US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The New York Times should have published Senator McCain's op-ed piece on Iraq, following the Obama piece that was printed by the paper.

(Or maybe the NYT is the authority on what Iraq needs)
 
The New York Times should have published Senator McCain's op-ed piece on Iraq, following the Obama piece that was printed by the paper.

(Or maybe the NYT is the authority on what Iraq needs)



they've published 7 or so of McCain's op-ed's in the past, and they endorsed him as the Republican nominee (and HRC as the Democrat).

here's what the op-ed editor David Shipley had to say:

"The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans... It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."

i do agree. Obama's piece was about Iraq. McCain's piece was about Obama. however, had i been the editor, i would have published it.

ultimately, this isn't good politics for Obama, since it gives something for McCain to whine about for a few days (ironically from a man who refers to the media as "my base"). but i understand with the decision. the NYT isn't a place for tit-for-tat political spats.

still, the two pieces, taken in tandem, aptly demonstrate how Obama is setting the agenda and calling the shots and taking the lead even on the only subject that McCain is slightly favored on.
 
:lmao:

is this really your position? are you really saying this? because you know that you're saying it and not Obama?


Oh really? So tell me, where has Obama claimed that he would only start withdrawing any US combat brigades if FIRST, the Iraqi military had developed the sufficient capability to replace that combat brigade, and the security situation warrented the withdrawal. Show us where Obama has always stood for "as they stand up, we'll stand down"? If Obama is really in support of a conditions based withdrawal as opposed to one that is just time based, show it.

The position that the Bush administration has advocated and the one that I have always supported is that a withdrawal will eventually come when conditions on the ground warrent it, just as was done in both Bosnia and Kosovo.

because it's the only way that you can fabricate the position that *Obama* is in disagreement with the Iraqi government, after they've endorsed Obama's plan?

They like the idea of the United States being able to withdraw in 16 months as anyone would, but they have always insisted that any withdrawal must be based on conditions and Obama has never had any prerequisites for starting a withdrawal or had a set of conditions that first had to be met for security on the ground. Why would the Iraqi government support any withdrawal plan that withdrew US combat Brigades before the Iraqi military was ready to assume the responsibilties and missions that those US combat brigades are currently providing? The Iraqi's are not against withdrawal, they are against a withdrawal that is not based on the facts on the ground and the capability and strength of the ground forces. Obama does not have any prerequisites as to the level of capability that Iraqi forces need to achieve before a US combat brigade is withdrawn. Obama has no requirements for conditions like the level of violence or economic improvement of any province before he would start withdrawing US combat Brigades.

are you really going to continue to pretend that Obama is as inflexible as Bush?

Bush has changed force levels and tactics on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 7 years when the situation required it. No inflexibility there at all. Obama by contrast supports a policy that is not based on the facts on the ground, is inconsistent with the recomendations of the lates NIE on IRAQ, and those of General Patraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen.


going to deny that this isn't a timetable? that a "time horizon" isn't just a fancy name for a timetable?

Its as much of a timetable as the "Surge" was a timetable.


ah yes, the surge. i do owe a long post on this.

Well I wonder how it will compare with what military commanders from General Patraues down to platoon commanders on the ground have had to say about Iraq and the Surge over the past 18 months. There are plenty of casualty statistics to look at as well, economic figures and political changes and progress to look at. Multiple past opponents of the Surge are claiming that it is a success.

we had a Civil War in Iraq.

Really? So there is not a "Civil War" in Iraq now? When did this so called "Civil War" start and when did it end?


we had the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad

Really? This will certainly be news to the Sunnis who continue to live there as well as the Iraqi military and US military patroling the streets.


we've had unimaginable bloodshed.

