Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThere's no doubt that the financial crisis, job insecurity, and fundamental economic worries are the No. 1 issue in Tuesday's vote. But that raises a critical question: If Barack Obama is elected, will he have an antiwar mandate?
The answer isn't clear.
In 2006, when Democrats reconquered the House and Senate, the election was widely seen as a referendum on the failing war in Iraq. Many Democrats, including those who had previously been supporters of the war, felt tremendous pressure from that public expression of antiwar sentiment, even if the Democratic majority in Congress was either unable either to block the so-called surge or to pass legislation halting the war. Their inability to do so was largely the result of President Bush's veto powers and the Senate minority's ability to filibuster defense spending bills and other measures.
If Obama wins, he will face enormous pressure to abandon his pledge to stop the war in Iraq. That pressure will come from some within his own circle of advisers, many of whom saw Obama's antiwar stance as good politics but bad policy. It will come from hawkish Democrats outside Obama's circle, from those elbowing their way to get in, typified by Richard Holbrooke, who found himself shut out of Obamaland after he endorsed Hillary Clinton in the primaries. It may come from more hawkish Democrats close to Senator Biden, who voted for the Iraq war in 2002. It will certainly come from conservatives, neoconservatives, and the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. It will come from thinktanks such as the Brookings Institution and the Center for a New American Security, which have close ties both to Obama and to the Democratic establishment.
And most of all, the pressure on Obama will come from the US military and General Petraeus, who won't look kindly on an incoming administration that wants to change course. Early in his administration, Obama is going to have to sit down, face to face, with Petraeus -- a politically savvy general who, it is rumored, is thinking about running for office himself -- and say something like this:
"General Petraeus, I value your service to our country. But under our system, I am the commander-in-chief. I'm the boss, not you. We're getting out of Iraq, and we're doing it quickly. I want a plan on my desk in 24 hours for the withdrawal of at least one to two brigades per month, and I want the withdrawal completed by the summer of 2010 at the latest. If we can do it more quickly, tell me. Anyone who doesn't like this new policy, well, there's the door."
And he'll have to look around the room, one by one, at the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Ray Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq, and others.
Each one of them will know the pressure that Obama will be under from hawks and right-wingers. The constitution gives Obama the power to order them to carry out the new policy, whether they like it or not -- and they won't like it. But Obama will be a lot stronger if he goes into that room with a mandate from the Nov. 4 election.
Problem is, Iraq has receded so far in the public's consciousness that it isn't entirely clear what next Tuesday's vote will mean for Iraq.
Certainly, Obama catapulted over Hillary Clinton in the primaries because he mobilized antiwar voters against her, based on his 2002 speech opposing the war and Clinton's vote, in October, 2002, for it. Since then, however, the war has become less and less prominent, especially during the general election campaign. During the debates between Obama and John McCain, it hardly came up, although Obama did slam McCain for his poor judgment in supporting the war in 2003. Still, Obama did not aggressively put forward his plan to get out of Iraq during the debates, and he was oddly defensive whenever McCain challenged him over the "surge." Obama could have said that the surge was a fiasco and that Iraq is poised to explode in renewed civil war because there is no political agreement among Iraq's various armed factions.. He could have said:
"Senator McCain, in 2006 I called for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, and so did General Casey and General Abizaid, who were commanding our troops. And so did the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. Had we done so, the war would be over now, and American troops would have long been home. But we didn't. Instead, President Bush listened to you, and to the neocons, and two years later we are still stuck in Iraq."
He could have said that, but he didn't.
It's true that, among voters, Obama is widely seen as the antiwar candidate. In the New York Times, for instance, there is a poll today that asks: "Would the candidate's policies lead to greater US military involvement in Iraq, less US military involvement, or wouldn't they have any effect on US military involvement?" According to those polled, 80 percent said that Obama would order "less US military involvement" and only 7 percent answered that he would order "more." In contrast, only 18 percent responded "less" for McCain and 56 percent said McCain would order "more US military involvement."
