McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse.
Except for the fact that, alone among the candidates, McCain advocated the Surge, and that it decisively turned the war in our favor.
Obama and Hillary would both undermine that victory and reverse it with immediate reductions in troops, and by pulling out prematurely.
Oh I'm sorry. I must not have been paying attention. I thought the point of the surge was by the President’s own measure, to give the Iraqi government breathing room to make progress on political reconciliation, halt sectarian violence and train its own security forces.
Also, A report last September by the Government Accountability Office showed Iraq had perhaps met three to five of 18 benchmarks.
I must've missed all this "success" happening while posting about Hillary Clinton.
Cheering against America as usual, aren't you Whomod?
As I pointed out elsewhere, while there are still problems, violence in Iraq is down by 50%, people are returning to previously "ethnically cleansed" neighborhoods, incomes and the general economy in Iraq are rising by 9% annually (three time U.S. growth), and much as you hate to admit it, Iraq is gradually stabilizing and reaching political reconciliation.
Despite the "sky is falling" partisan naysayers like you.
What kills me is, in 5 years of fighting, NOT ONCE have you advocated an alternative strategy to win in Iraq. It's ALWAYS America is bad, retreat retreat retreat, leave our allies in Iraq to be slaughtered.
NEVER ONCE in that time have you ever advocated any strategy that's in our nation's best interest.
EVERY TIME you've eagerly repeated and believed at face value the enemy's talking points.
The Surge has unquestionably turned the war in our favor. Even Pulitzer-winning correspondents for the New York Times acknowledge it. Even people on the streets of Iraq acknowledge it. As do any number of other political experts I've seen interviewed on a wide spectrum of news programs, from the PBS News Hour to Charlie Rose.
We are winning, but it can still be lost if Obama or Hillary makes a hasty withdrawal from Iraq.
Even as you and other traitors who belong in Mexico or Iran spread the enemy's propaganda, to undermine that costly success.
You're still a lying cocksucker, just like always. And no image captures that better.
I'm watching MSNBC right now and they have a McCain pundit trying to distance his candidate from the neocons and crediting McCain for the "success" of the surge.
Another deluded revisionist.
Go back and re-read Bush's own measure of success of the surge. NONE of that has taken place. So how the fuck is it a success???
it really will be fun if this is the Republican talking point in support of John McCain. he's responsible for the successful surge.
“’No one’ in the U.S. and Iraqi governments 'feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation,’ or in the provision of basic public services. (Gen. David Petraeus, Washington Post, Mar. 13, 2008)
Quote:
“No, I think it's absolutely a failure, the surge. I think that less violence is actually a sign of the failure of the surge. The violence during a civil war was very logical. It was an attempt to remove Sunnis from Shia areas and Shia from Sunnis areas, and it's been incredibly successful. There are virtually no mixed areas left in Iraq.” (Nir Rosen, journalist, Mar. 11, 2008)
Quote:
"The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," Reid said. "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war." (Harry Reid, Dec. 3, 2007)
Quote:
“Unfortunately, according to the President’s own measure the surge has failed. The troops have performed bravely and violence in Iraq appears to be diminishing. But there is still no political plan to turn the recent tactical gains into lasting strategic success or a plan for bringing our troops home.” (National Security Network, Jan. 9, 2008)
Quote:
“Judged on the terms in which the president presented it, the surge has not worked.” “The purpose was to improve security, but to improve it to lead to a political breakthrough, and that political breakthrough has not happened.” (Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Pentagon reporter, Jan. 10, 2008)
Quote:
“The troop escalation has not succeeded in prompting the Iraqi government to make the hard choices or meet the benchmarks laid out by this Administration. As General Petreaus told me in Baghdad, this surge can only be won politically, not militarily. But on national reconciliation, oil-sharing, and the other key issues that will allow U.S. forces to eventually withdraw without a return of widespread violence, the evidence is bleak.” (Sen. Bob Casey, Jan. 18, 2008)
Quote:
“By shifting the conversation to tactics, they seek to divert attention from flagrant failures of basic strategy. Yet what exactly has the surge wrought? In substantive terms, the answer is: not much…As the violence in Baghdad and Anbar province abates, the political and economic dysfunction enveloping Iraq has become all the more apparent.” (Andrew J. Bacevich, Professor of History, Boston University, Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2008)
Quote:
"The surge has sucked all of the flexibility out of the system," Army Chief of Staff George Casey said in an interview this week. "And we need to find a way of getting back into balance." (Gen. George Casey, Jan. 17, 2008)
Quote:
“2008 and beyond will be a success, the surge will be a success, if the gains in security can be translated into gains in stability…if I had to put a number to it, maybe it’s three in 10, maybe it’s 50-50, if we play our cards right.” Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs, Jan. 8, 2008.
