John McCain knows Iraq better than Iraqis do. At least that's what he asserted this morning. Said McCain on the Today show: "I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with [Nouri al-Maliki], and I know what they want."

McCain was more in touch with Iraqi public opinion back in 2004. He was asked that summer, "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave?"

Responded McCain: "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave."

Well that's precisely what the Iraqis are saying now, with Iraqi PM Maliki practically endorsing Barack Obama over the weekend and backing his 16-month timeline for troop withdrawals.

Only now McCain doesn't wanna hear it. His new slogan can best be described as: "I'll do what's best for the Iraqis--regardless of what they think!"

Maybe instead of running for the presidency, McCain should become Iraq's next prime minister. That way he can ensure that America stays there forever.

Comments (56)

1. This is really devolved from the Right Wing talking points on Iraq from just a few weeks ago, when al-Maliki "hinted" at wanting us out with time-tables.

   The cries immediately became (essentially) "What the hell does an Iraq Prime Minister know about what's best for Iraq!?!?!"

   I actually saw a neo-con (on another blog) say, when mocked that "Those Iraqis just don't know what's good for them, do they?" that....

   "Yes, that's right. Maybe they don't. They're like children. Living in the 7th Century!"

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 12:10pm

2. In a March national poll of Iraqis, 66-80% support a continuing role for US troops in Iraq. The strong end of that support was for US combat operations against al-Qaeda and foreign fighters.

   Coincidentally, March was when all US combat forces would have been withdrawn under Obama's "real plan," as detailed in the January '07 legislation he sponsored in opposition to the troop surge. Who's "in touch with Iraqi public opinion?"

   If we had listened to Obama, our forces would have been unable to support the Iraqi Army in its counter-terrorist operations in Basra, Mosul, and Sadr City, which also began last March. If Obama had been in charge, the Sunni "Awakening Councils" would not have had the support of our surge troops for their successful operations against AQI, and they may not have gotten off the ground at all (except maybe as rebels).

   Because Obama was wrong, the Iraqi central government is now stronger. Because we ignored his foolish posturing, the March poll shows that 95% of Sunnis now desire full participation in the Iraqi government, which is very good news for the October elections (not to mention for the integration of a new pluralist Iraqi society).

   Obama backed the wrong play, and thankfully lost. Of course NOW, when Maliki is playing politics to rally the factions, Obama is happy to play political opportunist and appear to have been right all along.

   The 16-month timetable is merely Obama's latest shift, and it was concocted without any consultation with any political or military leaders whatsoever. Aspirationally, I'd be delighted to see our troops out in 16 months, but setting such a timetable BEFORE visiting the country, knowing the results of the Iraqi elections, or seeing the Iraqi legislation covering economic redevelopment is plainly irresponsible. A 4-month withdrawal plan offered 1 year from now would be much less naive.

   Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 12:12pm

3. The 16-month timetable is merely Obama's latest shift, and it was concocted without any consultation with any political or military leaders whatsoever.

   Aspirationally, I'd be delighted to see our troops out in 16 months----Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 12:12pm

   So it was concocted without any consultation with political or military leaders...

   but now you support it?

   Ah-ha

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 12:19pm

4. "In a March national poll of Iraqis, 66-80% support a continuing role for US troops in Iraq."

   evidence?

   Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 1:01pm

5. Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 12:19pm

   I support (and have always supported) an intelligent withdrawal after 1) defeat of AQI 2) placement of a strong and democratic central Iraqi government, and 3) training of a strong and independent Iraqi military and security operation beholden to that government.

   #1 seems ALMOST accomplished, no thanks to Obama. The other items are a work in progress with encouraging signs, with #3 in particular appearing slated to be completed in about one year's time.

   The reason it's even possible to rationally discuss a withdrawal in 16 months has everything to do with the surge, but that doesn't make it WISE to wave the lollipop around so publicly, especially when you had nothing to do with it. Maliki has better justification for this than Obama does, but he's also using the language for his own political purposes, even if he doesn't believe it himself. Just a week ago, his office proposed a timetable of 3-5 years for withdrawal of US troops. Have things changed so much in a week?

