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.
It was gone before you replied, because I did think about it.


and I have read many of the things you have posted about your life experience

I have always said racism is at the top of the list of problems that still exist today.

I still support affirmative action and believe there is a real need for it today.

I bet many of Obama's young supporters do not.

I can appreciate from your vantage point, and even with overtly racist statements towards Obama, that every statement can be viewed from that lens.




Believe me, if a first term (elected in 2004) white Senator were the nominee and McCain was the GOP candidate, my vote would be floating back and forth, the same as it is now.

I will say that with Obama's pragmatic repositioning lately,
he is giving more confidence that he may be a decent president.

For the record, I've never ever believed that what might be termed your opposition to Obama has anything to do with race.
 
For the record, I've never ever believed that what might be termed your opposition to Obama has anything to do with race.

Thanks,

I do believe others have implied race was a consideration in my concerns with Obama.

We have interacted, you have read my posts
and I have read yours.

I feel we have a bit of a connection and understanding, and mutual respect.

Believe me, if Obama were elected in 2000 and got the nomination in 2004

I would have been writing checks and doing what I could to get him elected over Bush. His lack of experience would not matter against a GOP controlled Congress and the worst President I can remember.

I find the choice in 2008,
between McCain "the best the GOP has" with a heavily Democratic controlled congress
vs a decent new Senator with not much history to be more difficult.

I believe if McCain does win, he will flip- again to what has been his much longer. He has a record of being moderate, and with this heavily Democratic controlled congress that will be his only option.

I still expect Obama to win the election. The Obama I have seen the last couple of weeks is showing a little more nuance and thought than the candidate that was campaigning against Hillary.
 
Last edited:
A little more nuisance, eh?

ETA: corrected, nevermind :wink:
 
Last edited:
While I am broadly supportive of Obama's campaign, I think it is quite cheap and unbecoming to accuse another poster of racism if they do not support Obama.
 
Strongbow, could we just wrap this whole thing up by conceding that the 16 month timetable on Obama's website is not going to happen?

Well, provided John McCain is elected president in November, it will never happen. If Obama wins, I hope he abandons his timetable and many other thoughts and idea's on Iraq, and move to the policies of the Bush administration that have worked in Iraq. But Obama has yet to really "refine" his policy on withdrawal so it remains to be seen what will happen if he is elected President. The hope is that the Military and State Department will be able to convince him to follow a withdrawal plan that has as its prerequisite, a sustainable security environment on the ground. If Obama is elected, hopefully there will be a desire to not be known as the President who lost Iraq or messed up success there.

I also never really believed that Obama was going to insist on a 16 month withdrawal.

But he has up to this point.


The irony is you are depending on Obama being true to his word to make your case against him, while I am, perhaps, more cynically, expecting him to go back on his promise (which in my opinion was a politically expedient promise in the same league as "read my lips" that Obama really couldn't hope to keep) in making my case FOR him.

You, in your typically masterful and text-heavy way have created a no-win situation for Obama. Either he breaks his 16 month timetable promise and you can paint him in a variety of negative colors ("just another dihonest politician", "a foreign policy neophyte who had no idea what he was promising when he made that commitment" etc). Or he persists in standing by it and you can continue to point out how unreasonable and unworkable it is. Either way. . .you win.

Well, it would be a good thing if Obama abandoned many of his positions on Iraq and moved to something more in line with the Bush administrations position on Iraq. From the election standpoint, at this point, there would still be plenty of things McCain could take advantage of if Obama moves towards McCain on the issue. Obama is on the record as saying the Surge would not reduce violence that it would make it worse. He has supported starting an immediate withdrawal, without conditions on the ground being a prerequesite, for some time. While moving towards the Bush/McCain position on Iraq might get some voters to vote for him who are on the fence because of this issue, some liberals might become upset and independents might see it as showing that Obama is too inexperienced to be Commander And Chief.

The timetable was predicated on the idea that an indefinite stay in Iraq would be bad for the U.S. and for Iraq. Most of us don't want to be in Iraq forever, and a timetable--even if it has to be readjusted multiple times--would help keep us moving in the right direction. This is the real difference which you consistently ignore (and I admit the Democrats political pandering assists you in this)--the difference between an approach of an indefinite 100-years stay in Iraq and an aggressive move to wrap things up there as soon as possible.

So what is Obama's timetable for Afghanistan? If having a timetable is so important to moving in the right direction, why doesn't Obama have a timetable for Afghanistan?