Quote:
“Administration strategy (at least since last January) has been that security gains would provide breathing room for democracy and good governance to take hold. If you reread Bush's speech announcing the surge almost exactly a year ago, you'll see a number of fairly explicit political events that he said would happen in Iraq. Haven't happened, for the most part.” (Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2008)
Quote:
"The violence came down for four reasons: what we’re doing, the decision the Sunni combatants made to turn against al-Qaeda, Moqtada Sadr’s ceasefire and the prior ethnic cleansing of 2006 and early 2007. All those things could unwind. We’re unsurging. The talk is that for the next couple of months, if the Maliki government doesn’t do enough to appease the Sunni groups [that have turned against al-Qaeda] and incorporate them into the Iraqi security forces, they could go game-on again. This kind of—pick your metaphor—ticking clock, or closing window, gives a reason to believe that if there isn’t a series of political compromises by when the surge brigades leave we’ll be in real trouble." (Colin Kahl, Center for a New American Security, Washington Independent, Jan. 31, 2008)
The consensus is clear. Despite the best efforts of our military men and women in creating a temporary lull in violence, substantial progress toward a sustainable and independent Iraq has not been made. And THAT by Bush's own defenition was the measure of success of the surge. Even Gen. Petraeus is admitting that the surge may have failed in that regard.
WASHINGTON (AP) — [b]Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that President Bush's successor [stand]will have to come to grips with the reality that the United States cannot continue to keep such large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Without taking sides in the race for the White House, Powell said, "Whichever one of them becomes president on Jan. 1, 2009, they will face a military force that cannot continue to sustain 140,000 people deployed in Iraq and the 20 (thousand) odd or 25,000 people we have deployed in Afghanistan and our other deployments."
Powell's comments in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" seemed to undercut Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain's position that the U.S. should stay the course in Iraq. But Powell also said that the next president will face limitations on bringing troops home, as Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton — rivals for the Democratic nomination — have promised to do.
"They will have to continue to draw down at some pace," he said. "None of them are going to have the flexibility of just saying we're out of here, turn off the switch, turn off the lights, we're leaving. They will have a situation before them."
Powell, who is a former chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued publicly for the invasion of Iraq early in Bush's presidency. He said Thursday that he considers each of the presidential candidates a friend.
"I'm looking at all three candidates ... I have not decided who I will vote for yet," said Powell, who donated $2,300 to McCain's campaign last year.
Questioned about Powell's comments on ABC's "The View," McCain said, "One of the great mistakes, of the many mistakes that was made for nearly four years, is that we continued to reduce the size of the military." He noted that some troops have been back time after time which has put stress on them and their families, "but there's only one thing worse than an overstressed military and that's a defeated military. And I saw a defeated military ... "
Powell praised Obama's response to controversial remarks by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said the United States brought the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on itself by supporting terrorism and that the government created the AIDS virus to "destroy people of color."
"I thought that Senator Obama handled the issue well," said Powell, the nation's first black secretary of state. "He didn't abandon the minister that brought him closer to his faith, but at the same time he deplored the kinds of statements that the Reverend Wright had made."
But Wonder Boy and his ilk will continue to find solace in the neocon fantasy of war without end. Amen
"None of them are going to have the flexibility of just saying we're out of here, turn off the switch, turn off the lights, we're leaving. They will have a situation before them."
looks like Powell was speaking out against Obama's pull em out immediately fantasy as well....
If you think pulling out combat brigades after 18 months and still keeping a troop presence is "immediate".
Former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama’s 16-month plan is a “best-scenario” and that the reality is he will try to withdraw troops “as quickly and responsibly as possible.”
Both Clinton and Obama have talked about keeping some U.S. presence in Iraq after withdrawing the bulk of American troops, but it’s unclear how broad that presence would be. Obama’s Web site states that “some troops” would stay in Iraq to protect U.S. embassies and diplomats and carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda if the organization tries to keep a base in Iraq after U.S. withdrawal.
That sure is a far cry from "immediate". And it acknowledges that current troop levels will HAVE to be reduced. I don't know what fucking part of that some of you Republicans can't understand. It's no longer just a case of 'we don't want to keep current troop levels and the war going', it's that WE CAN'T. Like i said, you guys really are living in a dream world.
Listen to 4:15 in. And get it through your head.
And he makes a good point. What the fuck is Condoleeza Rice doing running around trying to drum up a VP nod when her diplomacy as far as the middle East is concerned is zilch!?? She should be out there day in and day out trying to end this fucking war and bring about Iraqi reconciliation.
Hagel - Since the surge started, we've lost over 1000 troops.
Former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama’s 16-month plan is a “best-scenario” and that the reality is he will try to withdraw troops “as quickly and responsibly as possible.”
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator's foreign policy credentials.
Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The date falls within the parameters offered by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the removal of combat troops by the first quarter of next year.