Far more Iraqi's died in the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq war as well as during the 1990s under Saddam. Saddam murdered more Shia's in the months after the 1991 Gulf War than the number of Iraqi's who have died in the past 5 years combined. This is the guy who's removal you and Obama continue to claim has made the world "less safe". The unimaginable bloodshed you talk of would involve 10% of the population being slaughtered like it was in Bosnia. The level of bloodshed in Iraq is not even remotely close to being what it was in Bosnia on a per capita basis.



we've had the introduction of Al Qaeda, religious extremism, and suicide bombing into Iraq when it never existed before.

Of course, your idea for preventing that was leaving Saddam in power. Nevermind all the consequences that would entail.



Iraq is more violent today than it was when Obama last visited in early 2006.

Really? Lets take a look at that claim.

Obama was last in Iraq in January 2006.

Iraqi civilians killed in January 2006: 590
Iraqi Security Forces killed in January 2006: 189
Coalition troops who died in Iraq in January 2006: 64

Figures for July 2008

Iraqi civilians killed in July 2008: 182
Iraqi Security Forces killed in July 2008: 55
Coalition troops who died in Iraq in July 2006: 12

The above figures come from iCasualties: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count .



however, if you're going to run on the small successes of The Surge and not admit that the entire operation has been a mistake and a catastrophe, then you might as well just give Obama the White House keys.

Can you name any military commanders on the ground in Iraq who would describe the success they have seen as being "small"?

If you want to claim that removing Saddam from power was a mistake and that the world is "less safe" because Saddam is no longer the leader of Iraq, go ahead.


and McCain's been forced to concede on the Obama/Maliki timetable. after all, "when they stand up, we'll stand down." but not until we say so?

Obama has a timetable which calls for starting to withdraw US troops immediately, without any prerequisites for the capability of Iraqi forces and the security situation on the ground, with all combat brigades to be out in 16 months.

Maliki wants to see US combat forces leave as soon as possible, but not before the Iraqi military is capable of taking their place.

McCain does not want US combat brigades to remain in Iraq any longer than is necessary, but will only withdraw them when the Iraqi military has achieved the capability to replace them and the country is relatively stable.


Thats their positions, and its obvious that McCain and Maliki are closer on the issue than Obama and Maliki who have opposite views when it comes to whether any withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground.


so what's left for you Sting? are you going to endorse a timetable for withdrawal (which you say will bring the apocalypse upon the the Surge-made-Shangri-La) and admit that Obama was right (and admit that his judgment is sound) or are you going to deliberately ignore the explicit, expressed wish of the Iraqi government in order to prolong a war that most Americans and their government admits was a colossal mistake?

The only withdrawal plan that I have ever supported for either Afghanistan or Iraq is one that is conditions based, just as US withdrawals from Bosnia and Kosovo have been. A withdrawal that is FIRST conditions based instead of simply being time based will not bring on the "apocalypse".

I can't support someone who believes that the world, especially the Persian Gulf and Kuwait, would be safer with Saddam in power in Iraq in 2008. The idea that Kuwait is "less safe" today because Saddam is out of power is laughably absurd. Not only has Obama's judgement proven to be poor in 2002, but its proven to be poor over the past 18 months with his prediction that the Surge would INCREASE violence in Iraq. Instead the opposite has occured. The strategy he opposed and said would make things worse has succeeded and vastly improved conditions faster than most thought possible.


Its everyones wish that the US forces not stay in Iraq longer than is necessary, but the Iraqi government, Bush, and McCain do not want a withdrawal prior to the Iraqi military being able to handle the situation on their own. In contrast, Obama wants to start withdrawing troops immediately without regard to conditions on the ground or the capability of Iraqi forces that would replace them.


it all depends on what happens on the Iraq/Pakistani border.

But, for Iraq, Obama's plan does not depend on conditions on the ground. Why not have a time based approach in Afghanistan as well?
 
Y'know, it doesn't do you any good to hold onto this prerequisities/conditions on the ground line when it's not even true. But I know how much you like message consistency, so it doesn't surprise me.