McCain's position is not to stay in Iraq indefinitely or for 100 years. His position like the Bush administration and the military is to withdraw from Iraq only when conditions on the ground warrent such a withdrawal. Thats his position on Afghanistan as well. Both countries must be rebuilt and developed to a degree that they can sustain such development on their own without the presence of US ground forces. It would not make sense for the United States to suddenly withdraw military forces from an area that is important to its security just because its that time of the month on the withdrawal timetable. You have to make sure that the area is first secure enough and can handle the withdrawal of such forces without it negatively impacting security and development.

Also, you have not allowed the possiblity nor recognized the value in Obama being able to change his perspective or admit he was wrong. As Irvine has pointed out, it's exactly this quality that was lacking in the previous administration. If Obama is wrong about the 16 month withdrawal I should hope he should have the good sense to admit it and he shouldn't be excoriated for doing so.

If Obama wants to point out that he was wrong on this issue, that would be great. But voters need to clearly understand that McCain has been right on this vital national security issue, while Obama was wrong when deciding who to vote for in November.
 
While I am broadly supportive of Obama's campaign, I think it is quite cheap and unbecoming to accuse another poster of racism if they do not support Obama.

sometimes it is an easy call

sometimes it is not

When someone says "I won't vote for a black person"

some in here have even posted that members of their own family have said that :huh:

Some make broad accusations that if Obama does not win it is because of 'racism'.

Well, I think one has to take into account that even by Democrat standards, McCain is a fairly decent and attractive candidate.

We can not escape race, we all have bias, the best we can do is try and identify it, and challenge it.


I believe there are many people that will not vote for Obama that would have voted for Colin Powell if given the chance. :shrug:

The sad thing is that if Obama does not win, I can not think of a viable non-European candidate for the future. Presidential candidates are typically Governors or Senators.

Doug Wilder, Vir, Gov ran briefly in 1992, I believe.

Do we have any other people of color as Governors or Senators?

David Paterson? NY

Bobby Jindal? LA
 
Well, Bill Richardson, then there's Deval Patrick in MA. And Sen. Inouye, though he's far too old to run for President. (ETA: whoops, forgot Sen. Akaka, also from HI, and also pretty old.)
 
Last edited:
On the Iraq issue. Given the 4000+ U.S. servicepeople and countless Iraqis who have lost their lives, the lack of WMD, is it too hard to admit Illinois state senator Obama was completely right on his position not to invade Iraq?

And since the U.S. committed to war, too hard to admit Senator McCain has been (mostly) right on the conduct of it, and that he's being proved right on the surge?


Nuance shumance!!! We all know objectively what their rhetoric has been for years, and our own rhetoric in this forum. It hasn't been all that nuanced. But I really hope the end strategy is something in between the perceived indefinite occupation versus the perceived quick withdrawal. The last week or two have encouraged me this will be the case with either candidate.
 
:shame: Oh. . .Strongbow. . .you're. . .you're a tricky one. :wink:

Careful about putting words in my mouth.

Well, provided John McCain is elected president in November, it will never happen. If Obama wins, I hope he abandons his timetable and many other thoughts and idea's on Iraq, and move to the policies of the Bush administration that have worked in Iraq.

NOT what I was saying. I do believe there are other points of view beyond immediate withdrawal or moving to the policies of the Bush adminstration. Nice try though.

But he has up to this point.

And now he's "refining." Surprise, surprise.




While moving towards the Bush/McCain position

Careful now. . .you might be playing into the hands of the Dems with this characterization of McCain's position on the war. My understanding is that McCain has gone to great lengths to distance himself from Bush's prosecution of/position on the war. But I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how that it is actually untrue and in fact Bush and McCain have been marching in lockstep towards victory ever since the war began.


So what is Obama's timetable for Afghanistan? If having a timetable is so important to moving in the right direction, why doesn't Obama have a timetable for Afghanistan?

That's actually a reasonable question. At one point do the reasons we got in become irrelevant and the reasons to stay become paramount? Because, as we all know, this is why there has been less criticism of the war in Aghanistan. The reasons for going in were viewed as legit from the beginning. Such was NOT the case with Iraq. If it turned out that the 9/11 terrorists and Osama Bin Laden had actually been working out of say, Indonesia, and NOT Afghanistan you might here more noise about getting out of there.
 