Does that surprise you? After all, this is the guy who thinks "God DAMN America" is a proper religious sentiment to say in front of small children in church.
Then there's Ray. He's trying to tell me that it's patriotic to leave America, join the Taliban, pledge allegiance to Al Queda and try to kill US troops.
But he might be kidding. Ray does have a wacky sense of humor.
Does that surprise you? After all, this is the guy who thinks "God DAMN America" is a proper religious sentiment to say in front of small children in church.
Because that's what the pastor screams in his church too.
Does that surprise you? After all, this is the guy who thinks "God DAMN America" is a proper religious sentiment to say in front of small children in church.
Because that's what the pastor screams in his church too.
Hey you jackass, you're not done telling me what a great success the surge is.
Hey you jackass, you're not done telling me what a great success the surge is.
I already told you... jackass.
So did John Burns, Pulitzer winning Iraq correspondent for the New York Times.
So did General Petraeas, Robert Kagan, and hundreds of other government officials and policy experts in any number of columns and tv roundtable discussions.
The war may not be over, but it has undeniably turned in our favor. Anti-American dumbasses like you will always focus on the negative, and ignore the remarkable progress in Iraq.
So tell me, did the surge acheive it's stated goal?
Or are you simply pointing to the expected drop in violence and thinking that in of itself is some proof of success like so many lying right wing pundits do?
Progress in Iraq is being reprted as the progress that it is, much as you (in characteristic un-American fashion) try to spin every aspect negatively against our military and our country.
You really ought to be living in Mexico or Iran, where your true loyalties are.
Don't expect any public testimonies of faith from presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who is not demonstrative about his religion but who embraces a Baptist faith that is based on salvation.
the senator from Arizona likely will talk little about the details of his own spiritual path other than to acknowledge that he is on one.
The Army Times just politely ripped McCain for not understand what General Petraeus does for a living. After 30 years working on this stuff, you'd think McCain would know better. Or maybe he's forgetting.
Quote:
Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
“I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.
Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said.
for a campaign that touts it's foreign policy and military experience, they sure seem to have a lot of these gaffes that just make you scratch your head.
I'm not sure how saying that he'd want the General's opinion (given that it any decision would affect his work in Iraq) is so horrible. Would you prefer McCain not take Iraq into consideration when making decisions about Afghanistan (or vice versa)?
His point is well taken, that we need an Eisenhower (who is moderate and smart, and knows how to use military pressure without all-out devastating wars) rather than a President out to make a name for himself as a war-president.
I think some strategic bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities would be in order, but we need time to rebuild our military, not to fight another ground war with Iran. And even bombing might not be necessary.
It might be more productive to use diplomatic pressure and rally popular opposition to Ahmadinijad inside Iran, rather than bombing Iran, which would rally Iranian popular support to Ahmadinijad's side, and lose another generation of Iranians, who are right now very pro-Western, despite their authoritarian islamic government.
Whether McCain, with all his experience would be an Eisenhower or a W.Bush II, is still an open question.
On amnesty for illegals, McCain's position is identical to Bush's (as are Hillary and Obama's). But in other areas, while often alleged to be "just like Bush" by his Democratic opposition, that remains to be seen.
I'm watching MSNBC right now and they have a McCain pundit trying to distance his candidate from the neocons and crediting McCain for the "success" of the surge.
Another deluded revisionist.
Go back and re-read Bush's own measure of success of the surge. NONE of that has taken place. So how the fuck is it a success???
it really will be fun if this is the Republican talking point in support of John McCain. he's responsible for the successful surge.
I will defend McCain on not being a neo-con.
While not pressing for Iraq withdrawal, McCain was constantly (along with Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and a few other Republican hawks) constructively critical of Bush's conduct of the Iraq war, pressing for Rumsfeld's removal almost from the beginning, pressing for greater troop-strength in Iraq, and opposing waterboarding or more overt torture of Al Qaida prisoners.
So while McCain is for staying in Iraq until the job is done, and not pulling out prematurely, it is unfair to say McCain is "just like Bush" on this issue.
On immigration reform and amnesty for illegals, yes, he's just like Bush.
But on the Iraq war, no, McCain is not "just like Bush".
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall.
Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago — before either party had winnowed its field — the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points.
Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's.
The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight.
David Mason of Richmond, Va., is typical of the voters McCain has gained since last November, when the 46-year-old personal trainer was undecided. Mason calls himself an independent and voted in 2004 for President Bush, whom he considers a strong leader but a disappointment due to the "no-win situation" in Iraq.
"It's not that I'm that much in favor of McCain, it's the other two are turning me off," Mason said of Clinton and Obama, the senators from New York and Illinois, in explaining his move toward McCain. As for the Republican's experiences as a Vietnam War prisoner and in the Senate, Mason said, "All he's been through is an asset."