   Things ARE likely to change month-to-month, no doubt, which is why the "idea" of a published timetable for withdrawal is so childish. It's exactly why Obama is wrong again (even if his flipped timeframe turns out to be a close GUESS), and doesn't change the pertinent fact that his anti-surge policy was completely incorrect.

   Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 1:13pm

6. evidence?

   Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008

   The poll is here:

   http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=4444000&page=1

   The story is 4 pages, and includes a link with a PDF file of the polling data. My statistic about Iraqi support for continuing US troop ops came from the middle of the story's page 2. My statistic about enthusiastic Sunnis came from the middle of page 3.

   Don't miss the stat at the bottom of page 1: Almost half (49%) of all Iraqis believe it was right for the US to invade. Bear in mind that probably doesn't include ANY Arab Sunnis. Here's another instance where Obama's out of touch with the Iraqi public...except those who were privilged under the prior regime.

   Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 1:24pm

7. Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 1:13pm

   Facts are all you Republicans care about! Facts! What about FEELINGS! FEELINGS count too!

   Posted by pontificus at 07/21/2008 @ 1:26pm

8. I wish we knew the truth about the situation on the ground in Iraq. I don't know about you, but I have never been to Iraq. I don't understand the Iraqi people.

   But do they really deserve McCain? Pretty harsh post Ari.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 07/21/2008 @ 1:27pm

9. "and doesn't change the pertinent fact that his anti-surge policy was completely incorrect"

   how is something a "fact" when there is no evidence to support its existence?

   Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 1:27pm

10. "Facts are all you Republicans care about! Facts! What about FEELINGS! FEELINGS count too!"

    are facts and feelings diametrically opposed?

    and what of bush's "gut instincts" which you so proudly supported for the last 8 years?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 1:29pm

11. "Here's another instance where Obama's out of touch with the Iraqi public"

    this is an astounding statement, and one which should be compared to statements and actions made and performed by mccain and bush, as well as the vast swath of pundits and media stars who have cheered on the invasion and occuption for the last 5 years.

    if obama is "out of touch with the iraqi public," then what are the qualifications for being "in touch"? support for the invasion? support for ransacking the country and its invaluable resources? support for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? support for indefinite military presence in the country? support for an indefinite "surge"? unrelenting and uneven support for israel? and, as i guess you might presume, support for the most radical of bush's policies in the so-called "war on terror" (e.g. no habeaus corpus, torture, guantanamo, abu ghraib, illegal wiretapping)?

    to claim that obama has been wrong-headed on iraq foreign policty, or even broader middle east policy, is to show default support, and even appreciation, for the most disastrous foreign policy action in the history of our country: the illegal and unilateral invasion and occupation of a foreign country which had nothing (!) to do with 9.11.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:01pm

12. darladoon, it's tough to argue the "fact" that Obama was wrong about the surge, because there are so many supporting "facts" for its success that he had to change his website.

    Fact #1 - The Sunni Awakening Councils threw al-Qaeda for a loop when they began to join the US surge troops in counter-terrorism ops last year:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece

    Under Obama's plan, we would have been withrawing troops (under heavy fire, no doubt) instead of organizing, arming, training, and fighting with these militias. Their success has empowered the Sunnis in a nationalist way.

    Fact #2 - The Iraqi central government is looking less Shi'a-biased and more centrally representative due to the operations against Shi'a militias (including al-Sadr's Mahdi Army) since March. I'll let you do your own research on the first campaign in Basra, which was not a sure thing and would likely have failed without support from US surge forces. Instead, the operations have been a confidence-builder, both for Iraqi Security Forces, and in the public's perception of the central gov. It's not a stretch to think it would have gone badly under Obama's plan, when all our combat troops would have been GONE just as these operations came on line. In this case, it would have been more likely for al-Sadr to return and take over in establishing Iraq as a new Iranian suburb.