I do believe others have implied race was a consideration in my concerns with Obama.

Mmmm. . maybe. But if so, not in the way that you're thinking at least from my POV.



I feel we have a bit of a connection and understanding, and mutual respect.

Indeed we do, though as I (and other posters) have stated, I have found the strength of your hostility to Obama puzzling and uncharacteristic, your explanation below notwithstanding.


Believe me, if Obama were elected in 2000 and got the nomination in 2004

I would have been writing checks and doing what I could to get him elected over Bush. His lack of experience would not matter against a GOP controlled Congress and the worst President I can remember.

I find the choice in 2008,
between McCain "the best the GOP has" with a heavily Democratic controlled congress
vs a decent new Senator with not much history to be more difficult.

I believe if McCain does win, he will flip- again to what has been his much longer. He has a record of being moderate, and with this heavily Democratic controlled congress that will be his only option.

I still expect Obama to win the election. The Obama I have seen the last couple of weeks is showing a little more nuance and thought than the candidate that was campaigning against Hillary.

but you do realize that many of your posts of late haven't had this even-handed quality right? Don't get me wrong. . .I'm not trying to tell you how you "should" post. You're free to say whatever you like in whatever manner you like (within the rules etc etc). I'm just making an observation is all.
 
On the Iraq issue. Given the 4000+ U.S. servicepeople and countless Iraqis who have lost their lives, the lack of WMD, is it too hard to admit Illinois state senator Obama was completely right on his position not to invade Iraq?

And since the U.S. committed to war, too hard to admit Senator McCain has been (mostly) right on the conduct of it, and that he's being proved right on the surge?


Nuance shumance!!! We all know objectively what their rhetoric has been for years, and our own rhetoric in this forum. It hasn't been all that nuanced. But I really hope the end strategy is something in between the perceived indefinite occupation versus the perceived quick withdrawal. The last week or two have encouraged me this will be the case with either candidate.

I could agree with both of the above, I think.
 
:shame:

I do believe there are other points of view beyond immediate withdrawal or moving to the policies of the Bush adminstration.

Well, Bush administration policy is withdrawal only when conditions on the ground warrent it. Obama's position at least until recently has been to start withdrawing immediately and complete that withdrawal within 16 months with no prerequisites to first be met as far as conditions on the ground. What point of view do you see as being beyond or between these two positions?


Careful now. . .you might be playing into the hands of the Dems with this characterization of McCain's position on the war. My understanding is that McCain has gone to great lengths to distance himself from Bush's prosecution of/position on the war. But I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how that it is actually untrue and in fact Bush and McCain have been marching in lockstep towards victory ever since the war began.

McCain and Bush have agreed on policy at various times over the past 5 years as well as disagreeing. But the Surge was something that McCain had been pushing for, for some time and so its really Bush moving towards the McCain position which Obama may be starting to do as well given the obvious success.


That's actually a reasonable question. At one point do the reasons we got in become irrelevant and the reasons to stay become paramount? Because, as we all know, this is why there has been less criticism of the war in Aghanistan. The reasons for going in were viewed as legit from the beginning. Such was NOT the case with Iraq. If it turned out that the 9/11 terrorists and Osama Bin Laden had actually been working out of say, Indonesia, and NOT Afghanistan you might here more noise about getting out of there.

The reason for both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have long since passed and are essentially irrelevant today. The United States is not currently in Iraq to remove Saddam from power and insure that all WMD has been removed and dismantled. Both objectives were accomplished years ago. The United States is not in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power and destroy Al Quada's base there. Both objectives were accomplished years ago. What now exist in both countries are vital nation building and counterinsurgency tasks. Its true that the Taliban still exist in some form in southern Afghanistan, and that the remnents of Al Quada and Bin Ladin live just across the border in Pakistan. But much of the fighting in Afghanistan is tribal and sectarian in nature and predates Al Quada's involvement in the country. Al Quada has actually been much more active in Iraq over the past years than it has been in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter.

Further US operations against Al Quada across the border in Pakistan are complicated by the fact that Pakistan has over the past 7 years captured hundreds of Al Quada members on its own, and the positioning of US forces in Pakistan could destabilize the country politically which is why US forces have not gone in and have tried to get the Pakistani military and government to do more counterinsurgency operations in Pakistans remote western border area's. US forces in the meantime have focused on rebuilding Afghanistan and creating an Afghan government and military that will one day have the capability to handle terrorist and insurgents on its own without US ground forces.