Y'know, if Barack Obama has always supported "as they stand up, we'll stand down", please provide some qoutes. I'd love to see where Obama stated that he would only start withdrawing US combat brigades from Iraq when the Iraqi military had reached the sufficient level of capability needed to take over the tasks that were previously performed by the US combat brigades.

I'd loved to see where Obama repeatedly advocated that the only withdrawal that he would support is one that is conditions based and meets prerequisites for Iraqi security, stability, and Iraqi military performance as I have always supported.

If Barack Obama has always had a policy on any withdrawal similar to mine or the Bush administrations, show us.
 
Any chance Sting could post an article that ISN'T an obviuosly biased anti-Democrat diatribe? All we get are these over-the-top op-ed pieces that we're supposed to take as reliable sources of news.

Whats wrong, are opinion pieces from the Washington Post upsetting the lefty diet here in FYM? :wink:
 
Wow. Bold move! Let's just say that Obama and the Iraqi government are in disagreement in the face of dozens of news reports to the contrary. . .I mean why not. Perhaps the Iraqi government THINKS they agree with Obama but in fact really doesn't. Yeah, that's the ticket. . .


Well, just show one article where the Iraqi government prefers for the US led coalition to leave prior to the Iraqi forces being ready to handle both internal and external security for the country? They support a conditions based withdrawal plan, Obama does not.
 
I'd loved to see where Obama repeatedly advocated that the only withdrawal that he would support is one that is conditions based and meets prerequisites for Iraqi security, stability, and Iraqi military performance as I have always supported.

:lol:

Ah yes, the old "if he hasn't completely aligned with what I support, then he must be for the complete and sudden withdrawal of troops regardless of facts or common sense or anything else." Message consistency! :up:

If Barack Obama has always had a policy on any withdrawal similar to mine or the Bush administrations, show us.

Are you really so absolutely blinded by partisanship that the policy of the Bush administration is the only one you deem acceptable? It's funny how the relative success of the surge has completely erased the utter debacle that was the previous 4 years of this war. One bright note against a sea of duds does not make a successful policy in my eyes, or the eyes of quite a few others.

Now, hit me with some more message consistency, please! :up:
 
:lol:

Ah yes, the old "if he hasn't completely aligned with what I support, then he must be for the complete and sudden withdrawal of troops regardless of facts or common sense or anything else." Message consistency! :up:



Are you really so absolutely blinded by partisanship that the policy of the Bush administration is the only one you deem acceptable? It's funny how the relative success of the surge has completely erased the utter debacle that was the previous 4 years of this war. One bright note against a sea of duds does not make a successful policy in my eyes, or the eyes of quite a few others.

Now, hit me with some more message consistency, please! :up:

I'm waiting for you to show me where Barack Obama stated that he would NOT start withdrawing any US combat brigades until the Iraqi military was ready to sufficiently perform the task of any US combat brigade that is withdrawn.
 
I just watched Obama on Nightline ABC.

Not very impressive at all.
I do expect him to be elected.

It is hard to predict what kind of President, he will be.

But, if I had to predict today. I will say I expect him to be a mediocre President. That will make him 2-3 times better than Bush. But, not even 1/2 as good as Bill Clinton.

This will be enough for his supporters, but it may not be enough to get him reelected in 2012.

I believe McCain would be a better President.
 
SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

They like the idea of the United States being able to withdraw in 16 months as anyone would, but they have always insisted that any withdrawal must be based on conditions and Obama has never had any prerequisites for starting a withdrawal or had a set of conditions that first had to be met for security on the ground.

This is absurd. If Maliki wanted Bush's or McCain's plan, he would have said that. Instead, he directly referenced Obama's plan. Very clear. Non-binding, but very clear. Strongbow's built a little box for himself so that Maliki could explicitly announce tomorrow "The Iraqi Government wants US troops to immediately leave Iraq right now within 24 hours" and it be interpreted as "Of course the government wants troops to leave Iraq right now! But they insisted before that any withdrawal must be based on conditions so what Maliki really meant is that he actually agrees with Bush and McCain."
 