    A rookie POTUS is worse than an experienced POTUS. Now that's a fact that's more than a feeling. But it's a pretty strong feeling too, and it seems quite like common sense to me.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 2:03pm

13. Poll of Iraqis: Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, but Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq

    January 31, 2006

    Half of Iraqis Approve of Attacks on US Forces, Including 9 Out of 10 Sunnis

    http://tinyurl.com/p6ldr

    Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year

    September 27, 2006

    Say U.S. Presence Provoking More Conflict Than it is Preventing

    Approval of Attacks on U.S.-led Forces Rises to 6 in 10

    Published September 27, 2006

    http://tinyurl.com/uktho

    Poll: 58 percent want U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2008

    POSTED: 6:00 a.m. EDT, March 13, 2007

    http://tinyurl.com/64elxt

    Seven out of 10 Iraqis want foreign forces to leave: poll

    Published: Monday March 17, 2008

    LONDON (AFP) - More than two-thirds of Iraqis believe US-led coalition forces should leave, according to a poll conducted for British television ahead of the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion

    http://tinyurl.com/2s3u97

    Oh and in the USA:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 2:03pm

14. Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 1:13pm

    So we can "hint" that we're goign to withdraw in 16 months...but we can't actually SAY that we will?!??!!?

    And won't "Al Qaeda in Iraq" start to "wise up" as they see our troops packing up over the next year and 4 months????

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 2:05pm

15. "A rookie POTUS is worse than an experienced POTUS. Now that's a fact that's more than a feeling. But it's a pretty strong feeling too, and it seems quite like common sense to me."

    wouldn't an "experienced" potus know that iraq doesn't border afghanistan?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC0Y7zMcn_4

    Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:21pm

16. "A rookie POTUS is worse than an experienced POTUS"... Now that's a fact supported by the presidency of Bush 43 and...what else? Of course, McCain would be a rookie POTUS, too. Does anybody else get the feeling that McCain is just a lazier, dumber, more confused version of Bush?

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/21/2008 @ 2:29pm

17. hsuBfools - There's no disputing that most Iraqis want US troops to leave in a general way. They want their own sovereign country, eventually. But it's easy to see, even from the older polls you were citing, that clear majorities don't think their security forces are ready to do it on their own, yet.

    It may seem helpful to toss in domestic US polling data both at the end of your list and elsewhere in the middle. But you're really just obscuring the point. There's a reason we have a CIC and why we don't run wars by referendum: it's too easy for political hacks (like the Dems and Obama) to engage in demagoguery against US policy for their own purposes. It is interesting to note that polling data showed roughly 75% US public support for the Iraq war at its inception...so Obama was "out of touch" with the public here at home, as well.

    darladoon, I DID and DO support the war in Iraq, which was NOT illegal, but was sanctioned by Congress and the UN. Those bodies did not sanction the action because of Iraq's "ties to 9/11," but it's clear that al-Qaeda came there later to fight, instead of heading back to flight school.

    Obama v2003 on his initial opposition to the war: *I began to suspect that I might have been wrong.* (The Audacity of Hope, pub 2006)

    Obama v2004 on shuB's strategy: *There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.* Chigago Tribune, 7/04.

    Some commentators are actually brave enough to challenge your assertions about the war overall, in spite of the latest US polling data (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/15801)

    *In fact, it is far from clear that Iraq will be judged a strategic blunder at all, let alone the "greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy." It is now plausible to argue that the Iraq war will lead to a defeat of historic proportions for al Qaeda.*

    History will decide this. But it's pretty clear that Obama has been consistently wrong on the war, even when he managed to firmly agree with himself.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 2:42pm

18. "It is interesting to note that polling data showed roughly 75% US public support for the Iraq war at its inception...so Obama was "out of touch" with the public here at home, as well"

    it's not difficult to understand *why* large majorities supported the invasion at its inception: they were aided and abetted by domestic traitors, such as yourself.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:46pm

19. Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:21pm

    It's a slip of the lip, where McCain obviously was talking about the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and said Iraq by mistake instead of the latter country.

    Just because you misquoted his slip doesn't invalidate your all your arguments. This particular argument is wrong all by itself, even if you had quoted him correctly.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 2:49pm

20. "History will decide this. But it's pretty clear that Obama has been consistently wrong on the war"

    i'm sorry, but this conversation is over. i can't sit here and waste my time discussing with someone who actually made the above claim.

    here's another good one:

    "it's too easy for political hacks (like the Dems and Obama) to engage in demagoguery against US policy for their own purposes"

    my head is spinning

    and the last one:

    "but it's clear that al-Qaeda came there later to fight"

    uh, yeah. i guess that is pretty clear. now, i wonder how that happened......?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:51pm

21. "It's a slip of the lip, where McCain obviously was talking about the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and said Iraq by mistake instead of the latter country"

    right. sure thing. amen.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:52pm

22. "History will decide this"

    history is not a person. history doesn't make decisions.

    and stop quoting bush, please.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:53pm

23. hey manover, has bill kristol been consistently right about the war?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:54pm

24. it's not difficult to understand *why* large majorities supported the invasion at its inception: they were aided and abetted by domestic traitors, such as yourself.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:46pm

    So in your mind, my like-minded pals and me, operating against our country's interest, rallied 75% of the nation to support a war overseas.