The reason for staying in both Iraq and Afghanistan are now the same. Both countries must be rebuilt and develop new security, political and economic structures and environments that will be sustainable and allow both countries to handle any internal problems they may face without the help of US ground forces.
 
I see now why Irvine gets drawn into these disputes with you.

You've always got these little...things...that you just KNOW you can counter. "Surely he'll have to see reason if I say this. . ." But it never happens.

I should not give in to temptation. It won't do any good. He's not even really listening. . .yes, I'm just gonna walk away. Not gonna reply.

butfirstletmesaythis!

A middle view between immediate withdrawal and an indefinite stay would be to consider whether whatever benefits might be gained for ourselves and the Iraqis by staying in Iraq are outweighed by the costs. Many of those who supported removing the troops felt that we were not really doing anything to help Iraq and were losing many of our own soldiers and stretching our military thin...to what purpose? If we're moving forward in Iraq then it makes sense to stay until the job is done. If we're just stuck and not going anywhere then it makes sense to get out. As to the success of the surge, I seem to recall saying on this very forum that I hoped I was wrong and I hoped that the surge would be successful. I can't say with authority how successful it has been or not, but the fact remains that getting out Iraq will not be easy or a quick process.

Let me add that most of the Democratic lawmakers, I've found to be rather weak in their stance on Iraq. Many of them voted for the war to appease the public and now many of them have tried to appease the public by hollering to get out and announcing timetables. Suffice it to say Obama's timetable is not one of my favorite things about him, just because I don't think it's ever been honest or realistic. But it does sound good to the voters, I guess.
 
A middle view between immediate withdrawal and an indefinite stay would be to consider whether whatever benefits might be gained for ourselves and the Iraqis by staying in Iraq are outweighed by the costs. Many of those who supported removing the troops felt that we were not really doing anything to help Iraq and were losing many of our own soldiers and stretching our military thin...to what purpose? If we're moving forward in Iraq then it makes sense to stay until the job is done. If we're just stuck and not going anywhere then it makes sense to get out.



But one has to remember that for the United States, rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq is not just humanitarian mission, its one that is in the national security interest of the United States. Its not just a question of whether or not the United States is making progress and helping Iraq, its also the potential consequences for Iraq and the United States of a pre-mature withdrawal.

At points in time in Iraq, it may not have seemed that progress was being made, but what your not seeing either is the potential consequences of pulling out and those consequences go beyond just being humanitarian consequences. If your stuck and not going anywhere, progress is stalled, you may think about leaving, but then you have to deal with the cost and consequences of leaving, which in this case should convince one to stay.
 
Well, Bush administration policy is withdrawal only when conditions on the ground warrent it.




and no one ever talks about how utterly and totally vague this is, and how 60+ permanent bases built in Iraq don't seem to show much faith in the "improvement" in conditions on the ground. in 10 years? 50? 100? McCain compares Iraq to Korea and Germany. is this in our security interests -- a permanent American imperial presence in Mesopotamia? to do what, exactly? contain and attack Iran? occupations have a difficult way of ever really ending, no matter what the "conditions on the ground" are at any given point. they are always a morass, always a quagmire, always quicksand, and just as the Bush administration has continued to find ways to move the goal posts to determine progress, has fabricated new and improved justifications for the war to begin with, why would they not continue to fabricate new and improved reasons as to why "conditions on the ground" are still not suitable for a real withdrawal?

and suddenly, just this week, we have Bush moving to the Obama position. instead of endless, undefined occupation, we have this:

U.S. considers increasing pace of Iraq pullout
By Steven Lee Myers
Sunday, July 13, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.

Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007.

One factor in the consideration is the pressing need for additional American troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and other fighters have intensified their insurgency and inflicted a growing number of casualties on Afghans and American-led forces there.

More American and allied troops died in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May and June, a trend that has continued this month.

Although no decision has been made, by the time President George W. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn or at least scheduled for withdrawal, the officials said.

The desire to move more quickly reflects the view of many in the Pentagon who want to ease the strain on the military but also to free more troops for Afghanistan and potentially other missions.

The most optimistic course of events would still leave 120,000 to 130,000 American troops in Iraq, down from the peak of 170,000 late last year after Bush ordered what became known as the "surge" of additional forces. Any troop reductions announced in the heat of the presidential election could blur the sharp differences between the candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, over how long to stay in Iraq. But the political benefit might go more to McCain than Obama. McCain is an avid supporter of the current strategy in Iraq. Any reduction would indicate that that strategy has worked and could defuse antiwar sentiment among voters.

