Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 170

• 100%

  ybdogsct4 months ago

  "There are 2 problems with John McCain's political attacks. First, Barack Obama was right to oppose the Iraq War from the start while John McCain sided with George Bush. Second, John McCain changed his position to embrace the same Obama approaches that he once attacked on (1) Afghanistan, (2) Iraq, and (3) Iran.

  1) Barack Obama said in 2002 that we had to finish the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq. John McCain was George Bush's biggest supporter for a war in Iraq.

  In 2007, Obama called for at least 2 additional U.S. combat brigades and $1 billion assistance. McCain argued earlier this year that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." Admiral Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "I don't have troops to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq." This past week, Senator McCain changed his position for political reasons, embracing Obama's call for more troops.

  Reply

  35 Replies

  • 0%

    MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago

    Noooooooo! Don't you know that somewhere there is an article written by somebody that says that al-Malaki was not more in agreement with Obama's concept?? Or was it that he was not endorsing Obama..Oh well, it's the same thing isn't it?? Case closed!!(to the idiot audience and that means 1/2 of Kansas, Idaho and Oklahoma where their senators are rocket scientists)..

    Sen. Inyourway from Okl. still denies climate problems..

    You might as well add the brilliant voters from Idaho who elect a senator who wants to make footsie in public mens rooms an olympic sport.

    Libby Dole wants to name an AIDS research bill after Jesse Helms, who opposed EVERY AIDS research bill from Day 1..

    Hey, how about naming the Jewish Community Center after Hitler??

    Hey LibsRfunny, why don't you try out our new boycott on your comments and come over here and try to poison this discussion of FACT??

    Reply

    16 Replies

    • 0%

      amazed3 months, 4 weeks ago

      oops, don't care fot the comment, don't see your point, other than bashing those with whom you disagree, but I didn't mean to neg you anyway.

      sorry

      Reply

      15 Replies

      • 0%

        capecoralM3 months, 4 weeks ago

        Obama, in typical fashion, is trying to use the success of the surge he opposed to justify his long-held commitment to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. But turning Iraq into a winning political issue won't be nearly as easy as Obama once thought.

        In Oct. 2006, 3 months before Bush's new strategy was unveiled Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."

        The night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." Speronews

        Reply

        14 Replies

        • 0%

          capecoralM3 months, 4 weeks ago

          Democrats, then, have compounded their initial bad judgment about the surge with reckless obstinacy. As ethno-sectarian violence in Iraq rapidly declined, as al Qaeda absorbed tremendous military blows, and as political accommodation and legislative achievements have emerged, Democrats, rather than welcoming the progress, grew agitated. They embraced with religious zeal the belief that the Iraq war was lost; they therefore viewed the success of the surge as a terribly inconvenient development, one they sought to deny to the point that they looked silly and out of touch. Worse, Democrats acted as if they had a vested interest in an American defeat.

          Rarely has a political party been so uniformly wrong, in such an obvious way, on such an important matter. And when Americans cast their vote on November 4, they should carefully consider how Barack Obama and the entire Democratic party fought ferociously and relentlessly to undermine a policy...

          Reply

          11 Replies

          • 0%

            capecoralM3 months, 4 weeks ago

            On Monday, Obama wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he acknowledged the success of the surge. "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge," Obama wrote, "our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda--greatly weakening its effectiveness." A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.

            Reply

            9 Replies

            • 0%

              capecoralM3 months, 4 weeks ago

              Another leading Democratic, Clinton not only couldn't bring herself to criticize it the "Betray Us" ad put out by Soros backed Moveon.org, she also attacked Petraeus' honesty: "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," she huffed to the general Tuesday.

              And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as "de facto spokesmen for a failed policy," pointedly refusing to criticize the ad - which called him an outright liar who'd "betray" his nation.

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                ybdogsct3 months, 4 weeks ago

                Obama has always been consistent in his message:

                1) Although the Troop Escalation has resulted in some security gains, the Surge remains a small tactical success within the context of a a massive strategic blunder -- starting the war in Iraq and distracting ourselves from Afghanistan in the first place

                2) The Troop Escalation alone can't bring about the necessary diplomatic progress necessary to make peace permanent.

                http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/1...

                "'The surge is not the solution to Iraq's problems because it is not achieving the political accommodations and benchmarks that were the stated purpose of our troop increase,' Obama said. '6 years after we took our eye off Afghanistan, we still don't have our priorities straight.'"

                By the way, I do find it interesting that you fail to provide links to your sources. That's at best plagiarism, at worst copyright infringement.