    I fogot all about that! Jeepers, I'd better get started on that November McCain landslide right now! <Reaching for the phone>

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 2:56pm

25. No surprise here: The Nation and the leftist bloggers completely distort what McCain actually said in order to keep themselves stirred up with lies.

    "John McCain: "I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be -- the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it's fragile, and could be reversed very easily."

    So McCain clearly outlines that a withdrawal is possible and likely if conditions permit.

    Also, the Nation falsely outlines what Iraq actually said.

    "Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team.

    "We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," al-Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence kicks up again."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25774091

    But it's just so convenient to tell half truths and lies rather than report objectively.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/21/2008 @ 3:06pm

26. darladoon, I DID and DO support the war in Iraq, which was NOT illegal, but was sanctioned by Congress and the UN.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 2:42pm

    NOT. Go back and read the legislation a lot more carefully. Congress said 'with UN approval'. The hsuB/cHeney admin backed down for a UN security counsel's approval to go to war with Iraq and pulled the inspectors out. No UN approval to go in per hsuB/cHeney fear of denial and thus the reason the UN SG Annan called it illegal:

    'Illegal invasion'

    Mr Annan told the BBC World Service he hoped he would not see "another Iraq-type operation for a long time".

    He said there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections and it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences.

    The invasion of Iraq was illegal, he said, from the point of view of the UN charter.

    http://tinyurl.com/5czls

    hsuB/cHeney admin made up BS about 'international law' and sold it to other countries on the US corporate dole for back up in the illegal war. What's a UN to do against a petty dic'tator with #1 super power... And the congress was in new con repub perv power.

    Overboard sure seems to make a lot of convenient mistakes... Must be a repub new con thing.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 3:21pm

27. Posted by darladoon at 07/21/2008 @ 2:46pm

    No, actually they were lied to. Not just on the reasons we "had to go to war"...but on the war itself.

    Cheney himself declared that it would cost "no more than $50 Billion" and laughed at EARLY estimates of "upto $200 Billion".

    They were also duped into thinking that "Mission Accomplished" meant the end of the war in Iraq...it was a campaign ad that was to be used in 2004. Obviouosly "the situation on the ground changed" (to these same people who were so ABLE to predict a "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud").

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 3:22pm

28. So in your mind, my like-minded pals and me, operating against our country's interest, rallied 75% of the nation to support a war overseas.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 2:56pm

    It's already been proven by reams of evidence that the hsuB/cHeney admin lied about WMD als cherry picking weak intel to support their decision to go to a unnecessary war. You as well as they, have blood on your hands 'overboard' dic'tator worshiper.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 3:30pm

29. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/21/2008 @ 3:06pm

    McCain has been all over the place on Iraq.

    Remember first he was "maintaining a presence" for 100 years...which quickly became "I'll have it won by January 2013"....to now an acceptance that Obama and al-Maliki want most of the troops out by 2010 "with conditions".

    You KNOW what's coming if McCain wins....he wants out to secure himself a place in history and if he's truly serious about "no 2nd term", that means getting out fast and quick...i.e. Obama's 16 month plan.

    He can always blame any collapse in Iraq on the Iraqi government and troops, but will always add that HE was duped as well by them (into thinking they were "ready")....and hope that just getting us out (as 70% of America wants) is enough to secure his legacy.

    And even if he "loses Iraq" on his watch...the die-hard 30% (like you) aren't going anywhere in 2012 for him or his Veep (unless...heheh..it's Romney!!!)...since you'll NEVER vote Democratic.

    Come on Larry...you're old enough...you saying you don't remember NIXON and his promises in 1972...and what he did as soon as January 1973 rolled around???