Even as the two candidates argue over the wisdom of the war and keeping American troops there, security in Iraq has improved vastly, as has the confidence of Iraq's government and military and police, raising the prospect of additional reductions that were barely conceivable a year ago. While officials caution that the relative calm is fragile, violence and attacks on American-led forces have dropped to the lowest levels since early 2004.


Obama has said since the beginning that we need more troops in Afghanistan.

Bush now agrees.

this is a total vindication of everything that Obama has said about Iraq, and Afghanistan, from the beginning. it also speaks to the enormous bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, refugee crisis, and the billions upon billions spent for ... what, really? it also speaks to the fact that the framework for a withdrawal has sent signals to the Iraqis that perhaps the US actually *isn't* thinking about a permanent occupation. thus, US military cooperation with the Iraqi government becomes much more viable when both have a set goal -- eek, a timetable -- to work towards. the problem has been the Bush/McCain looming shadow of endless occupation. when the hegemonic superpower sets the terms and conditions, and the right to endlessly reset said terms and conditions -- based on things such as domestic policy, petty score keeping, the need to beat home the "appeasement/dolschstoss" narrative and have one more go at Vietnam-era narratives -- there's really not much incentive for the Iraqis themselves to start to work things out for themselves.

so, it's less "the surge" that's brought about political confidence. but more the light at the end of the dark, dark Bush/McCain tunnel. the end, for Maliki, to holding troops an contractors immune to any prosecution for crimes committed in Iraq -- an actual return of the rule of law.

but be warned. Maliki's confidence could be little more than a repackaging.
 
I don't disagree, I don't believed it is justified.



i will plead guilty to a creative overreaction to your comment.

it just felt like yet another "kid" characterization of Obama. and your questions about the Senator are so relentlessly framed to be patronizing, as if there's some kind of subtle resentment going on.

that may be more psychoanalysis than can be reasonably made.

but it has been consistent.
 
On the Iraq issue. Given the 4000+ U.S. servicepeople and countless Iraqis who have lost their lives, the lack of WMD, is it too hard to admit Illinois state senator Obama was completely right on his position not to invade Iraq?

And since the U.S. committed to war, too hard to admit Senator McCain has been (mostly) right on the conduct of it, and that he's being proved right on the surge?


i appreciate the fair-minded attempt to draw an important inference.

however, i think it's important to note that McCain hasn't been all that stronga dissenter from Bush's tactics in Iraq as he likes to say (or like what Carly Fiorina was saying this morning on MTP). but Iraq remains, and it seems you a gree, a fundamental error from the beginning, a bad idea. period. his advocacy of more troops in Iraq -- which is currently viewed as the "correct" stance in regard to whatever successes there might be of "the surge" -- does not in anyway excuse his place as an ardent supporter of notions of the Axis of Evil or attacking any and all rogue states to calling those who disagree appeasers and championing the cowboy diplomacy that characterized Bush's foreign policy from 9/12/01 to the 2006 elections.



Nuance shumance!!! We all know objectively what their rhetoric has been for years, and our own rhetoric in this forum. It hasn't been all that nuanced. But I really hope the end strategy is something in between the perceived indefinite occupation versus the perceived quick withdrawal. The last week or two have encouraged me this will be the case with either candidate.


the latter part of your post i agree with, but as someone who thinks -- perhaps self-servingly, perhaps self-deludingly -- that he does try to inject nuance, i suppose i feel a bit disheartened by this un-nuanced portrayal of many posters in here?
 
.
My Plan for Iraq

By BARACK OBAMA
The New York Times (Op-Ed), July 14



The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
 
and no one ever talks about how utterly and totally vague this is,

Its been discussed at length in here what conditions need to be like in Iraq for the US to start withdrawing. The Iraqi military and government must have the capacity to replace any services being provided by any US combat brigade that is withdrawn. They must be able to sustain the progress that has been made and be able to continue the development process.


how 60+ permanent bases built in Iraq don't seem to show much faith in the "improvement" in conditions on the ground.