Still, polls across the board have shown that Iraq has dropped for fourth, fifth, or even lower among things that voters are concerned about in 2008. The Baltimore Sun reports on one such result, but there are many:
"According to a Gallup poll last December, one in three Americans surveyed felt that the war in Iraq was the most important issue facing the country, more than selected the economy and health care combined. But a Pew Research Center survey this month indicated that only one in 10 still say that Iraq is the most pressing issue. ... Both campaigns have moved on to other issues."
That will make it hard, but not impossible, for Obama to argue that he has a mandate to end the war on Nov. 5.
Obama hasn't helped his case by downplaying his opposition to war. He hasn't helped by refusing to say much about his plans for Iraq besides the withdrawal, including what a residual force might look like, i.e., how many troops might remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of the US combat brigades, and what their mission might be. (During the summer, some advisers to Obama wanted to draw a starker contrast with McCain over Iraq, and some wanted to muddy the differences. The mud advocates seem to have prevailed.) And Obama hasn't made his mandate stronger by adopting hawkish views on other, non-Iraq related issues: he supports a bigger military; he supports an expansion of NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia; he supports more troops for Afghanistan; he has called for cross-border raids into Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda officials; and, of course, he has hewed closely to orthodoxy in support of Israel.
In his most recent speech, yesterday in Sarasota, Florida, Obama didn't mention at all his plan to end the war in Iraq. He said nothing -- yes, nothing -- about withdrawing US forces. Here is the full text of what he said about Iraq in that speech:
When it comes to keeping this country safe, we don't have to choose between retreating from the world and fighting a war without end in Iraq. It's time to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a huge surplus. As President, I will end this war by asking the Iraqi government to step up, and I will finally finish the fight against bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. I will never hesitate to defend this nation. From day one of this campaign, I have made clear that we will increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force the world has ever known. Watching our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has only deepened my commitment to invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home.I won't stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy - especially now. The cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq, means that Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending on things we don't need.
Let's analyze that.
First, he doesn't reiterate that he is pulling US forces out. Instead, he appears to say that the key is to get Iraq to pay for the war, to get the Iraqis to use their surplus. That may appeal to budget-conscious US voters, but -- especially with the price of oil dropping fast -- Iraq, which is a poor, Third World nation with a devastated economy, isn't going to pay for the war.
Second, he says that he wants "the Iraqi government to step up," meaning, presumably, to fight its own war. That, of course, is exactly what President Bush can been saying, namely, that the US will "stand down" when the Iraqis "stand up." Problem is, the Iraqis need to be handed an unconditional timetable that doesn't depend on what they do or don't do. Iraq doesn't need President Obama to "asking" it to step up.
Third, and most troubling, Obama says that Americans will have to tighten their belts because of the "cost of the war in Iraq." Doesn't that mean that the war will continue?
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Ohhhhhhhhh, bleeding!??!?!?!!?!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/31/2008 @ 11:00am
'Third, and most troubling, Obama says that Americans will have to tighten their belts because of the "cost of the war in Iraq." Doesn't that mean that the war will continue?'
Obama is pledging to rebuild the military which has been wasted by the Iraq war, or perhaps Obama plans to attempt to start to pay down national debt run up because the cost of the "wars." The ambiguity is political calculation, and likely he has no definitive plan for our extrication from the quicksand. The prospect of stumbling along for years in Iraq is something we obviously can't afford, but since when has that stopped Washington.
Posted by OneVote at 10/31/2008 @ 11:01am
How about we consider what the Iraq's want? Are they not able to make a decesion for their own country. We don't own the GD country, we only think we do.
Posted by Truthman at 10/31/2008 @ 11:11am
I believe Obama, as well as possessing a high degree of intellectualism, has what was called in the 19th century, "mental strength". We will see this displayed in his presidency in a most positive manner. The buck will be in his hand.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/31/2008 @ 11:22am
"president Obama" made it clear yesterday. "I will bring this war to an end". bravo Obama.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/31/2008 @ 11:33am
if we are almost out of there by the end of his first term i will consider it a victory.
Posted by dexter666 at 10/31/2008 @ 11:57am
Obama wants OUT OF IRAQ.
He said so just last year.
Had he been in the senate at the time, he WOULD have voted AGAINST the war.
