he opposed the surge because of the general relationship between the executive branch and the congress, which today is in a sense nonexistent.
quote:Obama is the one trying to downplay the surge, and make it seem like Iraq did it with just a slight bit of help from us. He is the one cashing in on the politics of the moment. Obama does this on almost every issue. He is for using public money only until he sees how much money he has. No policy change there. FISA Bill filibuster? Probably just a policy tweak. Standing by Reverend Wright? Not anymore. I suppose Obama's stuttering, stammering, constant 'uh's, and nonsense statements (Israel is a friend of Israel) when not speaking off of the teleprompter shows he is a feeble minded simpleton?
I don't think you seem to realize that if Iraq turns out OK it will be mostly because Iraqis stepped up to the plate not Americans,(I say this with the utmost respect for the hard work our troops do.) But a new Iraq will have to exist because Iraqis stand up, not because we shuffle in more soldiers.
As for the Rev. Wright, Wright was acting like a rabid dog who in spirit left Obama long before Obama left him. Who cares if Obama stutters? I have seen him give plenty of speeches without a problem. Stuttering has nothing to do with one's mental faculties.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are you suggesting that if one opposes the war as it was carried out, that therefore you must also oppose any other action in regards to Saddam Hussein save ignoring him?
I'm not.
quote: Obama said that he opposed the surge because of the general relationship between the executive branch and the congress, which today is in a sense nonexistent.
quote:Why are you suggesting that if one opposes the war as it was carried out, that therefore you must also oppose any other action in regards to Saddam Hussein save ignoring him?
I'm not.
quote: Obama said that he opposed the surge because of the general relationship between the executive branch and the congress, which today is in a sense nonexistent.
quote:In October 2006 -- three months before the president's new strategy was unveiled -- Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."
quote: On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly."
In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked." Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.
quote: I don't think you seem to realize that if Iraq turns out OK it will be mostly because Iraqis stepped up to the plate not Americans,(I say this with the utmost respect for the hard work our troops do.) But a new Iraq will have to exist because Iraqis stand up, not because we shuffle in more soldiers.
I don't think you seem to realize that Iraq would not be able to have Iraqis step up to the plate without Americans shuffling in and stabilizing the country first. Unless you think that the new Iraq would have arisen anway?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Funny but I see no evidence of the surge fixing anything either.
IP: Logged |
posted
President Bush spent 4 years in charge of war strategy that was flawed and failed.
Suddenly he proposes a surge of even more troops.
Is it surprising that opponents were against the idea? Is it surprising that they had and have real concerns about the surge's dilatory effects on troop strength, morale, and ability to recover?
Then things seem to be getting better, and everyone who was for the Surge starts yelling--See, it worked.
But most of what I've discovered that worked was General Patreus's (sp--sorry) changing some of the Neo-Cons basic premises. He returned to protecting the people, not the assets. He returned to negotiation with the people in power (Sunni Clan leaders, Sheiks, Etc), not the people we wanted in power (Malaki and others). He got tough with the powers that were corrupting the Iraq government--drug dealers, Shiah fanatics, Sectarianists.
Did he use the extra troops the Surge gave him?
Of course he did.
Did he need too? That is not clear to me.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on the end goal. If our goal is to pacify and occupy Iraq and keep a military presence there forever then the surge is working. For the administration, this was always the goal.
For most of the American and Iraqi people, this is not the goal. So the surge hasn't "worked" until it allows us to leave.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did he use the extra troops the Surge gave him?
Of course he did.
Did he need too? That is not clear to me.
He's repeatedly said he needed to. Sunni leaders have not only said the extra troops have worked, they've gone on record asking that they not be removed prematurely.
quote:Of course, I've always thought that card would fall the other way anyway since most American support withdrawal.
"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the country split down the middle between those backing Sen. Barack Obama's 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing with Sen. John McCain's position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home."
quote:Either he has to reverse his position, or he has to side against the Iraqi government's demand for self-determination
The Iraqi position is not incompatible with McCain's. Both are based on more than just time and contain clear links between readiness of Iraqi forces and withdrawal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It depends on the end goal. If our goal is to pacify and occupy Iraq and keep a military presence there forever then the surge is working. For the administration, this was always the goal.
I don't understand why having a military base in Iraq is so terrible. Was it terrible for Japan? Germany?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not the same thing. In the case of Germany and Japan, _they_ initiated the war and we conquered them. It may have been terrible for them, but they had lost a war they started. And we were assisting in rebuilding. In the case of Iraq, our occupation was unprovoked. And it isn't 1945.
Also bear in mind that one of the major sources of anger towards us from the Muslim world is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For most of the American and Iraqi people, this is not the goal. So the surge hasn't "worked" until it allows us to leave.
And having created a significant milestone toward the manner of leaving that most Americans support, the surge has worked so far.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not the same thing. In the case of Germany and Japan, _they_ initiated the war and we conquered them. It may have been terrible for them, but they had lost a war they started. And we were assisting in rebuilding. In the case of Iraq, our occupation was unprovoked. And it isn't 1945.
It is only unprovoked if you ignore over a decade of UN sanctions and resolutions. Hussein agreed to terms and failed to live up to them...for over a decade...and there were clear consequences to his actions. It was not unprovoked.
quote: Also bear in mind that one of the major sources of anger towards us from the Muslim world is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.
Really? One of the major sources of anger in the Muslim world is our bases in Saudi Arabia? I think that is a vast oversimplification if not a complete misstatement. I believe the radical Muslims' source of anger is our way of life rather than a military base.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't understand why having a military base in Iraq is so terrible. Was it terrible for Japan? Germany?
So you wouldn't mind if, say, Canada put a military base down the road from your house? How about Egypt putting a base in Northern Virginia, near DC? China has a lot of defense considerations in the Pacific, so a base on the outskirts of LA wouldn't be too bad.
Of course there are some monetary advantages to having a big military base in your area. (So maybe promise a new Indian Air-Force Base to Cleveland will win some Ohio votes?)but there are criminal and legitimate problems as well. When a US Soldier was found raping a young Okanawan girl many Japanese say our bases there as terrible.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