Well, just show one article where the Iraqi government prefers for the US led coalition to leave prior to the Iraqi forces being ready to handle both internal and external security for the country? They support a conditions based withdrawal plan, Obama does not.


What's the point, Sting? I mean really? No matter what evidence is presented you will simply deny it, reinterpret it, or dismiss it.

If you can produce any proof that you've ever admitted you're wrong about anything then I'll consider doing the research.

I don't have any "message" I have to stay on. If I'm wrong I'll say so--in fact, I think I recall saying I hoped I was wrong about the Surge not being a success back when it began and now, it appears that has been successful, and so I'm happy to admitt that I was wrong on that.

What about you? No. . .I guess you're batting a thousand like always.
 
What's the point,

If I'm wrong I'll say so--in fact, I think I recall saying I hoped I was wrong about the Surge not being a success back when it began and now, it appears that has been successful, and so I'm happy to admit that I was wrong on that.

. .

Very true
you are to be credited for that

I like to think
I admit when my opinions, turn out wrong, too.

I was against the surge, I believed it would serve no purpose, buy no time.

I was for writing off Iraq, and letting or making the Iraqis solve it for themselves, I even started a thread, somewhat to that effect

Awhile back, I had to contradict myself and admit that the surge had produced results :shrug:

no big deal

I also just posted that I expect Obama to be a mediocre President, 2-3 years from now, I will not try and color or spin this statement. I hope to be surprised and say he has done an outstanding job.


Well, watching him on TV tonight,
Obama is not big enough to do what you and I have done, Sean.

He has not said the surge was a success.


Very disappointing. Reminds me of W.
 
Again with the all or nothing...

I'm waiting for you to show me where Barack Obama stated that he would NOT start withdrawing any US combat brigades until the Iraqi military was ready to sufficiently perform the task of any US combat brigade that is withdrawn.

That is NOT the same as withdrawing without any regard to conditions on the ground.
 
Would withdrawing with towns under control of Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia in 2005-2006 have been done with regards to conditions on the ground?
 
This is absurd. If Maliki wanted Bush's or McCain's plan, he would have said that. Instead, he directly referenced Obama's plan. Very clear. Non-binding, but very clear. Strongbow's built a little box for himself so that Maliki could explicitly announce tomorrow "The Iraqi Government wants US troops to immediately leave Iraq right now within 24 hours" and it be interpreted as "Of course the government wants troops to leave Iraq right now! But they insisted before that any withdrawal must be based on conditions so what Maliki really meant is that he actually agrees with Bush and McCain."

Barack Obama's plan is a time based withdrawal. The Iraqi's, Bush, McCain, the US military all believe that any withdrawal must be conditions based. Certainly, the Iraqi's believe that conditions are improving to the point that 16 month withdrawal plan might be possible, and they would certainly prefer that, but they have never stated that they wanted US troops to begin withdrawing or to continue withdrawing if security worsens, or the Iraqi military is not ready yet.

Barack Obama has said he might suspend his withdrawal plan if Iraq achieved all 18 benchmarks, but he never stated that he would suspend it or not begin it if the Iraqi military was not ready, sectarian fighting surged again, or if there were other problems.

Iraq's national security advisor stated that what they would like to see is the Iraqi military FIRST successfully take over security in each of the 18 provinces. Then the US military would withdraw from the cities but not the country and would remain in Iraq for the next 3 to 5 years with the security situation to be reviewed every 6 months. That is the Iraqi plan, and its much closer to Bush, McCain plans on Iraq than Obama's.
 
What's the point, Sting? I mean really? No matter what evidence is presented you will simply deny it, reinterpret it, or dismiss it.

If you can produce any proof that you've ever admitted you're wrong about anything then I'll consider doing the research.

I don't have any "message" I have to stay on. If I'm wrong I'll say so--in fact, I think I recall saying I hoped I was wrong about the Surge not being a success back when it began and now, it appears that has been successful, and so I'm happy to admitt that I was wrong on that.