                Reply
              • 0%

                ybdogsct3 months, 4 weeks ago

                UPDATE: AUDIO RECORDING OF ORIGINAL DER SPIEGEL INTERVIEW SHOWS THAT DER SPIEGEL WAS RIGHT

                http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008...

                Maliki's office, suddenly finding him thrust smack in the middle of the U.S. campaign, issued a somewhat half-hearted demurral, insisting something got lost in the translation of what he said.

                But an audio recording of his comment showed that Der Spiegel ESSENTIALLY GOT IT RIGHT. And in the initial readout from Obama's visit today with Maliki in Baghdad, the AP reported that the Iraqi government would like to see American combat units gone in 2010 -- a timeframe that 'falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama.'

                John McCain's campaign could not have predicted that he would be forced on the defensive by, of all people, Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki. Much as McCain wanted to hammer home their view that Barack Obama is clueless about Iraq, Maliki seemingly gave Obama a big dose of credibility.

                (cont.)

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  ybdogsct3 months, 4 weeks ago

                  McCain did not escape unscathed during his interview sessions. In a verbal flub that will spark renewed recollections of his Shiite/Sunni miscue earlier this year , he erroneously reconfigured the map of the world.Asked on ABC about the uptick in violence by Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, he replied: "We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border."

                  Iraq borders several nations, but Pakistan is not among them -- looming between the two is Iran."

                  LOL!

                  Spin that.

                  Reply
            • 0%

              capecoralM3 months, 4 weeks ago

              US General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said Thursday he expects to recommend further cuts in US forces in Iraq before he relinquishes command in September because of improved security.

              General Petraeus completely rejected Democrat Barack Obamas plans to immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq.

              Petraeus says US presence in Iraq blunts Iran's growing influence in the region.

              Iran Focus reported:

              Army Gen. David Petraeus, who is to assume control of US forces in the Mid-East, says that a continued US presence in Iraq is more likely to blunt, rather than inflame, Iran's growing influence in the region.

              In a 46-page document submitted in advance of his confirmation hearing on Thursday, Petraeus says the U.S. must work on developing more leverage â;; primarily diplomatic or economic â;; to pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear program. But, he notes, the U.S. must retain military strike options as a "last resort."

              Reply
            • 0%

              capecoralM3 months, 4 weeks ago

              Barack Obama cannot buy a clue about middle east policy. He can ride the coat tails of Bush success though. Or he can take the road of the Democrat(ic)s and call for full surrender to Al Queda as they have been for the past 4 years.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                Tangent0013 months, 4 weeks ago

                Whether you realize it or not, you've set up your own self-fulfilling prophesies if Obama is elected:

                If Iraq reasonably stabilizes, it's Obama riding "...the coat tails of Bush success...". If not, it's "...the Democrat(ic)s...full surrender to al Queda [sic]...".

                Congrats! Bush policy wins either way!

                Reply
            • 0%

              ybdogsct3 months, 4 weeks ago

              CAPECORAL:

              "Barack Obama cannot buy a clue about middle east policy."

              This is laughable particularly Bush AND McCain have flip-flopped to adopt Obama's strategy on:

              1) direct talks with Iran,

              2) increasing troops in Afghanistan, and

              3) finally setting timetables for Iraq.

              LOL!

              Keep spinning.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                Leemck023 months, 4 weeks ago

                Capecoral, in the case of Obama not having a clue, then we are no worst off. From the record of 'W', Cheney, Rumsfield and Condi, he shouldn't set himself up referring to anyone else's policy as laughable. Here we have the treasury stripped for the next decade, or longer if good fiscal management isn't restored, and this fellow wants more of the same.

                Reply
          • 0%

            Leemck023 months, 4 weeks ago

            Cape, you seem to be more informed than the rest, what is victory in Iraq? Will we get it before the Iraqis get their feet on the ground where we have al Qaeda and the people kicking us out? In view of our miscalculations from day one, like going to the wrong place to get the people responsible for 9/11; let's not forget war's on terrorism wasn't the first choice, WMD, "6 months or so" to be out, or the "end of hostilities" are all SNAFU's by, how did you say it; a political party so uniformly wrong. The surge, while responsible for temporary media relief, only causes us to be there 101 years, pushing back the inevitable, as the dollar continues to take a beating. Taking note of the word inevitable, what's your version of victory, and getting it while not having the economy collapse? Who has the feeling victory with a worn out military, as testified before congress, and position in the market lost?