    Why did Nixon sign Paris?....why won't McCain sign a similar deal?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 3:42pm

30. If Obama had been in charge, the Sunni "Awakening Councils" would not have had the support of our surge troops for their successful operations against AQI, and they may not have gotten off the ground at all (except maybe as rebels).

    ...it's too easy for political hacks (like the Dems and Obama) to engage in demagoguery against US policy for their own purposes.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 12:12pm

    "Awakienng" sounds a lot like just 'turning the corner'; pretty much after another few million Iraqis leave, maimed or are killed, things will settle down.

    Surge or more new con double speak BS?:

    Sunday, September 14, 2003

    MR. RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you're going to get into a debate here about--talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that's a non-starter. I don't think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don't think it's necessary to do that.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

    No 'surge', just a lot of fucked-up as long as possible dragged-out for no-bid money grabbing.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/20/2008 @ 12:28pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 3:52pm

31. Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 3:42pm

    There is no change from the 100 year comment. Furthermore, it has always been the position of Bush and McCain on staying in Iraq premised on the Iraqi's permission.

    Your impression of what McCain needs to do is solely based upon your anti-war bias. In fact, polls show Americans are indeed moving more towards McCain's views.

    Nixon's liberal beliefs led the way on how he treated Nam

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/21/2008 @ 3:58pm

32. Anyone who aspires to solve problems, better thinks he/she knows XYZ better than XYZians!!! This doesn't mean that the aspiring problem solver, necessarily knows all the nitty gritty details of being an XYZian

    Isn't that the point behind all activism and being activists, that the Left bitterly clings to as its religion?

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/21/2008 @ 4:13pm

33. shuBfools - You make one good argument, but obscure it with mistakes and exaggeration. The final "go to war" never came from them, as you said. Resolution 1441--the 13th in a series about Iraq's IAEA intransigence--authorized immediate resumption of inspections, warning only of "serious consequences" (yet another resolution, maybe?) in case of non-compliance. Yes, I clearly remember the assertion of Koffi "MySonGetsOilForFoodMoneyFromIraq" Annan. Do you remember the UN Resolution condemming the coalition's "illegal Iraq war?" Neither do I. Nor can I find any successful legal challenge whatsoever.

    But you're just wrong about the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." The Spratt Amendment requiring UNSC approval failed, so your hopes that the invasion was illegal under US law are unfounded.

    Proving that "Bush lied about WMD" is something that has not been done. Or maybe you have a link to court proceedings. I'll settle for your normal splatter of questionable URLs, if you want. You know Saddam was sitting on 500 tons of yellowcake uranium while thumbing his nose at the UN, don't you?

    We all have blood on our hands. If you vote in November, you'll have it too. Obama is promising more blood in Afghanistan as we speak, and on his first prospective day in office, he'll have bloody hands too. The question always is whether it's "worth it," and the majority of non-Saddamist Iraqis have answered that question in the March poll: their innocent blood was spilled for a right cause, in their eyes.

    What about our fallen soldiers? If Obama were president in '04, we'd have quit before realizing the current gains acclaimed by him. If we fail to support the new Iraqi regime militarily and financially (yes, Bush is keeping those international creditors from plucking up those frozen Iraqi assets) until the job is done, we'll have the embarrassing loss you and some others seem to think has already occurred. It won't be "worth it" then. But if we succeed, and a new Iraqi democracy takes root, then we've changed history for the better in the most chaotic and dangerous part of today's world...and you'll be finding a new nickname.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 4:18pm

34. "I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war--only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies." McCave

    Ok given our 'real' history, (not the usual new con BS/hot air delusional one), when we left S. Vietnam and it became simply Vietnam, did/does that hamper in any way the US multinationals from doing business there? Did Vietnam's 'victory' destroy the US? Did communism take over the world? But the US sure did get back on it's feet, er, well, until we had the 12 yrs of repub congressional majority rule and hsuB/cHeney-- that is. Now we're back to being ruled not only by what Eisenhower warned us about-- the Military Industrial Complex, but also the big business / energy / insurance corporations.

    So bottom line, if it were up to McCave-- we'd still be in S. Vietnam.

    I think perhaps a large part of what made McCave, is what stayed in Vietnam. And perhaps McCave is compelled to filling in the hole he's currently in with enough BS to float him up and out of it; much like the hsuB/cHeney rush to war in Iraq and wanting to stay there.

    Ok so it does make some weird sense considering it's new con repubs.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 5:00pm

35. We eventually succeeded in Vietnam when Reagan killed Communism in the 80's. Although the commie party is still in charge politically, Vietnam largely eschewed socialism in their 1986 Đổi Mới free-market reforms. They're looking much better now, but for many years Vietnamese citizens were fleeing by the millions in ramshackle boats. Success for them could have come a lot sooner, as the fall of Communism should have, to the more immediate benefit of the world.

    Of course, the NVA didn't attack the US homeland. The consequences of allowing al-Qaeda to declare any sort of victory, anywhere, are directly relevant to the US, in a way the Vietnam War was not. A more stable Middle East/Central Asia is at stake...it's not just important "over there."

    What's more important here and now: Obama's problem is not just his short resumé (scary enough). It's that he just doesn't know what he's doing. He talks a good game (until the wind blows), but what he actually DOES (voting against the surge) has been wrong so far. On Iraq policy, he's 0-1 from the bench. Back to the farm club, I say.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 5:29pm

36. But you're just wrong about the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 4:18pm

    NOT.

    The resolution had conditions for giving hsuB the authority and that is the point in question and you know it.

    "The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to

    "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

    and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council

    to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance

    and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

    And since:

    "In 2003, the US, British, and Spanish governments proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution". This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast 'no' votes on any new resolution, thereby seeing it 'vetoed'.[2] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council--the US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria--well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes."

    Thus hsuB/cHeney admin decided not to give Sodumn Insane his last chance per 1441, kicked the inspectors out against Blix recommendation, and started a war.

    And lastly:

    "There is a heated debate regarding whether the invasion was launched with the explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council. The Government of the United States believes that the invasion was explicitly authorized by Security Council Resolution 678 and thus complies with international law.[4] There is no debate that Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." [5], just debate about what that resolution actually means. The only legal jurisdiction to find "aggression" or to find the invasion illegal rests with the Security Council under United Nations Charter Articles 39-42. The Security Council met in 2003 for two days, reviewed the legal claims involved, and elected to be "seized of the matter".[6] The Security Council has not reviewed these issues since 2003. The public debate, however, continues. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his opinion that the invasion of Iraq was "not in conformity with the UN charter…from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 5:58pm

37. We eventually succeeded in Vietnam when Reagan killed Communism in the 80's.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 5:29pm

    So Raygun was so so confused that he 'really meant' that it was the Chinese that should tare down their great wall, not the USSR's Berlin wall!?!?! Oh ok...

    Man are repub new cons really funny.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 6:06pm

38. er, tear down...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 6:08pm

39. Granted, finally, the Bush Admin decided not to pursue a formal authorization for war from UNSC. Didn't I grant that already?

    And yes, I'm partial to the argument that we ultimately didn't need UN say-so to make things internationally legal. Resolution 678 supported our military operations in the no-fly zones of Iraq before the 2003 invasion, and has never been rescinded. The phrase "and to restore international peace and security in the area" is a pretty broad umbrella.

    Congress DID NOT make this a condition of their authorization. Their only conditions were that Bush had to explain the failure of diplomacy within 48 hours after he chose to use force in Iraq, and for him to provide 60-day reports to Congress thereafter. Plus he had to agree to continue pursuing other nations and agencies in the War on Terror.

    Here's the text of the legislation: http://tinyurl.com/akr1

    Bush's actions under Congress' resolution were perfectly legal. Bush "supported" and "encouraged" diplomacy too (went a little further than that actually, but this is not Congress' job, after all).

    And that's an important point. The "conditional authorization" you think they were granting is not within their Legislative authority. If you read the resolution down to Section 3(c)(1) you'll get to the only meat, where authorization is granted under the War Powers Act. All the rest of the text is merely fluff for the history books. After that, it's up to the CIC, who is legally empowered under US law.

    Soon, we may need a "Magic Powers Act" to restrain the Obama's use of dangerously persuasive personality. He might accidentally persuade the whole Middle East that the US really means what he said about Jerusalem in his AIPAC speech, for instance.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 6:46pm

40. FEELINGS count too!

    Posted by pontificus at 07/21/2008

    i bet you make a great husband.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/21/2008 @ 8:27pm

41. Congress DID NOT make this a condition of their authorization.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 6:46pm

    I love it when new cons say the words don't mean the same thing in their world. See a law isn't a law then and they can break it without breaking it, in their world. See how it all works out for them. And they ain't criminals or perv's or dic'tators. Well, because it's their "manufactured reality" after all.

    Funny how it works when people start catching on that new con repubs are simply liars.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 9:48pm

42. shuBfools - You make one good argument, but obscure it with mistakes and exaggeration. The final "go to war" never came from them, as you said.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 6:46pm

    No Overbroad you said:

    "darladoon, I DID and DO support the war in Iraq, which was NOT illegal, but was sanctioned by Congress and the UN."

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 2:42pm

    And this is the text and the conditions congress set and the hsuB/cHeney admin did not follow:

    "The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/21/2008 @ 10:14pm

43. hsuBfools (10:14pm) - I gave you the link to the actual resolution text. If you explored that, you seem to have been unable to tear yourself away from Section 2:

    *SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.*

    These are nice sentiments of support for the President's diplomatic efforts. I don't see anything yet about authorizing force in Iraq, do you? Oh wait, that's a whole new section (and I'm sorry to have to quote it, everybody):

    *SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) Authorization. --The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

    (b) Presidential Determination. --In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.*

    Show me anything other than a reporting requirement here. Even if you think you can, it doesn't matter. I mentioned Section 3(c)(1), but did you notice S3(c)(2) while you were there? More quoting:

    *(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- (1) Specific statutory authorization.-- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of other requirements.-- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.*

    What do take as the meaning of S3(c)(2)? I'll tell you again: it means, "All the rest of the text is merely fluff for the history books."

    It's an unadulterated congressional green light. It doesn't confer any criminality because Bush's diplomatic "efforts" were unsuccessful (even with the "support" and "encouragement" of the Congress, effective as that stuff usually is at the Oil-For-Food money-grubbing UN). Likewise, it was completely Bush's determination to use force in compliance with national security and UN enforcement objectives, and his decision fully complied with S3(a)(1)&(2), even though S3(c)(2) acknowledges that compliance is not required.

    You may ask "why not?" Well, Congress generally knows better than to exceed the parameters of the War Powers Act, which itself stands on infirm ground, constitutionally. S3(c)(2) allows them to disavow any overreach, which might spur a challenge to the Act.

    No legal loophole for Congress to be found. They authorized, therefore Bush acted legally.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 11:22pm

44. "Yes, that's right. Maybe they don't. They're like children. Living in the 7th Century!"

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 12:10pm

    wait till they get homedepot.

    then they will truly have evolved.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/21/2008 @ 11:43pm

45. No legal loophole for Congress to be found. They authorized, therefore Bush acted legally.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 11:22pm

    i bet the armless iraqi children agree.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/21/2008 @ 11:43pm

46. McCain indicates US troops could withdraw in 2 years

    Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:44pm EDT Email

    By Jeff Mason

    BUFFALO, New York, July 21 (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain appeared to leave a door open on Monday to a large-scale drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq in the next two years.

    McCain, who has wrapped up his party's White House nomination, has long argued against setting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 01:17am

47. "then we've changed history for the better in the most chaotic and dangerous part of today's world"

    it would take me many months, and many essays, to describe the wretchedness that exists behind the above words.....

    Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 01:56am

48. It's an unadulterated congressional green light.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 11:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    What BS. It's like saying you can drive a car legally if you pass the drivers test and get a license, but skipping to the driving the car part and saying -see- it says I can drive a car, the all other stuff doesn't mean anything.

    Ah, new con repubs, like devious teens, always pushing the realm of reason. But then again sometimes they get lucky and their drunk driving doesn't cause an accident or kill someone.

    Unfortunately the hsuB/cHeney admin has cause so so much death and destruction, it is rather pitiful to witness people like Overboard, even while lemming-like falling over the cliff, continue to tell us that they're not falling- they're not falling- they're not falling... SPLATTTT.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 08:49am

49. er, 'all the' other stuff doesn't mean anything.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 08:52am

50. John McCain appeared to leave a door open on Monday to a large-scale drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq in the next two years.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 01:17am

    2 years, 100, 1000, what's the difference?

    I'm sure McCave hasn't a clue at this point and is trying just to remember whatever his handlers are telling to say to WIN; no matter how much McCave contradicts himself and how often.

    It's all about confusion anyway.

    Enough confusion and the new con repub calculation is that enough people will give up on truth and just do what they're told.

    Ah, new con repubs, don't you just love the way the little demons just scurry about.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 09:06am

51. *i bet the armless iraqi children agree.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/21/2008 @ 11:43pm*

    *"then we've changed history for the better in the most chaotic and dangerous part of today's world"

    it would take me many months, and many essays, to describe the wretchedness that exists behind the above words.....

    Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 01:56am*

    These are related statements, which retreat to the essential emotional claim that there is no justification for the Iraq War. Unsurprisingly, shuBfools gets in on the act as well, abandoning ineffectual legal arguments and fleeing to the comfort zone of repetative, mindless vituperation.

    In an effort to speak your language, I'll engage in a little demagoguery of my own. Anyone care about this stuff?

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/6/231427.shtml

    It's a short article about the 2003 History Channel mini-series covering the brutality of the prior Iraqi regime, and it shouldn't strain anyone's attention span. Here's a horrible excerpt:

    *Along the way the mesmerized viewer is introduced to acid-drip machines in torture chambers, the mass public hangings of Jews Saddam claimed were "spies," and grisly anecdotes of torture to induce false confessions -- with husbands forced to watch the raping of their wives, parents the gouging out of their children's eyes, or the horrific image of a baby flung into a wall to shatter its skull.*

    Now look, I don't want to go here. I want to have a rational argument. But that's not what you're going with, folks, so I'll run with what you're bringing. How wretched were we to put a stop to all this? Can we ignore the fact that most Iraqis (those who didn't participate in the regime) think we were right to invade? I suppose YOU can: just point at another War victim and tell yourself that YOU know Iraq better than the Iraqis do. Obama will lead the way for you; he's just as naive.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/22/2008 @ 09:57am

52. Posted by man00ver at 07/22/2008 @ 09:57am

    So, you supported going into Rwanda...

    AND SUPPORT us going into Kenya and Darfur?

    Or is it just SOME murders and tortures that you oppose and think are worthy of US troops and billions of dollars (on credit, mind you)?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 10:58am

53. Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 10:58am

    It seems a reasonable question, Maskdelta. It also seems like an attempt to broaden a dying discussion into a slippery argument about selective morality. I guess I'll engage, since I allowed myself to be dragged into a moral weighing of our actions in Iraq.

    I fundamentally oppose murder and torture. Wow, that was tough.

    Obviously, it's not possible for the US to intervene militarily in all cases. Some rules of priority apply. Cases involving our national security and that of our allies come first. Cases where we bear significant historic responsiblity for the state of a foreign nation should also drive us to intervene on moral grounds. Cases where our prior involvement has been minimal are better left to nations with more involvement and to neighboring states. Other cases without direct casus belli for the US can be imagined, such as those where we're the only ones that can or will intervene, particularly those cases where our intervention is called for by allies or the UN. What are your thoughts?

    Posted by man00ver at 07/22/2008 @ 11:59am

54. I fundamentally oppose murder and torture. Wow, that was tough.

    Posted by man00ver at 07/22/2008 @ 11:59am

    Ha-- new con repubs are such obviously spineless cowardly blowhards. Can't defend 'war for profit' that is the Iraq war, but will obfuscate another and probably more severe horror in need of international help we can't provide per 'a war of choice and profit' that is Iraq.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 12:27pm

55. ...it is rather pitiful to witness people like Overboard, even while lemming-like falling over the cliff, continue to tell us that they're not falling- they're not falling- they're not falling... SPLATTTT.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2008 @ 12:32pm

56. Ok the only proper context for the nonexistent surge:

    "There have been more US soldier casualties in the 1st 6 months of 2008-- than there were in the 1st 6 months of the Iraq war in 2003."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 9:10pm