What about you? No. . .I guess you're batting a thousand like always.

I have yet to see anyone present any evidence that Barack Obama has always been for "as they stand up, we'll stand down". If your so convinced that he is indeed for that, post your info. Its that simple. I think it would be great if Barack Obama supported a conditions based withdrawal as opposed to a time based one. If Barack Obama does win in November, I hope he will change his position on this and only pull out US troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground there warrent it, the same withdrawal plan that Bush, McCain, the Iraqi government and the US military have supported all along.
 
That is NOT the same as withdrawing without any regard to conditions on the ground.


Well, do you not think that is a very important condition to have before withdrawing US combat brigades? Probably the most important?

But tell me, where did Barack Obama say he would NOT start or suspend his withdrawal plan if the security situation worsned or the Iraqi military was not ready. He has always said he would start withdrawing immediately, without listing a single condition or prerequisite to starting the withdrawal. NOT ONE! His only condition for possibly suspending the withdrawal has been if Iraq achieved all 18 benchmarks, not if things broke down, violence increased, or the Iraqi military was unable to do the job after the United Sates military withdrew from certain areas.

But really, if Barack Obama's plan is more conditions based than simply being time based, present the info that shows that.
 
Barack Obama's plan is a time based withdrawal. The Iraqi's, Bush, McCain, the US military all believe that any withdrawal must be conditions based. Certainly, the Iraqi's believe that conditions are improving to the point that 16 month withdrawal plan might be possible, and they would certainly prefer that, but they have never stated that they wanted US troops to begin withdrawing or to continue withdrawing if security worsens, or the Iraqi military is not ready yet.

Barack Obama has said he might suspend his withdrawal plan if Iraq achieved all 18 benchmarks, but he never stated that he would suspend it or not begin it if the Iraqi military was not ready, sectarian fighting surged again, or if there were other problems.

Iraq's national security advisor stated that what they would like to see is the Iraqi military FIRST successfully take over security in each of the 18 provinces. Then the US military would withdraw from the cities but not the country and would remain in Iraq for the next 3 to 5 years with the security situation to be reviewed every 6 months. That is the Iraqi plan, and its much closer to Bush, McCain plans on Iraq than Obama's.



this is getting silly.

STING is the only person on the internet claiming that the Iraqi government is opposed to Obama's plan, and in favor of McCain/Bush's open-ended occupation.and yet, the Iraqi government stands with Obama. he went to Iraq, and the government said that, yes, Obama has been right all along, that what Obama wants is what the Iraqis want:

“We cannot give any timetables or dates, but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal.”

in response, the Bush administration has scrambled and lobbed a "time horizon" for reducing the American military, which ironically makes McCain the odd man out because he says that he's against both the "timetable" and the "time horizon." McCain can continue to talk about "victory" and "surrender," but this is a now obsolete position that only passes as barely logical if you continue to believe that there's some sort of false choice between a rigid timetable for withdrawal that ignores changing conditions on the ground and listening only to recommendations of military commanders (as if the Iraqis don't matter ... and as if military commanders author policy?).

what everyone knows is that "success" in Iraq is going to be based upon the increased credibility of the Iraqi government to actually govern Iraq, and a clear endpoint to American occupation will increase that credibility.

a "surge" post is coming ... hopefully ...
 
He has not said the surge was a success.


Very disappointing. Reminds me of W.


so you're going to be like W and demand "yes" or "no" answers to difficult, complex questions? are you going to hold Obama over a barrel and demand he admit "success" -- what does that mean anyway? -- in the way that the Democrats held Hillary over a barrel and demanded that she regret her vote to authorize the Iraq war that she never apologized for?

let's look at what Obama actually said:

My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole and to weigh and balance risks in Afghanistan and Iraq," Obama said. "Their job is just to get the job done here, and I completely understand that. [note--it's amazing how this is forgotten, that the military doesn't create policy, politicians do, and that the military doesn't get a blank check to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, especially in situations where it's quite clear that our national security interests are hardly threatened, nor were they ever)

"I think it is indisputable that, because of great work that they have done, as well as the unbelievable work that the troops have done, we've made significant progress in terms of reducing violence in Iraq," he said.

However, Obama would not attribute the decreased violence entirely to the troop surge, which he opposed, instead saying that it was the result of "political factors inside Iraq that came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, my assessment would be correct. ... The point I was making at the time was the political dynamic was the driving force in that sectarian violence."


and he's right. yes, changes in tactics and strategy did help to lower violence. but what's much more critical to the downswing in violence wasn't "the surge" as we understand it, but the fact that al Qaeda reached levels of violence against Iraqis to the point where they lost the support of the Sunnis:

Shift in Tactics Aims to Revive Struggling Insurgency
Al-Qaeda in Iraq Hopes A Softer Approach Will Win Back Anbar Sunnis

Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 8, 2008

BAGHDAD -- The Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq is telling its followers to soften their tactics in order to regain popular support in the western province of Anbar, where Sunni tribes have turned against the organization and begun working with U.S. forces, according to group leaders and American intelligence officials.

The new approach was outlined last month in an internal communique that orders members to avoid killing Sunni civilians who have not sympathized with the U.S.-backed tribesmen or the government.

From internal documents and interviews with members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a picture emerges of an organization in disarray but increasingly aware that its harsh policies -- such as punishing women who don't cover their heads -- have eroded its popular support. Over the past year, the group has been driven out of many of its strongholds. The group's leadership is now jettisoning some of its past tactics to refocus attacks on American troops, Sunnis cooperating closely with U.S. forces, and Iraq's infrastructure.

"Dedicate yourself to fighting the true enemy only, in order to avoid opening up new fronts against the Sunni Arabs," said the Jan. 13 communique, signed by the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer. "Do not close the door of repentance in the face of those Sunnis who turned against us," said the message, posted in Anbar mosques frequented by the group's followers.

The communique does not order an end to attacks against Shiite Muslims, whom al-Qaeda in Iraq has long seen as heretics, and it was unclear whether the views of group members in Anbar would apply in parts of the country where al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters are more active. Iraqi officials have blamed the group for two bombings Feb. 1 in predominantly Shiite areas of Baghdad that officials said killed as many as 100 people.

American intelligence officials said the communique is consistent with the past leadership style of Muhajer, an Egyptian also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who took command of the group after his predecessor, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June 2006.

"Zarqawi did a lot of just indiscriminate killing -- it didn't matter when, where, why or how," said one senior intelligence analyst who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity under military ground rules. "Masri is more picking his targets and trying to get away from the massive indiscriminate killings, because it created a big black eye for al-Qaeda in Iraq."

The U.S. military says it destroyed much of the leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007, killing 2,400 suspected members and capturing 8,800, while pushing the group almost completely out of Baghdad and Anbar province. Although U.S. officials and their Sunni allies caution that al-Qaeda in Iraq remains dangerous and could find ways to regenerate, they assert that the group now is largely a spent force.

"We do not deny the difficulties we are facing right now," said Riyadh al-Ogaidi, a senior leader, or emir, of al-Qaeda in Iraq in the Garma region of eastern Anbar province. "The Americans have not defeated us, but the turnaround of the Sunnis against us had made us lose a lot and suffer very painfully."



and what's also been critical was the cease-fire negotiated by Sadar and teh militias being taken out in Basra and Sadr City by the Iraqi army. and, sadly, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad -- not to mention 4 million refugees -- that has put Sunnis and Shiites out of direct contact.

if it was merely "the surge" that transformed Iraq -- and was authored by McCain, as he'd have you believe -- levels of violence would be up again because we're now back down to about 150,000 troops (as opposed to 170,000+). so there are fundamental underlying changes that have taken place in Iraq that have much more to do with Iraqis than with Americans.
 
The whole Spiegel article. SPIEGEL Interview with Iraqi Leader Nouri al-Maliki: 'The Tenure of Coalition Troops in Iraq Should Be Limited' - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

It should be mentioned that the interview was held last Tuesday, and the agreement over the time horizon was last Thursday. But the US military helped Iraq's government to spread out word it was a misunderstanding. ;)

Probably the most important part of the interview.

SPIEGEL: Germany, after World War II, was also liberated from a tyrant by a US-led coalition. That was 63 years ago, and today there are still American military bases and soldiers in Germany. How do you feel about this model?

Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany's experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.

SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?

Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

SPIEGEL: Immunity for the US troops is apparently the central issue.

Maliki: It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population. But other issues are no less important: How much longer will these soldiers remain in our country? How much authority do they have? Who controls how many, soldiers enter and leave the country and where they do so?

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.

I find it also interesting that Maliki doesn't make any mention of the surge.
 
politico.com

McCain gaffes pile up; critics pile on

Jim VandeHei, Mike AllenTue Jul 22, 6:13 AM ET

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “Iraq” on Monday when he apparently meant “Afghanistan”, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition.

Just in the past three weeks, McCain has also mistaken "Somalia" for "Sudan," and even football’s Green Bay Packers for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Ironically, the errors have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise: foreign affairs.

McCain will turn 72 the day after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) accepts his party’s nomination for president at the age of 47, calling new attention to the sensitive issue of McCain’s advanced age three days before the start of his own convention.

The McCain campaign says Obama has had plenty of flubs of his own, including a reference to "57 states" and a string of misstated place names during the primaries that Republicans gleefully sent around as YouTube links.

McCain aides point out that he spends much more time than Obama talking extemporaneously, taking questions from voters and reporters. "Being human and tripping over your tongue occasionally doesn't mean a thing," a top McCain official said.

But McCain's mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?

Voters, thinking about their own relatives, can be expected to scrutinize McCain’s debate performances for signs of slippage.

Every voter has a parent, grandparent or a friend whose mental acuity declined as they grew older. It happens at different times for different people — and there is ample evidence many people in their 70s are as sharp and fit as ever.

In McCain’s case, his medical records, public appearances and travel schedule have suggested he remains at the top of his game.

But his liberal critics have been pouncing on every misstatement as a sign that he’s an old man.

Already, late-night comics have made McCain’s age an almost nightly topic, with CBS’s David Letterman getting a laugh just about any time he says the words “McCain” and “nap” in the same sentence.

Last week, McCain tried to defuse the issue by pretending to doze off during an appearance with NBC’s Conan O’Brien.

Republicans would like to make the case that McCain is seasoned and Obama is a callow newcomer to the public stage. But that’ll be harder if he keeps up the verbal slips, which make it easier for comedians and critics to pile on.

“First Gaffe of Obama Trip ... Goes To McCain,” blared Monday afternoon’s banner headline on the left-leaning Huffington Post, accompanied by a photo of McCain appearing to slap his forehead.

That referred to an ABCNews.com posting asserting that McCain appeared to confuse Iraq and Afghanistan in a “Good Morning America” interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, who asked whether the "the situation in Afghanistan is precarious and urgent.”

McCain responded: “I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," McCain said. The ABC posting added: “Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.”

Unfortunately for McCain, that wasn’t an isolated slip. Among the other lapses:

• “Somalia” for “Sudan”: As recounted in a reporter’s pool report from McCain’s Straight Talk Express bus on June 30, the senator said while discussing Darfur, a region of Sudan: "How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?"

Senior adviser Mark Salter corrected him: “Sudan.”

• “Germany” for “Russia”: A YouTube clip from last year memorializes McCain referring to Vladimir Putin of Russia — following a trip to Germany — as “President Putin of Germany.”

• This spring, McCain said troops in Iraq were “down to pre-surge levels” when in fact there were 20,000 more troops than when the surge policy began.