Get with the program Robert.
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/31/2008 @ 12:19pm
"Problem is, the Iraqis need to be handed an unconditional timetable that doesn't depend on what they do or don't do."
You're not keeping up with current events. It's now the Iraqis who want to give us a timetable for withdrawal, not the other way around.
To your more general point: my fear about Obama is that he won't be able to hold his own in discussions with the military establishment. He's already shown his naivete at least twice: in setting a completely arbitrary timetable for US withdrawal (why 16 months instead of, say, two months or two years?), and in saying publicly that he would invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden (if you're going to do something like that, you don't announce it ahead of time).
I just know that sometime before his inauguration, the military brass are going to sit him down and give him a top-secret briefing, covering looming threats to US security (real or fabricated) that will scare the bejeesus out of him. He may find out the commander-in-chief doesn't have quite as much power as he thinks he does.
Posted by slobone at 10/31/2008 @ 12:35pm
>>>Third, and most troubling, Obama says that Americans will have to tighten their belts because of the "cost of the war in Iraq." Doesn't that mean that the war will continue?<<<
ROBERT DREYFUSS,
You are grasping at straws here! Obama has CONSISTENTLY called for US troops to be out of Iraq in 16 months and has NOT deviated from this position at all. Granted, circumstances on the ground must be considered, but the overall goal of withdrawal as soon as possible has NOT changed.
I think what you are struggling with ROBERT DREYFUSS is that Obama is in the final days of an election where he is trying to get a MANDATE by changing the electoral map to include a dozen or so formerly red states in this mandate. Using rhetorical gifts to appeal to these moderate Republicans and independents is SMART POLITICS, not a softening or change in his stance on Iraq.
On Nov 5th, Obama wants to say unequivocally that ALL of America has embraced his vision for change - which includes withdrawal from Iraq - and being able to garner the support of a large number of formerly red states is a big part of this equation.
Kerry States + IA, VA, OH, MO, IN, CO, NM, NV, MT, ND, GA, NC, and FL = SERIOUS MANDATE
Posted by Metteyya at 10/31/2008 @ 12:48pm
He may find out the commander-in-chief doesn't have quite as much power as he thinks he does. Posted by slobone at 10/31/2008 @ 12:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
so the "unitary" executive is no longer operative?
Obama is plenty tough and savvy. he got Hill and Bill to campaign for him. made them an offer they couldn't refuse.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/31/2008 @ 12:50pm
Much will depend on Obama's Sec of Defense.
If it's Jim Webb, he's got mighty clout with the brass.
If it's Gates in place, they'll run circles around Obama.
Posted by sloper at 10/31/2008 @ 1:05pm
We all know how Kennedy dealt with the war hawks during the Cuban missle crisis. Obama is closer to this paradigm than , for instance, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/31/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by sloper at 10/31/2008 @ 1:05pm
He can't pick Jim Webb, unless he's sure Virginia will replace him with a Democrat for Webb's Senate seat.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/31/2008 @ 2:00pm
I don't believe in a "Missionary" foreign policy. Call me old fashion, but I wouldn't mess around in Russia's Sphere of Influence. I think the Neoconservatives instigated the Georgian move against their breakaway provinces and Russia. The wife of the President of the Ukraine was a "former" Republican Party operative. As a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union, NATO was fine, but, I want no part of NATO, if they make aggressive moves toward the Russian border. NATO has become the entangling alliance that Washington warned us about in his "Farewell Address." I know that Clinton and Bush pushed for these policies, but I will give the Obama Administration a hard time if he shares their stupidity. If , as Commander -In- Chief, Obama orders the military out of Iraq, they will execute that order. This is the way the military operates!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 10/31/2008 @ 2:18pm
The "Clear and Hold" strategy General Petraeus wrote about and has implemented in Iraq was taken from, and he acknowledges this, Gen. Creighton Abrams successful campaign in Viet Nam; one of the few real US successes of that war. Petraeus also acknowledges and supports Abrams' belief that we helped the South Vietnamese too much; that we should have backed away sooner and forced them to stand on their own. Given Obama's history of studying all aspects of a problem I would be surprised if he were unaware of the above. His sixteen month drawdown plan which forces the Iraq government to stand on their own is only a continued implementation of Petraeus' and Abrams' complete strategy.
Al, Houston
Posted by Al4Music at 10/31/2008 @ 3:29pm
Does Obama have a clear mandate to end the Iraq Occupation?
Yes.
Will he?
It's unlikely.
Why not?
He's a centrist Democrat, and thus opposed to radical reforms of any sort.
Posted by sdz at 10/31/2008 @ 3:44pm
We won't know for sure about Obama's promise to end the occupation of Iraq until after he is sworn in. Maybe not until six months after.
All I can say is if he doesn't end the occupation, I will be the first on my block sporting an "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker. Not that it will do any good of course..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/31/2008 @ 4:33pm
"Petraeus also acknowledges and supports Abrams' belief that we helped the South Vietnamese too much; that we should have backed away sooner and forced them to stand on their own."
hahahahaha. you slay me. backed away sooner? Fall of Saigon sooner. The Arvn were never a dependable fighting force. they preferred to let the american boys do their fighting and dying for them. your revisionism is to laugh.
Petreus a war hero? don't make me laugh what battles did he win? what campaigns did he bring to a victorious end?
Posted by emile duBois at 10/31/2008 @ 4:35pm
Anyone who thinks that the JCS or a group of retired generals or Democratic hawks is going to run circles around Barack Obama is, in my view, either an extreme pessimist or a very poor judge of character.
Having served in the Pentagon, let me assure you that, as long as it is not obviously illegal, the Armed Forces and its commanders are going to do exactly what Barack Obama wants. And, from what I have observed, it will be "or else."
I have no doubt that he will pull out of Iraq as fast as possible and the Iraqis had better not underestimate him. Let McCain and the Repubs cry all they want. They have been crying about how we could have won in Vietnam (I was there, too) for thirty-five years and they are wrong on that account as well. That war was not winnable unless obliterating Vietnam from the face of the earth is one's idea of victory. Iraq can be "won" but not by the military. The victory will not look anything like the democracy we hoped for although it may be a democracy of sorts.
Posted by regis18 at 10/31/2008 @ 5:00pm
He can't pick Jim Webb, unless he's sure Virginia will replace him with a Democrat for Webb's Senate seat.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/31/2008 @ 2:00pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but Tim Kaine will still be governor. And even if he has to give up office in 2009, Webb could always resign before inauguration and Kaine could replace him before the change. So I don't see that as a huge issue. But yeah Webb would be awesome as Sec of Def.
Posted by yutsano at 10/31/2008 @ 11:15pm
Excellent article and we have reason to be worried. You didn't mention Colin Powell's possible involvement in this decision as I am sure he will be consulted. Although Senator Obama stated recently that he would call all the military officials together, listen to their advice and then make his own decisions, there are military officials who have differing points of view. Those who were critical of the Iraq war were "retired", ignored or lost prestige in their positions and I wonder if any of them would be consulted.
I also find his continuing emphasis on sending troops to Afghanistan, finding Osama (who has been reported to be dead) of concern as many knowledgeable experts of that country's history have warned against further upgrading of the military rather than strictly using diplomacy by working together with the U.N.and other nations.Canada is rethinking their role in Afghanistan and had the recent election been won by the Liberals instead of the Conservative Party, there may have been some serious consideration of withdrawing their troops in the near future.
I think this whole war scenario must be strongly opposed by the Democratic Left as soon as he gets into office.
Posted by pvolkov at 11/01/2008 @ 12:06am
The part I don't get is why all these scenarios have Obama saying this early in his administration. I think he could easily say on November 5th, I'm going to be in office in 2-3 months. This is what I want, and you folks better be prepared to execute on it if you want to continue to be around. Nothing gets people moving on something like job security.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/01/2008 @ 09:31am
A good indicator is the Senator's avoidance of the treaty with Iraq which is under consideration. As a treaty the Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate but Bush won't even let senators read the proposed treaty. While the Iraqi parliament is involved in the issue, Senator Obama, who has talked mightily (until recently) about pulling the military out of Iraq, has made no issue of Bush's oligarchic maneuvers and his refusal to act constitutionally.
Posted by Don_Bacon at 11/01/2008 @ 2:00pm
While the Iraqi parliament is involved in the issue, Senator Obama, who has talked mightily (until recently) about pulling the military out of Iraq, has made no issue of Bush's oligarchic maneuvers and his refusal to act constitutionally. Posted by Don_Bacon at 11/01/2008 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Obama is not a participant. that is why. he will wait until he has the power as well as the voice.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/01/2008 @ 4:24pm
Right you are Dreyfuss. Our monthly casualties in Iraq are fewer than the monthly homicides in Washington DC, the Iraqi govt is gaining control of the country, the war is almost won. It is time for Obama to withdraw US troops so that the Islamofascist/Baath insurgency can revive and prevail. That is how the first black America president should establish his Commander in Chief credentials and his commitment to US interests.
I don't think he is that much of a meatheaded.
However, if he is dumb and stubborn enough to keep his hawkish commitment to Afghanistan, then we will really have the pointless and endless war Iraq was supposed to be, but was not. Iraq was necessary and winnable and is essential for our continued control of the Middle East and our power position in the world, whereas Afghanistan has no strategic value for the US. It lacks valuable resources or strategic geography; even a projected pipeline is no longer contemplated. A reformed Afghanistan, unlike a democratic Iraq, will not impact that neighborhood significantly. Nor does it matter whether al Qaeda returns to Afghanistan or remains in Pakistan, or finds a new nook in Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, etc. Its locale has no bearing on America's safety. There is no reason to give Kabul at most the limited help it now receives. But there is a good chance that Obama will lack the sense and courage to act accordingly.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/01/2008 @ 9:48pm
Clearly, Dreyfuss has learned that you can't trust anything Obama has to say. He raises questions in a way that any intelligent person experienced with Obama's slight of tongue would find necessary. Stupidly, however, Dreyfuss excuses the Democrats, who with a mandate in 2006 failed to get us out of Iraq at that time. It was their lack of a majority, we're told. Far more likely it was the fact that when confronted with the opportunity to cut off funds for the war, Obama, Biden & Company walked away like cowards. Its hard to be anti-war when you're pro-war, eh?
It'll be entertaining to watch yet another accomplished liar deal with the Middle East. That fact will become more compelling when the people learn that ending the war in an Obama administration means rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Just substitute Afghanistan for Iraq and you'll have something of the flavor of it. Then there's the possibility of voting for Nader and getting Middle Eastern policy right for once. Can we hope?
Posted by john lowell at 11/01/2008 @ 10:30pm
Iraq was necessary and winnable and is essential for our continued control of the Middle East and our power position in the world,
oh really?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/02/2008 @ 11:49am
I think that it will take three times as long to get out as it did to get in. If it happens in a slow and methodical manner everyone will be happier with the outcome and it will be a safer and more practical move.
They can't just bring the troops home. There was a lot of stuff built over there. The Green Zone, the largest embassy on earth... what will they do with that? Probably try to sell it to the Iraqis. The burning question for Barack is if the war in Afghanistan is winnable. Military says no.
Posted by ficheye at 11/02/2008 @ 2:00pm
Watch what happens in the Election-If Obama wins, Iraq will immediately ask for an extension of the U.N. Mandated Deadline of Dec. 31 to deal with Obama rather than President Bush-Iraq has already asked Russia to back the deadline extension and Russia has promised to honor their request! Whether he has a mandate or not, President Obama has made it clear from the beginning that it is the President-not the Pentagon-that sets policy. I am not worried about the Hawks of either Party as Obama's Election alone is a mandate against them! I do not believe for a moment that voters have forgotten the War-the broken Economy was caused by the War and one look at President Bush's Approval Rating will confirm that! As far as what will happen to the Structures that were built-They will go back to the Government of Iraq! A better question is will the sacrifice of our troops be rewarded by a Democratic Iraq?
Posted by RITEON at 11/02/2008 @ 4:32pm
I really hate comparisons with Vietnam. They are completely meaningless in the context of the Iraq invasion and occupation.
Posted by jackwells at 11/02/2008 @ 7:24pm
I really hate comparisons with Vietnam. They are completely meaningless in the context of the Iraq invasion and occupation. Posted by jackwells at 11/02/2008 @ 7:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no they're not. the lies told the public are the same ones. the futility is the same, and the dead are the same too. and all for naught, that's the same too.
how old were you during the Vietnam years?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/02/2008 @ 8:10pm
get thee behind me, satanic preacher.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/03/2008 @ 09:03am
both the Iraq and the Vietnam wars started out with great public support, which however soon waned and turned to antipathy.
now try to deny that, troglodytes
Posted by emile duBois at 11/03/2008 @ 09:14am
I doubt Obama will get the US out of Iraq anytime soon. My hunch is that there are monied interests that want us there and Obama will fold, much like he did on telecom immunity.
We'll hear a litany of excuses that will include an intention of withdrawl at some unspecified time in the future.
Posted by cjines at 11/03/2008 @ 09:43am
Posted by cjines at 11/03/2008 @ 09:43am | ignore this person | warn this person
america can no longer afford Iraq, or any perpetual war. the bottom line rules.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/03/2008 @ 09:52am
I have little faith that Obama will withdraw all U.S. and "coalition" forces, including mercenaries, from Iraq within the 16-month timetable he campaigned on. His mission is to make the world safe for "liberal imperialism."
As for Jim Webb, he would be mad to exchange his Senate seat and the bully pulpit that comes with it for the job of Secretary of Defense, where he will serve at the pleasure of the President. If he does, it would probably be a sure sign that he plans on becoming a lobbyist after his stint at Defense so he can make some moolah for the kids. I don't see him doing that.
Posted by cka2nd at 11/03/2008 @ 5:15pm
The pullout should begin as soon as Keith Olbermann declares Obama the winner.
OUT IF IRAQ NOW!!
Just like you said Barack.
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/03/2008 @ 7:11pm
The pullout should begin as soon as Keith Olbermann declares Obama the winner.
OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!
Just like you said Barack.
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/03/2008 @ 7:11pm
As long as Obama continues to see Iran as a strategic competitor in the region and a "threat" to Israel, the US will remain in Iraq. Doesn't matter how he phrases it or what he said before.
Obama likely believes re-establishing transatlantic understanding with Europe will translate into European support for US leadership. The lure of empire remains.
The surprise could come from EU reluctance to start up with Russia or increase military involvement in Afghanistan or aanywhere else. Particularly Germany who more than understands, with no natural defenses or free access to the seas, Russia's vulnerability and fear of hostile regimes on or near its borders. For the first time since its unification Germany has little to fear from either France or Russia and is relatively safe and prosperous.
George Kennan wrote about the irrelevance of NATO after the implosion of the Soviet Union. The US that has pushed for the expansion of NATO to the the borders of Russia, not the EU. Maybe Obama will learn something from European recluctance, but without an active peace movement, who knows....
Charlie M
Posted by cmsandia at 11/03/2008 @ 11:09pm
"president Obama" made it clear yesterday. "I will bring this war to an end". bravo Obama. Posted by emile duBois
Thank God, President Bush and the surge that Obama will be able to do so.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/04/2008 @ 10:29am
Posted by abell12ct at 11/04/2008 @ 10:29am
Thank you, imaginary friend, high functioning moron and bribes.
By waging pointless, illegal war you have given Obama a sensible, populist thing he can easily do; end the war which nobody should have started and nobody, excepting a lunatic fringe, still wants.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/04/2008 @ 6:49pm
We waged a legal and just war in Iraq. But now that Obama has won, you can have the defeat and surrender you want so much.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/05/2008 @ 07:42am
Anyone who thinks that a Middle Eastern Country being occupied by a Western Power will ever see a zero insurgency number is nothing short of brainless. Do people really think the Iraqis with all their differences will just let Al-Qaida walk in and take over their oil fields if we pull out of Iraq? There will be infighting going on between Sunnis and Sheites but its their country to sort out.
Posted by Bourdain at 11/06/2008 @ 11:50am