deep
Blue Crack Addict
I'll let Irvine get into that, if he chooses to. My point was simply that I think he was aiming at you not Obama in that post.
I don't disagree, I don't believed it is justified.
I'll let Irvine get into that, if he chooses to. My point was simply that I think he was aiming at you not Obama in that post.
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.
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?
I also never really believed that Obama was going to insist on a 16 month withdrawal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 he has up to this point.
While moving towards the Bush/McCain position
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?
I do believe others have implied race was a consideration in my concerns with Obama.
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.
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 do believe there are other points of view beyond immediate withdrawal or moving to the policies of the Bush adminstration.
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.
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.
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.
Well, Bush administration policy is withdrawal only when conditions on the ground warrent it.
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.
I don't disagree, I don't believed it is justified.
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.
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,
how 60+ permanent bases built in Iraq don't seem to show much faith in the "improvement" in conditions on the ground.
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:
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.
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.
Do you have plans to get taken seriously in the future?
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.
and John McCain can go eff himself over this one:
better an orphan than raised by the 'mos!
My Plan for Iraq
By BARACK OBAMA
The New York Times (Op-Ed), July 14.
Do you have plans to get taken seriously in the future?
Have you ever read what Obama's has said about the invasion of Iraq?
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).
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).
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?
Yes.
Can you show me some "mourning"?