            Reply
        • 0%

          MRCOFFEECAKE3 months, 4 weeks ago

          You mean he's trying to be a "flexible, open minded leader"

          Oh no, God forbid.. We need someone who stick to his mistakes and keeps making more so he won't look like a flip-flopper.

          You people have hero worshiped stubbornness, and you're begging for more... Do you tell your children to keep making mistakes as long as they don't change their opinion.

          Bad parent..Baaad parent. (even worse leader)..

          A good leader, or parent encourages growth and learning.

          What's your excuse?? oh that's right, if you begin to support

          flexibility you'll be a flip-flopper won't you??

          You can't go back now, no matter how wrong you are, can you?

          Reply
        • 0%

          wtagg3 months, 4 weeks ago

          Would you like to discuss the origin of the surge idea and the admin that called the individual a traitor for suggesting it in 2004?

          While we're at it, we can discuss who should be responsible for the 3.5 year wait to implement it.

          I'm betting that this is a discussion you will not want to pursue.

          Reply
  • 0%

    Goppy4 months ago

    See? Now THIS is a story that any American can read and take pleasure in - knowing that it's main purpose is NOT to SPIN or to DECEIVE or to DIVERT.

    I don't know if you know this ybdoggy, but OmegaGnosis is really STRESSIN - trying to back-peddle on the reasonable report that Iraq's al Maliki is aligning himself with the Barack Obama plan for phased withdrawl.

    I mean ... this is so common sensical. EVERY American knows that al Maliki wants us to leave.

    In fact, every American knows that Goerge W. Bush has even ... FINALLY ... agreed (in principle, he says) to a phased withdrawl.

    And yet ... Omega ... in what I can only describe as a STRENUOUS effort ... is trying to SPIN the whole story as being a case of a 'simple misunderstanding'.

    Well ... there HAS been a misunderstanding ... and I can tell you it goes back to our Goerge W. Bush thinking he can KILL his way to PEACE in Iraq.

    Quite simply, this never works.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 100%

      HannibalBarca4 months ago

      Yeah an old hippie chant

      "Fighting for peace is like f%#king for virginity

      Reply
    • 0%

      Natureboy3 months, 4 weeks ago

      " Well ... there HAS been a misunderstanding ... and I can tell you it goes back to our Goerge W. Bush thinking he can KILL his way to PEACE in Iraq.

      Quite simply, this never works."

      Which begs the question, why do Obama/McCain think it will work in Afghanistan?

      Reply
  • 0%

    Dionys4 months ago

    I guess I'm not getting it. When Obama has these ideas, such as talking to Iran or withdrawing troops as Iraq has asked and Americans want, he's accused of being a coward and/or ignorant.

    But when McCain and Bush steal Obama's ideas and claim them as their own a few months later, they're somehow heroic leaders talking about 'horizons' and such?

    Odd.

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 0%

      Goppy4 months ago

      You have to understand the Christian Conservative mindset.

      There's a fundamental disconnect on many levels.

      This is just one example.

      Others include their professed belief in Jesus ... but their LOVE of pre-emptive war.

      I won't go into others right now ... but believe me ... there are dozens.

      It's sad ... but it does point to a perversion of Christianity by Political Operatives.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        libsRfunny4 months ago

        You've got to understand the twisted, emotionally charged illogic of the like of Guppy.

        First, Bush has always said withdraw troops as the Iraq security situation allows. And guess what? They have!! They already started pulling them out. But not on a fixed time line.

        Then, of course, there is the lie about McCain saying the war would last 100 years. He only wasn't saying anything other than what we are doing in Germany, Japan and South Korea. And the Iraqis agree ...

        "'At the same time, [the Iraq gov't] would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.'"

        Pretty obvious. Keep the U.S. around to help out. Obama even took Bush's idea of listening to ground commanders and letting the situation dictate troop withdrawals.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          antibrainwasher3 months, 4 weeks ago

          Morning libs (coyote), Morning Gop (sheep dog), nice weather, (hit time clock), have a nice day, walking off with lunch boxes to their posts.

          Libs immediately starts stalking the innocent sheep (objectivity) in the pasture above which the great GOP is vigilantly guarding.

          After a long day of the sheep dog beating the crap out of the coyote, the day ends.

          Clocking out with lunch boxes. Night libs. Night GOP.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            CRYMTYPHON3 months, 4 weeks ago

            That...was a cartoon.

            Warner Brothers.

            Reply
        • 0%

          Tangent0013 months, 4 weeks ago

          "They already started pulling them out."

          Um, not precisely. Forces are being drawn down to pre-surge levels. An eventual abatement is the very definition of a 'surge', otherwise it would be simply an 'escalation'.

          Reply
        • 0%

          Leemck023 months, 4 weeks ago

          Libs, rewriting history again I see. I don't want to say your approach is unusual. We see folk like you at the fair all the time, that keep paying for another set of balls to knock the bottles down. They'll pay $100 trying to win a 99 cents doll; in just one more throw. When the first 6 months passed and we were no closer to victory, we had to say the Commander in Chief was wrong and it goes downhill from there. Surge! Why did we need it? Remember when all the service chiefs told our CinC and SECDEF that the troop strength wasn't enough to do the job before going in? How many times were these "leaders" told the solution is not military, the military has done its job years ago. If these can't run our own economy, we will continue to fail because the wrong bunch is trying to set up one elsewhere. Remember Sec of State saying, "we are not going to do nation building"? That's a conflict isn't it? We have to know when one more toss isn't going to make it.

          Reply
  • 0%

    injest4 months ago

    Team Obama, once again, jumps on a retracted statement hopping you won't find out it's been retracted, thus showing how naive he is about "world politics"

    Hint the article hit Propeller 6 hours ago, the RETRACTION hit 9 hour ago, just a little to slow for prime time

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      ybdogsct4 months ago

      INJEST:

      "Team Obama, once again, jumps on a retracted statement hopping you won't find out it's been retracted"

      While al-Maliki wanted to make sure his words weren't misconstrued as an endorsement for Barack Obama's candidacy, al-Maliki DOES ultimately agree with Obama that U.S. troops need to be redeployed as quickly, safely, and responsibly as possible. The slight differences between al-Maliki's timeline (36-60 months) and Obama's timeline (16 months) are small compared to ones between al-Maliki and Bush, who advocated long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq, and al-Maliki and McCain, who proposed 100-year military bases in Iraq.

      LOL.

      Reply
    • 0%

      Tangent0013 months, 4 weeks ago

      If you recall, the Iraq parliament asked for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal LAST YEAR (before the surge).

      Reply
    • 0%

      Leemck023 months, 4 weeks ago

      Injest, please let us know just who has the record of understanding world politics in the last 7 years. Obama's supposed naivety cannot be worst than the accomplishments of 'W' and the McCain, GOP follow on. I am an optimist, but after the ineptness to deliver no body armor and HumV's with canvas doors and tops against roadside bombs, well he have to admit, someone isn't understanding the basics. I forgot we were talking about world politics, so I have to give up because of space to post, starting with Taiwan and 'W' promising submarines we legally couldn't deliver, and the proliferation of nuke ability in how many countries. Then it's the record upon record breaking trade imbalances. How about the coalition break down in Iraq? If we could hold that then the surge might not be an issue, you think? How about the Dollar on the world market and our ability to get energy? Is China and India still gaining greater market share in business sectors we once had?

      Reply
  • 0%

    Daylight3 months, 4 weeks ago

    ybdogsct

    "There are 2 problems with John McCain's political attacks. First, Barack Obama was right to oppose the Iraq War from the start while John McCain sided with George Bush. Second, John McCain changed his position to embrace the same Obama approaches that he once attacked on (1) Afghanistan, (2) Iraq, and (3) Iran.

    In fact McCain's position was that he wanted to bask in the Iraqi sun for another 100 years and Obama wanted a time table for withdrawal and he spelled it out and Iraqi prime minister accepted it, so the McCain is clueless, he just have to follow Obama, he doesn't any policy on his own but everybody knows what the Neocon policies are, Just invade, occupy and destroy others in the name of freedom and get destroyed themselves.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      capecoralM3 months, 4 weeks ago

      "Barack Obama was right to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning"

      Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005

      October 2, 2002 - Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

      Unless he preformed another miracle then Obama did not oppose or support the Authorization of Use of Force in Iraq since he was not in office at the time.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        Dionys3 months, 4 weeks ago

        "Unless he preformed another miracle then Obama did not oppose or support the Authorization of Use of Force in Iraq since he was not in office at the time."

        I wasn't in office, but I opposed the Authorization of the Use of Force in Iraq.

        Don't they teach basic logic in schools these days?

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          mesodude3 months, 4 weeks ago

          "Don't they teach basic logic in schools these days?"

          --Cons love to play these silly semantics games. They can tell you things like the exact date Bush "inherited Clinton's recession" or when a certain memo landed on Condi's desk but you can bet they'll fight tooth and nail to claim the Bush recession (that's been going on for months) didn't really happen or that they can nail down the exact time a recession officially began (which we'll be told was precisely when Obama or, heaven forbid, McCain took office).