• Also this spring, McCain twice appeared to mistake Sunnis and Shiites, two branches of Islam that split violently.

• In Phoenix earlier this month, McCain referred to Czechoslovakia, which has been divided since Jan. 1, 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He also referred to Czechoslovakia during a debate in November and a radio show in April.

• In perhaps the most curious incident, McCain said earlier this month that as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he had tried to confuse his captors by giving the names of Pittsburgh Steelers starting players when asked to identify his squadron mates. McCain has told the story many times over the years — but always correctly referred to the names he gave as members of the Green Bay Packers.
 
• “Germany” for “Russia”: A YouTube clip from last year memorializes McCain referring to Vladimir Putin of Russia — following a trip to Germany — as “President Putin of Germany.”

I'm sorry, we are fine with having had one dictator and two half-dictators.
 
Obama should make a McCain attack ad w/ all of McCain's gaffes and "jokes" and intercut them with clips from the movie Grumpy Old Men (I love that movie) and Grumpier Old Men, the sequel. That would be awesome. I think I'll send that in to barackobama.com. I'm very bored today.. Or put McCain into The Dark Knight somehow, I think he'd be Harvey Dent.

Is there a song you could relate to calling your wife the c word? :hmm:
 
I believe McCain would be a better President.

While I understand and probably somewhat admire your taking a cautioned approach to Obama, I'm really surprised to hear you say this.

As time goes on, and more and more reports of McCain's anger issues, misogyny, and either lapses in knowledge or memory (about multiple subjects that are imperative for any presidential candidate to know) pile up to the extent that they can't be attributed to being isolated incidents, I can see McCain being nearly as inept as Bush. Contrast that with Obama, who admittedly doesn't have all the experience in the world, but who would be thoughtful enough to learn or seek advice, and to me, there is no comparison.

I suppose I can see a lifetime Republican sticking with party lines and voting McCain, but not someone who is/was on the fence. Not with what we've seen in recent months.
 
this is getting silly.

STING is the only person on the internet claiming that the Iraqi government is opposed to Obama's plan, and in favor of McCain/Bush's open-ended occupation.and yet, the Iraqi government stands with Obama. he went to Iraq, and the government said that, yes, Obama has been right all along, that what Obama wants is what the Iraqis want:



in response, the Bush administration has scrambled and lobbed a "time horizon" for reducing the American military, which ironically makes McCain the odd man out because he says that he's against both the "timetable" and the "time horizon." McCain can continue to talk about "victory" and "surrender," but this is a now obsolete position that only passes as barely logical if you continue to believe that there's some sort of false choice between a rigid timetable for withdrawal that ignores changing conditions on the ground and listening only to recommendations of military commanders (as if the Iraqis don't matter ... and as if military commanders author policy?).

what everyone knows is that "success" in Iraq is going to be based upon the increased credibility of the Iraqi government to actually govern Iraq, and a clear endpoint to American occupation will increase that credibility.

a "surge" post is coming ... hopefully ...

Whats silly is your continuing ignorance or unwillingness to acknowledge the key difference between Barack Obama's withdrawal policy and the Iraqi government and McCains policy on withdrawal. McCain and the Iraqi government are for withdrawal only as conditions warrent it. Obama is for a withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground, start withdrawing immediately with all combat brigades out in 16 months period.

Yes, the Iraqi government thinks it could be possile and would love for US combat brigades to leave within a 16 month, but will only support such a withdrawal if the conditions on the ground warrent it, and the Iraqi forces have reached the level of capability required to replace US military forces that are withdrawn.

But hey, if you think the Iraqi's support the withdrawal of US forces prior to the Iraqi military being able to sufficiently replace US combat brigades that are withdrawn, please post a source for that.

The Bush administrations policy has always been "as they stand up, we'll stand down". That is the policy that the Iraqi's, the US military, and McCain are following. Obama wants to stand down regardless of whether the Iraqi's are standing up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom