Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditHere's a transcript of Barack Obama's comments on Iraq. Read the whole thing. I admit I am worried, but in his remarks Obama seems to be clear that he, not the generals, will decide Iraq policy. And he reaffirms, explicitly, his sixteen-month timetable for pulling out combat forces. What worries me, of course, is the change in emphasis that Obama seemed to be signaling, especially since Obama isunder a great deal of pressure from liberal hawks to modify his Iraq stand.
You'll note in what follows that Obama seems to be concentrating not on the withdrawal pace, i.e, one to two brigades a month over 16 months, but on the residual force that will remain. He talks about "how we should structure training for Iraqi military and police [and] what kinds of troop presence will we need in order for that to occur?" Previously, though, Obama has said very, very little on training. Instead, he has talked about counterterrorism and protecting the huge US embassy. So the emphasis on training is worrisome.
What follows is the transcript of his news conference in Fargo, North Dakota, in which he attempted to "try this again"and clarify his original remarks:
Q: In your opening statement you talked about obtaining training data on Iraqi forces, what can you learn in Iraq that you can't learn in Washington, D.C.
Obama: Well there's no doubt that a lot of this info I've been obtaining in Washington but I also think it's important to be in discussions directly not only with commanders but also Iraqi officials. And other leaders in the region.
Q: Your website says U.S. troops will be out in 16 months. Is there a need to modify that information?
Obama : You know, I have to say that there is nothing that that website says that contradicts what I've said here. I will bring this war to close, I think it is important for us to do strategically.
Q: What did you mean when you said you might refine your Iraq policies? Does that mean no 16-month timetable?
Obama: No that's not no, not refine the 16-month timetable, what I just referred to. For example, there's been a major debate in terms of how we should structure training for Iraqi military and police what kinds of troop presence will we need in order for that to occur. What kind of troop presences will we need in order for that to occur? What kind of troop presence do we need in order to provide a counterterrorism strike force in Iraq that assures that al Qaeda does not regain a foot hold there? Those are all issues that obviously need to be determined by facts on the ground.
Q: Do you think it will be a challenge to explain to American people your Iraq policy over the next four months if you've had a problem over past four hours?
A: I guess I'm just puzzled. I mean I'll be frank with you Jeff (Zeleny, New York Times). I think what's happened is that the McCain campaign primed the pump with the press to suggest that somehow we were changing our policy when we hadn't. And that just hasn't been the case. I've given no indication of a change in policy. I haven't suggested that we're moving in a different direction. I think John McCain's gonna have a much harder time explaining how he is willing to perpetuate a presence in Iraq for 10, 20, 50 years. The American people understand that we have fulfilled our obligations in Iraq. They are not interested in seeing Iraq collapse, but they are interested in seeing this war come to a close and what I've said today, as I've said over the last 2 years, is that if you follow my plan to begin wthdrawing troops and having our comabt troops out in 16 months, we're talking about approximately 2 years from now having our combat troops out. Add on the 5 years we've already been there and we will have been there for 7 years. I think the American people understand that that has been a significant committment both of blood and of treasure. So I don't think I'm gonna have trouble explaining my plan. I think that what John McCain's gonna have to do is explain why he wants to extend it even further than that.
Q: When you add the term stability in Iraq to conditions for safe withdrawal, doesn't that change qualifications for troop withdrawal?
Obama: No I - the - I have always said that it is important. I've always said and we can show you the transcripts that it is important - we have a strategic interest in Iraq and making sure that it doesn't collapse. But what I've said consistently is that strategic interest is not served by having a permanent occupation there. That strategic interest is served by prodding the Iraqi factions and leadership to work together to negotiate, to negotiate a political accommodation, a politcal agreement. And making sure that the other powers in the region are bought into a stabilization plan. That can't be imposed militarily and that's the position I've been stating for the last two years.
Q: You've said you intend to end the war. Does that create wiggle room? In November of 2007 you said you would consult with generals but set policy.
Obama: And that, that, that, that is unchanged, that is unchanged. Let me be absolutely clear. As president I set the mission. This is a…I just had an interview with the Military Times yesterday in which I said one of the flaws in the president's approach is to say that he is doing what General Petraeus tells him is the best thing to do. That's not the president's job. The President's job is to tell the generals what their mission is. Because you have to take the entire strategic interest of the US in mind, not just one particular front when it comes to our national interest, and so the mission that I will set for our generals is to bring this war to close. That has not changed.
Q: But now it sounds as if you could hear different advice from generals and that could change your policy in Iraq.
Obama: Look and as I've said before and this was true during, you know, during the heat of the primary, it was true when we posted this website. I have always said, and again you can look at the language, that as Commander-in-Chief I would always reserve the right to do what's best in America's national interest and if it turned out for example that we had to in certain months slow the pace because of the safety of American troops in terms of getting combat troops out. Of course, we would take that into account. I would be a poor Commander-in-Chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account.
Q: You said that when you used the phrase "refine policy," you were not refering to the 16-month timetable. Does that mean you can tell us today that you will not change the 16-month timetable?
Obama: (Laughs and pauses) Here's what I can tell you--that I will bring our troops out at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades per month and at that pace we will have our combat troops out in 16 months. That is what I intend to do as president of the United States.
Q: What about response to those who say pulling out a brigade each in 1 or 2 a month is pulling out too rapidly?
Obama: Well the individuals that youre suggesting, those are the same folks who said we can't pull troops out because things are too violent. Now that the violence has subsided you can't pull troops out because things have improved. It's a Catch 22. At some point we can't allow U.S. policy and our larger strategic interests to be dictated by the failure of the Iraqis for example to arrive at a political accommodation. And keep in mind, much of my concern here has to do with what's happening in Afghanistan, which has seen more violence in the eastern portion of the country than any time since 2001. Despite the fact that we've got an extraordinary force there of well-trained, well-equipped U.S. forces and yet we've still seen a spike in violence. And ya know the president has talked about putting more troops into Afghanistan, but it's very hard to figure out where those troops are going to come from if we are sustaining the kinds of troop levels that we have in Iraq.
Q: Would critics argue that you might be sacrificing gains in Iraq for Afghanistan?
Obama: There's is no indication that at the pace of gradual withdrawal that I'm talking about that you would lose some of the gains that have been made in Iraq.
RSS
Let's see ... let's try and get this one straight.
If the US ends the military occupation & leaves Iraq, the situation in Iraq will get worse, so the US military will have to stay on until that possible deterioration is no longer a possibility.
OTH, the situation has so improved under the US military occupation of Iraq, so many gains have been made, that the US military should not end its occupation of Iraq with victory now in sight.
Pays your money, takes your choice.
Either way, the US military occupation of Iraq looks to be an "enduring" presence, rhetoric notwithstanding.
How long is "enduring"?
How about until the oil starts to run out.
Posted by sloper at 07/04/2008 @ 10:25am
"Despite the fact that we've got an extraordinary force there of well-trained, well-equipped U.S. forces and yet we've still seen a spike in violence. And ya know the president has talked about putting more troops into Afghanistan, but it's very hard to figure out where those troops are going to come from if we are sustaining the kinds of troop levels that we have in Iraq."
Well....we might get some redeployment to Afghanistan, but don't expect the occupation to end until Iran has been neutralized. Likely, we are going to be in a stalemate for decades. Right now we have been and continue to build permananent military bases. Does anyone really think that Obama is going to end this war? Remember the 2006 Democrats promises....and the reality...."yes Mr. President....whatever you want..."
Posted by OneVote at 07/04/2008 @ 10:36am
Mr. Dreyfuss - why worry, as you write? Obama either will or will not shift his position on ending the Iraq war within 16 months of taking office, if he is elected. It should seem clear that Obama clearly controls his actions himself, that he is not a total possession of "progressives" and liberal activists, and that furthermore, he will be our nominee, incontrovertibly. We are therefore on a path. We've hitched our wagons to the Obama horse team and he is in charge now.
I certainly want this disastrous, shameful war ended, and thorough period of catharsis throughout America in which we come to terms with what we have done and hold many figures accountable.
However, there is no point in worrying about whether or not that will happen as a result of the 2008 presidential election, because the issue is, largely, out of our hands at this point.
We need to elect Obama to prevent the Nationalist Clown Front headed now by McCain from getting a third term in office. Getting Obama in office heads off McCain and provides a ripe opportunity for changes we want and certain guarantees of changes in general. Obama should continue to face pressure from his supporters over these "adjustments" his campaign is making, but, again, there is no need for we supporters to *worry* about anything. We've already done a lot just by getting the nomination to a figure who is not a DC-based operator and insider (at least yet).
So relax!
In 2008, if Obama is in office, and becomes a Judas for the people such as ourselves who want this war over and a movement towards a better future for we Americans and for the poor Iraqi people as well, then Obama can face our collective wrath (which will be a storm).
Posted by Zero at 07/04/2008 @ 11:48am
Hey, Zero, I don't disagree with what you've posted. Faced with a choice between BO and John McC, it's not much of a contest. And it's true that BO is less of an insider that other, recent candidates (Gore, Kerry, Hillary C). But of course we should be worried, and use that worry to push BO in the right direction. There's a lot of space between "Judas" and "not Judas."
Posted by dreyfuss at 07/04/2008 @ 12:37pm
The decision to wage war or not to wage war is not a military decision. It must be informed by military science, yes, but military science, like every other science, is value-free and objective.
In contrast, the decision to wage war or not to wage war cannot be value-free. It must be a moral decision. One who makes this decision must practice whole-cost accounting, must consider whether a war does more harm than good, and must judge whether it threatens more than serves the cause of universal freedom.
Does Barack Obama know more about military science than military experts? Certainly not. That is why he promises to consult with these experts whenever he will have a moral decision to make as Commander-in-Chief.
Is Barack Obama more moral than the generals and the soldiers? Not necessarily. But as a civilian, he has greater freedom to make moral decisions than generals and soldiers have. The latter have a duty to obey their Commander-in-Chief, a duty which constrains their moral freedom and which they may legally repudiate only when they are commanded to commit war crimes. Only the President, or perhaps the Congress, is able to call off a war. The generals and soldiers are simply not allowed to do so by themselves.
We are therefore fools if we all wait for General Petraeus and his cohort to decide to end the war that he is duty-bound to wage until his President decides that it must end.
We are even greater fools if we imagine that we can truthfully call ourselves a democracy if we allow ourselves to be governed by generals, or if we imagine that morality is a sub-discipline within military science, rather than an independent discipline that supplements and humanizes military science by bringing the military under civilian rule and within the boundaries of the rule of law.
The greatest fools of all are those who imagine that freedom is a zero-sum game, that the more freedom others have, the less freedom we have, that we can have victory only if others are defeated, and that we can win only if others lose. This hideous imperialist ideology is the antithesis of freedom. Not the rest of the world outside our borders, but the ideology of conquest itself, must be conquered if our freedom, and everybody else's, is ever to be secured.
Others may superstitiously cling to images of the Stars and Stripes as if they were magic talismans. Others may cultivate chauvinistic pride as if it were a virtue rather than a vice. Others may worship at the idol of the merciless god whose name is Victory at Any Cost. Others may try to revere the fallen by perversely demanding more human sacrifices in their honor.
But those of us who believe in universal freedom, the only kind of freedom that can be shared, and hence the only kind that can be truly free, must defend this idea against those others, for their goal, conscious or not, is to confine this idea to a military fortress. Fortunately for us, the idea of universal freedom has a will of its own, which is always to escape. The fortress will be broken. For this fortress, which calls itself courage, is nothing but fear itself.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/04/2008 @ 12:44pm
usama means nothing. just a figurehead of fear.
pissing off hundreds of thousands of unemployed young men means something.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/04/2008 @ 12:46pm
We need to elect Obama to prevent the Nationalist Clown Front headed now by McCain from getting a third term in office.
by zero
actually,
i'd say it would be the 8th or 9th consecutive term.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/04/2008 @ 12:51pm
Well see a lot of this in months to come :
The pure radicals' fear of disappointment hyped and echo chambered by the corporate media.
It's perfect fodder for the Lockheed/ NBC and Murdoch un-American mafia multinationals.
Posted by winyahn at 07/04/2008 @ 1:01pm
Obama's mo' betta than McCain
Posted by winyahn at 07/04/2008 @ 1:04pm
Dreyfuss - briefly, I see your point, I guess that my perspective is that I've learned over the last several years that some of the bigger atrocities that the rich and powerful who rule the country commit such as the Iraq war and occupation are beyond my ability to control. I've gone through all the stages of grief on the war and resolved myself to the fact that I have always been powerless to end it. If it were up to me, a large number of American power players behind the Iraq war would be facing life sentences in maximum security prisons, our budgetary priorities would be realigned to include reparations and massive non-military aid to the Iraqi people, and we would have, to our strategic loss, arranged a new balance of power in and around Iraq in which Iran would gain hugely in order for there to be more order and safety for the average Iraqi citizen.
But its not up to me. I agree with you - the pressure must continue, you are very right, my perspective simply includes the reality that the American people may be truly ultimately powerless on this big issue.
Posted by Zero at 07/04/2008 @ 1:21pm
"But its not up to me. I agree with you - the pressure must continue, you are very right, my perspective simply includes the reality that the American people may be truly ultimately powerless on this big issue. Posted by Zero at 07/04/2008 @ 1:21pm"
How sad, how true.
And on the Fourth of July, no less, a eulogy for the republic, We the Powerless People.
Posted by sloper at 07/04/2008 @ 1:52pm
" I'd suggest Obama take a crash course in military deployment, tactics and strategy, before he ever says anything publically on the subject again.
McCain needs no such training.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/04/2008 @ 12:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
He doesn't? Please explain how his experience as a junior officer doing naval aviation trained him in grand strategy or counter-insurgency.
Where does his legislative experience come in? He chaired Commerce and Indian Affairs during his tenure in the Senate. Name one significant piece of legislation or one significant set of hearings concerning these issues in which he distinguished himself.
Posted by brunowe at 07/04/2008 @ 3:01pm
yes, i object to 50 billion dollars spent on seeding chaos, death, and destruction in iran, a nation whose only crime against us, ultimately, was rejecting the despot we imposed over them.
that's 50 billion dollars we need here at home, desperately, spent in a productive, constructive way that betters the lives of people who have no choice but to work for a living
Posted by Zero at 07/04/2008 @ 3:02pm
Iran: The Threat
by Thomas Powers
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21592
Check it out, folks.
Posted by sloper at 07/04/2008 @ 3:04pm
>>>Previously, though, Obama has said very, very little on training. Instead, he has talked about counterterrorism and protecting the huge US embassy. So the emphasis on training is worrisome.<<<
Training Iraqis to do their own police work is one of the keys to accelerating the pace of withdrawal. This should not be a surprise or cause for worry, as this was one of the things suggested in the bi-partisan Iraq study report.
This training need not take nearly as long as Bush's "slow-walk" approach. Basic training in the US for military personnel is about 6 weeks, but Bush turned training into an excuse to stay longer because staying as long as possible in Iraq to satisfy the MIC and oil companies was his hidden agenda the entire time.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/04/2008 @ 3:05pm
>>>McCain needs no such training.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/04/2008 @ 12:42pm<<<
FRANKGRITS,
We all know now that your "support" of Hillary was really about getting McCain elected since she would have been the weaker opponent.
John (McSame) McCain is going to continue the same George Bush slow-walk approach to keeping US troops in Iraq as long as possible to fleece the US taxpayer on behalf of the MIC and oil companies.
America needs more of this corproate driven foreign policy like another hole in our shoe, so your McCain boosting is a transparent attempt to continue to stick it to ordinary Americans like what we have experienced with George Bush.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/04/2008 @ 3:10pm
>>>No kidding Dick Tracy. Did you just find out that the war in Iraq was all about the oil?
Posted by frankgrits at 07/04/2008 @ 3:53pm<<<
You left out the MIC. The MIC AND big oil!
In either case, it is immoral to invade another country to take their natural resources (AKA - armed robbery) or to line the pockets of defense related companies.
John McSame McCain doesn't see a moral problem with such invasions, so despite his "military experience", he has the morality of a common criminal.
We don't need more of the same criminal mind in the White House - it is time to turn the page and elect Barack Obama as our next president.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/04/2008 @ 4:15pm
"became a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, with whom he had formerly done his Navy liaison work.
Did you intentionally leave that out? Tsk, tsk. "
Not at all, there is just no indication that he did anything significant with that committee. You still haven't pointed out any legislation or oversight work he did that would have constituted any sort of training.
Further, you're again simply assuming that military experience is a decisive qualification for the office.
Mett
Training Iraqis requires more than just basic training (which is 9 weeks, incidentally). There has to be training for the officers and NCOs; there's advanced training for the various MOS's (which can last as long as a 1.5 years). Bogging us down in training what is essentially one faction in a civil war isn't a smart move.
Posted by brunowe at 07/04/2008 @ 4:37pm
"Bogging us down in training what is essentially one faction in a civil war isn't a smart move. Posted by brunowe at 07/04/2008 @ 4:37pm "
Ain't it the truth, vide the US in Vietnam.
Déja vu, all over again.
Emperor Obama. Emperor(s) George(s). Emperors Lyndon & Tricky Dick & Ronnie.
Would-be Empress Hillary.
Same difference.
Same result.
Adieu to the Republic.
Suffer, We the People held in contempt.
Posted by sloper at 07/04/2008 @ 4:42pm
2happy:
You fraud, you are utterly ignorant of history.
Empires have never served their people, never.
As long as oil is expensive for the US, our oil companies reap astronomical profits.
That's empire.
What was good for the East India Company was what mattered for the British Empire. Certainly not the British workers in the "dark satanic mills."
Or US poor slobs who'll soon be paying $5 per gallon & asked to rejoice in ExxonMobil's historic profits as if those profits were ours.
Posted by sloper at 07/04/2008 @ 4:49pm
Gee Happy, maybe because actually grabbing the oil wasn't as easy as the neo-cons thought it would be. However, the NO-BID contracts that some oil companies just got would seem to be a move in that direction.
Posted by brunowe at 07/04/2008 @ 4:51pm
FrankGrits-McCain very much needs training in military tactics.Like Bush his family got him his diploma.The military did not feel that McCain was command material because he knew little about tactics and his belief that we could win quickly in Iraq by fighting war on the cheap showed amazing ignorance since no war has ever been won on the cheap quickly throughout all of world history.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2008 @ 4:53pm
Dear Frank,
A) You are completely full of bullshit. You used to condemn the Iraq war and all its supporters, and talk about the need to defeat John McCain. You are a whiny sore loser who can't get over the fact that Hillary Clinton lost.
B) You are completely stupid if you believe that experience in the military is the definitive characteristic of the (civilian) president.
C) Hillary Clinton certainly didn't have any experience in the military, and that seemed fine with you.
D) You are really an annoying twit and I wish you would fall of the face of the Earth. It's long past the point where I can simply hold you in contempt as a whiny sore loser who can't get over the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the nomination. While remaining a whiny sore loser, you've gone farther afield into the realm of Just Plain Stupid and Annoying with these cloying little attempts at "arguing" in favor of McCain.
Why don't you go have a good, long, cry in your beer, go on a diet and lose few pounds, do a little change of wardrobe, and get over yourself, finally, at last.
Posted by Zero at 07/04/2008 @ 4:54pm
Happy-Study a little history.Empire does not equal cheap prices.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2008 @ 4:55pm
libzr-Do you have a response that contains facts and one that requires maturity?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2008 @ 4:57pm
And I apologize to everyone else for responding to Frank. I'll try to avoid that pointless and needless exercise in the future to spare everyone the noise.
Posted by Zero at 07/04/2008 @ 5:00pm
libzr-In other words,you don't have a response that contains facts or that shows maturity.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2008 @ 5:02pm
Zero, I enjoy your commentary, even when you're taking me to the woodshed. ;) I just cannot understand why Frank can go about trashing Obama when he is the representative of his liberal/progressive principles. He meets the Constitutional qualifications for President and is articulate and intelligent on top of that. I shudder to think there is possibly some inherent racism there, but I'm at a loss to come to any other conclusion. I couldn't sell out my personal beliefs and vote for Grandpa if Hillary had won the nomination simply because she HAS to be better than he will be. I hope, for all our sakes, Frank exercises the apathy option rather than be a hypocrite and vote for Grandpa.
Posted by yutsano at 07/04/2008 @ 6:31pm
Obama's mo' betta than McCain
Posted by winyahn at 07/04/2008 @ 1:04pm
less worser.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/05/2008 @ 12:04am
Who has tipped the scales of justice... to fight for an unholy war...
With reasons all shredded for 'just is'... it's the spoils of oil; they want more
We don't need to traumatize nations... we don't need transmogrified facts
Imperial wars are creations... of criminals wanting for tacts
Leaving too fast will embitter... and our welcome has worn 'a tad' thin
Concern for Obama's consider... a reciprocal 'missing' flag pin
For how do we morally mentor... a peace that has never been there
Shall we say that we said what we meant, or... abandon Iraq's disrepair
Ending the war is our mission... for deadlier forces ensue
Al Qaida's regrouping revision... and our energy's need to renew
But it's time to bring more to the table... than threats of untimely demise
And bring to the forefront of fable... the goodwill that freedom implies
Posted by ttr at 07/05/2008 @ 02:06am
I have no doubt in my mind that as soon as the US troops leave Iraq the situation will get quite violent and worrisome. That is a fact of life, an adolescent's crisis in nation building. The matter would be to predict precisely how violent and extreme the situation will get.
But unless we follow McCain's advice and stay there 100 years, I bet this future event will be unavoidable. It will take the Iraqis, one, two perhaps even 10 years to reach a total stabilization of the country because the political forces will challenge each other until the gravity pendulum somehow halts in a position of practical equilibrium. Which will not necesarily mean justice. Which will not necesarily mean we will like the internal power agreement which will most probably be Iran-biased.
The equilibrium will come when they come to an understanding that permanent conflict is self defeating for their society as a whole. Shiites and Sunnis will have to learn that, like in matrimony, you have to concede to get something for yourself. And that experience can only be learned personally; the US can't impose that nor abreviate that process of maturation.
The US can only put two conditions to the future Iraqi State. One that it will not sponsor terrorism nor harbor it as state policy, the other that it will have at least minimal democratic ways not that a tyrant of the past will be substituted by a pro-Irani new tyrant.
This US political objective has to be made very clear to all Iraqi political forces and then leave. Training and any other stuff can be done say in Kuwaiti territory or Saudi territory and has to be performed on elites, not on the gross of the police or Army.
I believe that Obama's first idea of leaving in a period of 16 months is still very reasonable. Defeatism will sound its trumpets when the signals of conflict appear, but if we are patient we will finally see that the decision to leave was for the best.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/05/2008 @ 05:41am
Why is it that every time you turn around, this schmegeggie is explaining himself about something. Whether its some elitist insult to religious people, his decision to cast his lot with the fascists on FISA, his lying about campaign financing or, now, his weaseling on his 16 month commitment in Iraq. Are we to expect him to institute a new cabinet department dealing with his rope-a-dope after he's elected, call it the Department Of Oh, You Misunderstood, perhaps? How much more are progressives going to tolerate of this kind of abuse? Progressives should look to Nader and vote honestly for once.
Posted by john lowell at 07/05/2008 @ 1:21pm
Why is it that every time you turn around, this schmegeggie is explaining himself about something. Whether its some elitist insult to religious people, his decision to cast his lot with the fascists on FISA, his lying about campaign financing or, now, his weaseling on his 16 month commitment in Iraq. Are we to expect him to institute a new cabinet department dealing with his rope-a-dope after he's elected, call it the Department Of Oh, You Misunderstood, perhaps? How much more are progressives going to tolerate of this kind of abuse? Progressives should look to Nader and vote honestly for once.
Posted by john lowell at 07/05/2008 @ 1:22pm
Why is it that every time you turn around, this schmegeggie is explaining himself about something. Whether its some elitist insult to religious people, his decision to cast his lot with the fascists on FISA, his lying about campaign financing or, now, his weaseling on his 16 month commitment in Iraq. Are we to expect him to institute a new cabinet department dealing with his rope-a-dope after he's elected, call it the Department Of Oh, You Misunderstood, perhaps? How much more are progressives going to tolerate of this kind of abuse? Progressives should look to Nader and vote honestly for once.
Posted by john lowell at 07/05/2008 @ 1:23pm
Posted by brunowe at 07/04/2008 @ 4:37pm
I seriously doubt that it will take 1.5 years to train Iraqis to police themselves.
The 6 week number came from Air Force basic training.
The bottom line, is that the US can train Iraqis A LOT faster than what has occurred under Bush, and Obama needs to get a handle on this through consultations with generals on the ground there.
He has NOT revised his 16 month withdrawal estimate, so crying "flip-flop" at this point amounts to an Obama smear.
How can anyone with any credibility suggest that our future Commander-in-Chief should NOT consult with generals on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan?
This would leave Obama open to the McCain attack in a debate that "How can you say 16 months is appropriate for withdrawal when you haven't gone there and talked to the people on the ground?"
Obama is doing his debate preparation NOW, and progressives need to stop this Obama bashing as it is unhelpful in allowing Obama to do what is necessary to win this election!
Bash McCain, not Obama!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2008 @ 1:45pm
Frank no grits-If you don't want people to talk to you then stay off of here.Try a mature post for a change of pace.Your name calling has made you nothing more than another libzr.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2008 @ 1:57pm
by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 3:15pm...
That post is the embodiment of pure unadulterated evil.
You are fast becoming 'straightjacket material', FG...
Posted by ttr at 07/05/2008 @ 4:13pm
by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:40pm...
Posted by ttr at 07/05/2008 @ 4:56pm
frank no grits-Very few Hillary supporters will vote for McCain as polls are clearly showing,although you republicans can still hope.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2008 @ 6:48pm
>>>You see, Dick Tracy, you're not so smart afterall now are you?
Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 4:35pm <<<
No, FRANKGRITS,
I am actually a "little" smarter than you think.
2012 is a long ways off, and even Hillary's supporters know this.
These supporters are NOT supporting McCain because they beleive him when he says he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and go backward to back-alley coathanger abortions; and with three liberal justices retiring soon, he will have the opportunity to roll back the clock if elected.
They believe McCain when he says "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, and they know that means $10 a gallon gasoline, the reinstatement of the military draft, the potential bankruptcy of the US economy, and more terrorists attacks on US soil.
They beleive McCain when he says "the economy is not [his] strong suit" and they know that the "trickle down economics" that he favors only benefits the rich, and never quite "trickles" to the middle class and the poor.
They believe him when he claims that the private sector can solve our healthcare crises by only covering those medical conditions that make HMOs profitable, but they know that doesn't help ordinary Americans with their medical bills or ease their worry as the population becomes much older.
They also believe John McCain when he says we ought to drill in environmentally sensitive areas because they know that he is not serious about protecting our environment or reducing carbon emissions and pollution in our air, and only wants to continue to line the pockets of wealthy oil executives at the expense of everyone else.
John (McSame) McCain is just more of the same wrong-headed Bush polices that make everyone fearful, most people poorer, and no one safe.
They know it is time to turn the page on the politics of the past, that is why Hillary voters now support Barack Obama as the next president of the United States!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2008 @ 8:54pm
Grits you are hilarious!
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2008 @ 11:43pm
Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2008 @ 8:54pm
Evidence that far left beliefs leads to destruction of brain cells including cognitive thinking.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/05/2008 @ 11:59pm
If you're still out there, I hope you are not taking offense at my line of composition this evening. I know you are married to a woman of color. I am not painting a broad brushstroke as some of those on the fringe here would imply.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/06/2008 @ 12:20am
No Frank. I understand what you are trying to say.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 12:31am
Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 11:53pm
Not only funny, delusionally hilarious
Posted by crabwalk at 07/06/2008 @ 09:02am
If W's toxic legacy proves as long-lasting & entangling as W&Co have aimed for, by 2011 Obama may find himself so burdened, so knotted, that he'll be ripe for a primary challenge from the royal couple, crooning We Told You So. It's in their interest (as they have always seemed to perceive it), if not our nation's,for the Clintons to do as little as possible to defang that legacy & help the Obama admin.
Watch out, folks.
Posted by sloper at 07/06/2008 @ 09:18am
Here's something you won't find in the major news. We just transferred some 550 metric tons of yellowcake out of Iraq. Hmmnn I thought they didn't have any. Now let's hear the downplay of this discovery.
Posted by abell12ct at 07/06/2008 @ 09:32am
let's not kid ourselves. gas $5 a gallon? not for long. try $8 a gallon. and up. there is no upper limit.
attack Iran? maybe $10 a gallon.
I own no car. hahahahahaha.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/06/2008 @ 10:00am
Obama is not running for the job of Joint chiefs of staff. he is running for president. no military education is required.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/06/2008 @ 10:03am
LL- "Nawww, don't fret it. We're all in it together to stop that Commie Negro, Frank. Keep it up!"
Lovely pair, huh?
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/06/2008 @ 09:29am
I don't usually expect the racism out of you Mask...but you have managed to do so.
As someone with a wife and family of color, your statement is offensive.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 11:15am
Obama is not running for the job of Joint chiefs of staff. he is running for president. no military education is required.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/06/2008 @ 10:03am
Fortunately, Americans have historically rejected your thinking. Military experience has always been considered more favorably when choosing a president.
Unlike you, most Americans understand that the Commander-in-Chief operates better when they have both an understanding of the military mind and the respect of military commanders.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 12:02pm
lvliberty-Do you have any historical facts that show that Americans prefer veterans, to any degree?Neither of the last two were veterans.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 12:07pm
Grits, out of your endless love for Hillary, you're forever painting artificial dichotomies. Bill Clinton was smart in that he cut entitlements, raised taxes, stabilized the economy... had the internet bubble tailwind of course. Should have reigned in rather than stoked the corporatirazation of government and thereby intl trade. He made it easy for media, like zillionnaire corp MSNBC/LOCKHEED to say nothing of Clear Channel and Fox, to use redneck fear - flag Goebbels/Rove 24-7 message to steal election. Ahhh the depths of your love!
Posted by winyahn at 07/06/2008 @ 12:20pm
everybody loves a uniform.
some people love a uniform a little too much.
Fieldmarshall Montgomery was known to lay it on rather thick, what with the medals and all that. hence the expression "the full Monty".
Fieldmarshall Göring also overindulged with medals and the scepter, and he was depicted naked in the bath complete with his medals.
I mention these because I think we have a lot of mental Monty's here, with their worship of martial culture. with liverty the soldier comes right after Christ, he is desolate because he can't figure a way to get the prince of peace into uniform.
they puff themselves up like soldiers in an operetta.
the military has its place, a far more modest one is desirable, but that place is emphatically not at the helm of the ship of state. what are we, Chile or Greece?
Posted by emile duBois at 07/06/2008 @ 12:21pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 10:48pm
FRANKGRITS,
You sound like a scorned woman on a destructive mission.
So your gal didn't win, and now you want to tear down our nominee in a spiteful revenge, regardless of the adverse affect of a McCain presidency.
Americans are fed up with George Bush and Bush-lite candidates like John McSame McCain. They know that McSame is just trying to put a moderate face on disastrous conservative philosophy. No matter how you try to cover it up, Republicans stand for the rich, the multi-national screwers of the Middle Class, the thought that "me, me, me" is all that matters, and if the next guy is doing poorly it's "his" fault.
This Wild, Wild, West philosophy that everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps without giving anyone any boots, is a transparent attempt to keep those with economic advantage (boots) on top and everyone else further and further behind.
Ayn Rand's so-called Virtue of Selfishness has no place in an advanced society, as this do-it-yourself philosophy is incapable of providing the economic security Americans need or the first-class education that "all" Americans deserve. This philosophy "assumes" that we live in a meritocracy, when we all know that the rich have a huge headstart on everyone else, and they use their wealth to protect this advantage through the Republican Party.
The Republican Party of the rich that frightens people into submission is holding America back from fulfilling its promise as a great nation. While the rich prosper, everyone else suffers, and this is no way to run a great nation.
Public policy should serve the "greatest" number of its citizens, not the fewest, and it is this challenge to the way we think about public policy which is at stake in this election.
Selling out our government to the rich is what backward developing nations do; advanced societies take care of their own and lift all boats as we move forward as a nation.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/06/2008 @ 2:08pm
Before Obama announced his candidacy, I was put off by his saying that he did not support a single-payer healthcare system because the large number of people the insurance corporations employ would lose their jobs. It seemed strange to me that the purpose of the system is to run an employment bureau.
Since his presumptive nomination, Obama has made it clear that he has no use or need for progressives. His latest outrage is the opinion that a mental condition is not physical and should not be considered a reason for a late-term abortion.
As for his position on Iraq, there is little difference between his and McCain's. This should be no surprise since he had previously signaled that his intention is to remove "combat brigades" but to leave an American presence just as McCain would.
Obama's take on recent Supreme Court decisions is so far from my own, I fear the kind of appointments he would make, given the chance.
We are screwed.
Posted by mansobravo at 07/06/2008 @ 4:36pm
I remember a frankgrits that said Obama should retire from the field "for the good of the party".
I remember a frankgrits that thought this war in Iraq was a mistake and any continuation was an insult to the fighting men in the theatre of combat.
I wonder what happened to that guy. It seems he was abducted and turned into a racist neocon war mongering follower.
too bad.
Hey frank.... BOO! watch it, the black islamo-fascist welfare queen is gonna git ya!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/06/2008 @ 6:13pm
"He'll be up against a Congress that will be able to override his veto. He will be an upstanding respectable President but he will have no great accomplishments and in 2012 he will be ripe for defeat."
As usual Frank, you don't know what you're talking about. Democratic gains in the Congress aren't going to be nearly enough to override a McCain veto.
Like virtually everyone else here, I don't believe for a minute that your opposition to a middle-aged black man who you called "boy" has anything to do with the welfare of this country.
"You've got to read between the lines and figure out what's best for the country. Unless of course you're looking for some more handouts."
Right, black people vote in order to get more handouts. Sure, racism isn't a part of your decision-making on this.
"Military experience has always been considered more favorably when choosing a president."
First, Grant was one of our worst presidents, presiding over one of our most corrupt administrations, Second, I don't recall ever hearing the phrases "President Winfield Scott" (slaughtered by F. Pierce in 1852) or "President Winfield Scott Hancock" (beaten by James Garfield). These last two cases are noteworthy as establishing that being a famous military hero helps but can't win an election by itself. Fourth, McCain's service was honorable but certainly didn't capture the public's attention the way that Jackson did, for example, by winning the battle of New Orleans.
Posted by brunowe at 07/06/2008 @ 6:21pm
lvliberty-Do you have any historical facts that show that Americans prefer veterans, to any degree?Neither of the last two were veterans.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2008 @ 12:07pm
the majority of our presidents have been military vets including Bush whom you denigrate.
In fact, more and more your posts have been denigrating of most veterans. It's hard sometimes to believe that you are a vet.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 6:49pm
Okay, Larry...what if i got on the board and starting supporting McCain, talking down Obama, and sounding like Limbaugh on welfare and African-Americans (as FG was on the other thread)...
would you cut me slack then? (as you did him?)
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/06/2008 @ 12:59pm
You seem to miss my point which was personal. You said of me:
"LL- "Nawww, don't fret it. We're all in it together to stop that Commie Negro, Frank. Keep it up!"
Lovely pair, huh?
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/06/2008 @ 09:29am"
First of all, I've never referred to Obama as either a Commie or a Negro. I don't believe he is a communist and have never suggested as much.
Secondly, having a family of color, you will never find me referring to someone that way. That I took offense at.
Frank speaks crudely at times. However, I took him at what I perceived his intentions to be rather than your approach which is to parse everyone's comments into your own little theater of the mind.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 6:55pm
"We are screwed. Posted by mansobravo at 07/06/2008 @ 4:36pm"
Looks that way, yet again.
Goodbye republic, hello empire.
The longer term suspense now is when will the empire split up at home & how painful will that be? For US & much of the world.
Because all empires fall.
All.
One thing seems fairly sure, it won't be peaceful, at home or abroad, not for the rest of this new century.
We the People have been strapped with perpetual violence.
What an irony that this process will progress for the next round or 2 under the aegis of a former adjunct professor of constitutional law.
Posted by sloper at 07/06/2008 @ 9:43pm
lvliberty-Calling Bush a veteran is quite disrespectful to real veterans and I do not put down veterans nor can you show anything written by me that puts down veterans.That was quite dishonest of you to make that claim.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 10:18am
lvliberty-You were unable to show that being a veteran is important to Americans when it comes to the job of POTUS.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 10:21am
lvliberty-Only a handful of our presidents were elected because of their veteran status.Most did not have records that were something to brag about and so they didn't and were not elected because of it..
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 10:45am
by frankgrits at 07/05/2008 @ 3:15pm...
sounds like you may be hatching a plan.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 11:38am
Limbaugh on welfare
Posted by Maskbeta
where he should be!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 11:40am