          Reply
• 0%

  ybdogsct4 months ago

  2) For months, Senator McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq "surrender" - even though we'd be leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government. Now, the Bush Administration is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government - a position that Senator Obama called for last September.

  3) McCain at the beginning of the week: against high-level talks with Iran. McCain at the end of the week: praised Bush Administration's high-level talks with Iran. Senator McCain, a long-time critic of diplomatic engagement with Iran, now changed his position to Obama's and said that he had "no problem...whatsoever" with this high-level diplomatic engagement with Iran. For the second time in one week, events on the ground forced John McCain to change his position to embrace an Obama position.

  In the last two days we've seen twice now the Bush administration reverse itself and take positions that are much closer to Obama's."

  Reply
• 0%

  cowboygrandpa4 months ago

  The Bush administration is as fouled up as it could be. The term SNAFU comes to mind. Situation normal all fu*ked up.

  That is something McCain should understand being an veteran.

  Yet he continues to fawn over and replicate Bozo Bushes mistakes in judgement and decisions.

  We don't need four more years of the same or worse from these clowns.

  Obama has shown a willingness to assess a situation from more than a greedy Bush viewpoint.

  That alone puts him far in front of McCain and his stumbling and bumbling attempts to secure the presidency.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    MRCOFFEECAKE4 months ago

    I liked McCain back when he hated Bush, but I guess they neutered him.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      2sidestoeverything4 months ago

      Ouch!!!

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.
• 0%

  CHAM4 months ago

  ybdog, you have outdone yourself. This exposes McCain for the senile old fool he is. More accurately for the senile old immoral and corrupt fool he is.

  And his enablers must be infected with the Bush insanity that so permeates the Republican Party. Try as they might, and they do strive mightily, the Democrats just can't keep up with the republicans in the foolish department. They're just going to try harder.

  Reply

  18 Replies

  • 0%

    ybdogsct4 months ago

    The most laughable thing is that Bush and McCain have been hammering Obama on foreign policy because they believe this one of the few areas in which they perceive they hold the upper-hand.

    But Bush and McCain have flip-flopped on Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq and now embrace the views that Obama has been touting all along.

    First, Bush initiates negotiations with Iran, a position Obama had endorsed almost a year ago for which McCain once called Obama "naive." Now, McCain flip-flops and says he has "no problem...whatsoever" with talking to Iran.

    Secondly, McCain said "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." But now that violence has spiked in Afghanistan, Bush and McCain have flip-flopped and now endorse more troops to Afghanistan.

    Thirdly, McCain once dismissed any talk of timelines as a form of "surrender." But now he and Bush have flip-flopped on that too.

    LOL. It turns out Obama's foreign policy was right all along.

    Reply

    7 Replies

    • 0%

      capecoralM3 months, 4 weeks ago

      Obama is not saying anything new. All of his proposals in regard to Iran are things that are already being done.

      The "surge" has brought a situation to the forefront that those who were against it cannot accept. Harry "The War is lost" Reid comes to mind so does Barack.

      This is the week that the Democratic party ran up the white flag when it comes to the surge in Iraq. Leading the surrender was none other than Barack Obama, the Democratic party's presumptive nominee for president and among the most vocal critics of the counterinsurgency plan that has transformed the Iraq war from a potentially catastrophic loss to what may turn out to be a historically significant victory.

      A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        ybdogsct3 months, 4 weeks ago

        CAPECORALM:

        "Obama is not saying anything new. All of his proposals in regard to Iran are things that are already being done."

        No. Directly communicating with Iran was a SWITCH in Bush's normal policy.

        http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/bush-wil...

        "In a big policy reversal, President Bush this week authorized a top State Department diplomat to attend upcoming nuclear negotiations with Iran. It's a major change from the administration's position that it wouldn't participate in even preliminary meetings until Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program. Just a few months ago, Bush was calling Barack Obama's willingness to meet with Iran 'appeasement.'"

        I've already addressed your absurd, cherry-picked comments about the Surge above.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          wtagg3 months, 4 weeks ago

          I would suggest you use a direct argument:

          The surge is a switch in Bush policy. Prior to the implementation of the surge, Bush and his admin were opposed. In 2004, they branded the original presenter of the idea as a traitor. 3.5 years alter and thousands of dead troops and tens of thousands of casualties, he suddenly decided it might be worth a try.

          Now that's leadership. Yikes.

          Reply
      • 0%

        djn3nunez33 months, 4 weeks ago

        Reid was actually calling for changes recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

        What Reid really said:

        "As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. But there must be a change of course."

        What other changes to the Bush Administrations original strategy of "Stay the Course" did the Iraq study group come up with that were also implemented?

        It's spinners like this that keep Americans locked up in twisting sound bites. 100 year McCain and Invade Pakistan Obama comes to mind.

        Reply
      • 0%

        Tangent0013 months, 4 weeks ago

        "The "surge" has brought a situation to the forefront that those who were against it cannot accept. Harry "The War is lost" Reid comes to mind so does Barack."

        Actually, it's unclear if the troop surge had much effect at all. There were brokered deals with factions that likely had much greater impact than the increased troop presence, such as the May 10 Baghdad deal between security forces and al Sadr supporters.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Tangent0013 months, 4 weeks ago

          NoSpinDave, you neg this comment, but to place all the progress on the ground at the feet of the surge is not only patently in error, it is grievously foolhardy. Al Sadr could turn progress back years with simply declarations. If we don't recognize the importance of diplomacy, we doom Iraq to continued instability and violence.

          Reply
    • 0%

      Leemck023 months, 4 weeks ago

      Ybdogsct, though I have to totally agree with your post, may I say it sort of comes across like you can give them some credit later. I know, they failed, and it's good to have nice people like you to post. Forgive me, I am just having fun. This is one of the few places left, as the economy and services erodes.

      Reply

  • baddad59Comment removed: User banned.9 Replies

    • baddad59Comment removed: User banned.3 Replies

      • 0%

        cowboygrandpa4 months ago

        baddad:

        Not only that they caused the mortgage meltdown by not being able to afford the high prices. Forcing Bush to bail out his corporate sponsors.

        See it is all the libs fault. LMAO hahahahahhahahaha

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
        • 0%

          obiefrommuskogee4 months ago

          I recently discovered it was Phil Gramm, the guy who said that American were whiners, who was primarily responsible for mortgage meltdown, by effectively campaigning to remove regulations in his role as a lobbyist for a large bank.

          His motivation for using the word whiner now becomes clear, otherwise he would have to call himself an ahole. Which he is, but being the ahole he is, he doesn't see himself as one ( a quality of all true aholes).

          What ever happened to the 33/28 % ratio requirements?

          Reply

    • baddad59Comment removed: User banned.4 Replies

      • 0%

        Goppy3 months, 4 weeks ago

        LOL!

        Reply
      • 0%

        wtagg3 months, 4 weeks ago

        Could you please explain why this surprises you?

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • baddad59Comment removed: User banned.1 Reply

          • 0%

            wtagg3 months, 4 weeks ago

            Just providing a complimentary reality check.

            Reply
• 0%

  cloud154 months ago

  The thing this fails to recognize is that the position change is necessary due to the improving conditions in Iraq, improving conditions that due to the troop surge. The call for troop withdrawals and the call from the Iraqi's for a time table would not be possible without the surge. In actuality this is both good and bad for Obama. Its good because it embraces his plan for a timetable, its bad because it shows he was wrong about the surge.

  Reply

  39 Replies

  • 0%

    engineer4 months ago

    We had no reason to invade Iraq in the first place. The surge did not help or hurt. There are still problems there which may never be resolved. Obama has the right idea. Get out as soon as possible. Otherwise as as McCain stated when asked by a reporter how long we'd be in Iraq, He said,"Maybe a hundred (years)!"

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      mesodude3 months, 4 weeks ago

      I'll never understand why those on the right think we should congratulate ourselves for fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place. It's very oddball thinking.

      Reply
  • 0%

    ybdogsct4 months ago

    According to the GAO, the Troop Escalation did NOT accomplish it's intended purpose - diplomatic progress that is necessary for lasting peace.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

    Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration."

    Likewise, the GAO criticized Bush's strategy in Afghanistan:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

    "After six years and $16.5 billion in spending, the Defense and State departments still lack a "sustainable strategy" for developing Afghanistan's army and police force, government auditors said yesterday."

    Reply

    26 Replies

    • 0%

      cloud154 months ago

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_go_pr...

      That story says Iraq has met 15 of the 18 benchmarks...

      Reply
    • 0%

      cloud154 months ago

      Your first aticle is a little out-dated. "Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page A01" Almost a year old, things have changed, and they've changed for the better.

      Reply

      17 Replies

      • 0%

        ybdogsct