I would like for you just once to name one of these bases and explain why its "permanent". In case you did not know already, the US military has to have bases given the logistical requirements of deploying 1 to two dozen combat brigades, 2/3s of them being heavy armor brigades. US bases in Iraq are required for the scale and length of such a deployment. The bases are no more permanent than the bases the United States currently has for its deployment in Afghanistan.

is this in our security interests -- a permanent American imperial presence in Mesopotamia? to do what, exactly?

No one has ever planned to permanently keep troops in Iraq. The Bush administration initial plans for Iraq projected that half of the troops would be home by the summer of 2004, but that was reveresed because of the insurgency.

Its in the security interest of the United States and the rest of the planet, that Iraq successfully develops its security, economic, political structures and environment. How could withdrawing prior to the successful development of the Iraqi government and military be in the security interest of the United States?

contain and attack Iran?

The United States does not have to be in Iraq in order to attack Iran.

occupations have a difficult way of ever really ending, no matter what the "conditions on the ground" are at any given point. they are always a morass, always a quagmire, always quicksand,

Thats how you would describe US occupations in Bosnia and Kosovo?


and just as the Bush administration has continued to find ways to move the goal posts to determine progress

The problem there is absurd and unrealistic expections of many Democrats who would like to find a way of justifiying immediate withdrawal.

has fabricated new and improved justifications for the war to begin with

Another myth. The primary justification for the removal of Saddam remains the same today as it was prior to the war and the need to rebuild Iraq after Saddam's removal in order to insure the stability and security of the region is the same as well.


why would they not continue to fabricate new and improved reasons as to why "conditions on the ground" are still not suitable for a real withdrawal?

The Bush administration, US military, and US State Department are not frabricating any of this nor are they fabricating a need to stay in Iraq longer than would be necessary. No one wants to stay in Iraq longer than is necessary just as no one wants to stay in Afghanistan longer than would be necessary. Sorry, but Bush does not need either country for the hypothetical attack on Iran.



and suddenly, just this week, we have Bush moving to the Obama position. instead of endless, undefined occupation, we have this:

The withdrawal that the Bush administration is considering is dependent upon conditions on the ground and the need for sustainable security. Its the position the Bush administration has had from DAY 1. Obama's position for at least 18 months has been to start withdrawing combat brigades from Iraq immediately without any prerequisites for stability and security and to have all US combat brigades out of Iraq in 16 months.

Obama has said since the beginning that we need more troops in Afghanistan.

Bush now agrees.

Thats actually incorrect. Bush administration has been increasing the US force levels in Afghanistan for several years now. But what the Bush administration has not wanted to do was to ever be increasing force levels in Afghanistan at the expense of security and stability in Iraq. That is still the case today and any force level increase in Afghanistan will not be occuring if it sacrifices the progress and continued progress in Iraq under Bush or a future McCain administration.

this is a total vindication of everything that Obama has said about Iraq, and Afghanistan, from the beginning.

If Bush or McCain withdraws US troops from Iraq to either go home or go to Afghanistan, it will only be done if the prerequisites for withdrawal from Iraq are met first. Obama has never had such prerequisites so I don't see how that would vindicate any policy that Obama has had on the issue to date.

it also speaks to the enormous bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, refugee crisis, and the billions upon billions spent for ... what, really?

Removing Saddam and rebuilding Iraq after his removal were both required for the security and stability of the region which is really the planets economic lifeline.

it also speaks to the fact that the framework for a withdrawal has sent signals to the Iraqis that perhaps the US actually *isn't* thinking about a permanent occupation.

The US has never thought about a permanent occupation and most Iraqi's in the government that the United States is working with have been concerned about the United States withdrawing to soon and the country collapsing. It might convince some Saddamist and Mahdi Army extremist who may have mistakenly believed that the United States was planning a permanent occupation, that the US does have plans to leave.


thus, US military cooperation with the Iraqi government becomes much more viable when both have a set goal -- eek, a timetable -- to work towards. the problem has been the Bush/McCain looming shadow of endless occupation.

Any talk of withdrawal is because of the success that the Surge in US military forces has brought to Iraq as well as the continued development of the Iraqi security forces. If Barack Obama had his way, the Surge would not have happened, violenced would not have been reduced and would have potentially exploded as US forces left the country. The United States could be looking at the total collapse of the Iraqi government and military with consequences that could potentially force the United States to invade Iraq again.

when the hegemonic superpower sets the terms and conditions, and the right to endlessly reset said terms and conditions -- based on things such as domestic policy, petty score keeping, the need to beat home the "appeasement/dolschstoss" narrative and have one more go at Vietnam-era narratives -- there's really not much incentive for the Iraqis themselves to start to work things out for themselves.