By tracking the same group of roughly 2,000 people throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo poll can gauge how individual views are evolving. What's clear is that some Republican-leaning voters who backed Bush in 2004 but lost enthusiasm for him are returning to the GOP fold _ along with a smaller but significant number of Democrats who have come to dislike their party's two contenders.
The findings of the survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, provide a preview of one of this fall's battlegrounds. Though some unhappy Republicans will doubtless stay with McCain, both groups are teeming with centrist swing voters who will be targeted by both parties.
The poll shows that McCain's appeal has grown since November by more than the Democrats' has dwindled. McCain gets about 10 percentage points more now than a generic Republican candidate got last fall; Obama and Clinton get about 5 points less than a nameless Democrat got then.
Underlining McCain's burgeoning popularity, in November about four in 10 considered McCain likeable, decisive, strong and honest while about half do now. Obama is seen as more likeable and stronger now but his numbers for honesty and decisiveness have remained flat, while Clinton's scores for likeability and honesty have dropped slightly.
"You can't trust Hillary and Obama's too young," said Pauline Holsinger, 60, a janitorial worker in Pensacola, Fla., now backing McCain who preferred an unnamed Democrat last fall. "I like him better, he's more knowledgeable about the war" in Iraq.
Voters at this stage in a campaign commonly focus more on candidates' personal qualities. That usually changes as the general election approaches and they pay more attention to issues and partisan loyalty — meaning that McCain's prospects could fade at a time when the public is deeply unhappy with the war, the staggering economy and Bush.
For now, more than one in 10 who weren't backing the unnamed Republican candidate in last November's survey are supporting McCain, a shift partly offset by a smaller number of former undecideds now embracing Obama or Clinton. Of those now backing McCain, about one-third did not support the generic GOP candidate last November.
Among people who have moved toward McCain, about two-thirds are discontented Bush voters, with many calling themselves independents but leaning Republican.
About half of this group say they are conservative, yet their views on issues are more moderate than many in the party, with some opposing the war in Iraq. They have favorable but not intensely enthusiastic views of McCain _ for example, two-thirds find him likeable while far fewer find him compassionate or refreshing.
"He's known, he's a veteran," said David Tucker, a retired Air Force technician from Alexandria, La., and Bush voter who was undecided last November but has ruled out Obama and Clinton. "I understand him better."
Around a third of the voters newly supporting McCain lean Democratic and mostly backed Democrat John Kerry in 2004. They are moderates who disapprove of Bush and the war in Iraq, but find McCain likeable, much more so than they did last November.
Many McCain-backing Democrats express one consistent concern about McCain — his age.
"Let's face it, we're not getting any younger," said retired accountant Sheldon Rothman of Queens, N.Y., who like McCain is 71. "There are too many imponderables when you get to that age, especially with the stress of the presidency."
Whether those now switching to McCain will stay that way once the Democrats choose a candidate is what the fall campaign will be about.
"McCain has a history of doing well with independent voters," said GOP pollster David Winston. He said voters' preference for an unnamed Democratic candidate but McCain's strong performance against Obama and Clinton means "Democrats have an advantage their candidates are not taking advantage of."
Democratic pollster Alan Secrest said the contrasting numbers mean that while the voters' overall mood favors Democrats, they are still taking the measure of Clinton and Obama.
"The Democrats will have to earn their way this fall," he said.
The AP-Yahoo survey of 1,844 adults was conducted from April 2-14 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 863 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.3 points, and 668 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.
The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.
— AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
Counting down the minutes until whomod dredges up some obscure figure who once said something nice about McCain, even though they (unlike Obama and Ayers and/or Wright) aren't close friends and then tries to claim it's the same thing starting...now....
I think this is devastating enough.
Notice Anything?
John McCain doesn’t wear an American flag pin on THIS WEEK. Nor does Stephu...um, the other guy!
John McCain doesn’t wear an American flag pin on THIS WEEK...Why [does he] hate America?
I don't know why he didn't wear one today. Maybe McCain's arms were bothering him when he got dressed this morning and he forgot/couldn't raise them comfortably.
That sort of thing happens when you're tortured by America's then-enemy for months or years as a POW.
Meanwhile, Obama's longtime friend "Ayers" was trying to blow up buildings, kill civilians and generally cheering the same people who were torturing McCain.
But, I should stop now, otherwise I might have to question Obama's judgement and we should never, ever, question the judgement of a half black presidential candidate.
I hope whomod doesn't see this. Having Obama praise McCain might be too much for him to bear.
I don't agree with Hillary on this one. While his recent rhetoric is very Bush supportive, I just can't see McCain being as bad as W in general. On some things a candidate has to position himself to win. McCain has earned his reputation of being a maverick though & I see him moving more towards the center as we get closer to the general.