United States policy in Iraq over the past 5 years has been based on US security needs there and nothing else. Iraqi's have been fighting and dying for 5 years now to help rebuild the country and defeat Al Quada, the remainder of Saddam's regime, Shia militia's and meddling by Iran and Syria. The idea that Iraqi's have not had any incentive to work things out is just absurd.

so, it's less "the surge" that's brought about political confidence. but more the light at the end of the dark, dark Bush/McCain tunnel.

Thats what you would like it to be, but that is not the case by any objective examination of events over the past 18 months. Political confidence and progress on many issues has come about because violence has been greatly reduced. The reason that violence has been reduced is because of the successful counterinsurgency tactics of the US military as well as the surge in the number of troops. Even staunch opponents of the Surge are addmitting, given the obvious success, that it has worked.
 


Well, interesting to see that Barack Obama has yet to "refine" is policy on Iraq insisting withdrawing immediately without conditions, and continues to mourn the removal of Saddam from power and believe that the region and world would be safer if he were still there.

Perhaps he might learn a few things on his new trip to Iraq from these men:

YouTube - Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan is Impossible



Barack Obama claimed that the Surge would make violence in Iraq worse. But the results have been exactly the opposite of what he claimed it would be.
 
and John McCain can go eff himself over this one:

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has left many Republicans unsettled about his ideological bearings by toggling between reliably conservative issues like support for gun owners’ rights and an emphasis on centrist messages like his willingness to tackle global warming and provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Those tensions were apparent in the interview as well, as Mr. McCain offered a variety of answers — sometimes nuanced in their phrasing, sometimes not — about his views on social issues.

Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. “I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption,” he said.



better an orphan than raised by the 'mos!
 
and John McCain can go eff himself over this one:
better an orphan than raised by the 'mos!

I read that this morning. It's all the more offensive to me that someone who has adopted feels that way.

I just don't get that "both parents are important". Obviously he means that it has to be a MAN and a WOMAN. It's all about a happy and healthy relationship and good parenting, not gender. How do we explain away all the straight parents in miserable marriages and poor parenting that leads to problems for kids? We just pretend that away I guess.
 
My Plan for Iraq

By BARACK OBAMA
The New York Times (Op-Ed), July 14.



anyway, this is an excellent op-ed. it, again, blows holes through claims that Obama has rescinded on his plan to bring troops home next March, or that he's somehow "flip-flopped" (what an awful word to enter the political language).

it's all very clear:

Obama has always wanted a timed, cautious withdrawal over a period of months (not years, or decades). Obama has always said that the general timeframe for this will be about 18 months (give or taken, depending on conditions and logistics, which only makes sense). the only change is to when this withdrawal starts. because Congress has failed in it's efforts to begin withdrawal, we now have to wait until a President Obama can start on January 21.

the Iraqi government has moved towards this decision. as we saw yesterday, even the Bush administration has moved towards this position.

how long are we going to buy this "victory" vs. "defeat" false choice?
 
anyway, this is an excellent op-ed. it, again, blows holes through claims that Obama has rescinded on his plan to bring troops home next March, or that he's somehow "flip-flopped" (what an awful word to enter the political language).

I agree, it appears he is still sticking to starting and immediate withdrawal irregardless of conditions on the ground in Iraq.

Obama has always wanted a timed, cautious withdrawal over a period of months (not years, or decades). Obama has always said that the general timeframe for this will be about 18 months (give or taken, depending on conditions and logistics, which only makes sense).

Obama has always had a timed based withdrawal plan rather than a conditions based one as the Bush administration, Iraqi government, and US military have had.

we now have to wait until a President Obama can start on January 21.

Provided a. He wins the election in November which is getting tighter by the day now. b. he does not "refine" his policy.


the Iraqi government has moved towards this decision. as we saw yesterday, even the Bush administration has moved towards this position.

Show me where the Iraqi government and the Bush administration have in any way ever supported the idea of withdrawing coalition forces from Iraq without first insuring that Iraq is stable and secure and that the Iraqi security forces will be able to handle and take over from any US combat brigades that are withdrawn?


how long are we going to buy this "victory" vs. "defeat" false choice?

So whats Obama's withdrawal time table for Afghanistan?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom