When Political Games Trump Reality
July 11th, 2008 at 04:54pm Mark Noonan
You get Barack Obama’s policies:
Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult
U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare
Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party’s nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.
Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.
We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.
“We still have a ways to go. Number one, we’re working on security and it’s very encouraging, that’s true, but what we’re really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let’s look at the conditions.”…
…On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.
“If we pull out of here too early, it’s going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave,” West said.
Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, “The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that’s what we want. I don’t want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this.”
But Ussery added, “You can’t put a timetable on it — it’s events-based.”
The report further notes that while we may be able to get the troops out in 16 months, the logistics of getting all the equipment out makes a time table like that unrealistic. As a for-instance, moving out two combat bridages in a month means, among many other things, moving out 1,200 humvees. The fundamental problem with the left - other than the fact that leftwing thought is based on a lie - is that life doesn’t match leftwing conceptions. I doubt much that Obama has ever considered military logistics in formulating his policies - and not in the sense of he knew they were a factor but dismissed them, but that he didn’t know they were a factor. Most liberals aren’t concerned with such things - and this is the result of their over-concentration on purity of intentions as opposed to paying attention to results of actions.
Obama and his Democrats will pull us out of Iraq in 16 months…and they will “end” the war, which is another indication that Obama hasn’t actually thought about what he believes. Wars don’t “end” - they are won, or they are lost. Vietnam didn’t “end” - it was lost. People who have bothered to instruct themselves in matters of foreign and military policy understand that regardless of what one thinks of President Bush and the reasons for liberating Iraq, the fact that we are there now imposes upon us the choice to win, or to lose. Additionally, people who have bothered instructing themselves understand that losing a war is always worse than winning. No matter what high minded goal one has in life, it is better met with victory than with defeat. But in Obama’s fantasy world, intent trumps results and if he wins we’ll be given at least four years of leftwing fantasy clashing with life’s realities.
Thanks, but I prefer John McCain - warts and all - because he lives in the real world…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Kook Left, War on Terror
21 Comments
1. FmrMarine | July 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Mark;
>>>But in Obama?s fantasy world, intent trumps results and if he wins we?ll be given at least four years of leftwing fantasy clashing with life?s realities.>>>
obamanation is beginning to sound more like michael jackson every day.
Soon he will convert to islam………OH my he doesnt have to !
2. David B. Schmidt | July 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Before the ranting about Pres. Bush starts and how this is an illegal war (Rep. Kucinich is attempting impeachment again) — try to remember two facts. First, every congresscritter had the same exact intelligence or access to it before voting. Second, and more important–no matter how or why we got there–it is now a win or lose situation. Personally, I would rather win than the other option.
And finally, before someone brings up what the troops want–talk to them (I do regularly) and ask yourself why 1215 troops (largest ever), including at least two husband/wife teams, reenlisted knowing they would stay or face another tour. I can speak for the Marines I spend 9 years with including combat and GW1–because we don’t like to lose.
And yes, I am on the list for recall as soon as the government and Marines need my services–this at 48 years old.
Choose as you see fit ut the only options are win or lose no matter what you try and convince yourself.
3. Tractatus | July 11th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
The fundamental problem with the left - other than the fact that leftwing thought is based on a lie - is that life doesn’t match leftwing conceptions.
I have to say, Noonan, I love these little pronouncements of yours. They’re very funny because they reek of projection and defensiveness. In this small sentence, you have highlighted the two flaws that undermine pretty much all of your attempts at reason.
#1: “leftwing thought is based on a lie.” This “lie” you speak of is that “humans aren’t fallen.” By “fallen,” of course, you are referring to the Biblical fall of man. So what you are saying is that unless a person ardently believes that a talking snake convincing a woman made out of a rib to eat a magic apple doomed all of mankind, then you cannot be right about anything, anywhere, at any time. Somehow, you consider this a foundation of rationality.
#2: “Life doesn’t match leftwing conceptions.” This from a creationist who still insists we found WMDs in Iraq, that abstinence-only “education” works, that science is dead, and that conservatism “works every time it’s tried,” among many other cartoonishly foolish assertions. Life has an unfortunate habit of not lining up with your conceptions, Noonan. That’s probably why you spend so much time and energy constructing this alternate universe of yours–it quiets the cognitive dissonance.
4. CanadianObserver | July 11th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
3. Tractatus | July 11th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Vividly correct, Tractatus. Well said.
5. Stretchrun | July 11th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
2. David B. Schmidt | July 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“try to remember two facts. First, every congresscritter had the same exact intelligence Jor access to it before voting.”
Over and over and over again, what a useless dead horse. Not one Democrat denies this. But with the exception of a few good Bushies about every American has figured out what happened back in 2003. Bush, more importantly Cheney and the necons put forth intelligence from sources such as Chalibi who saw money and power to be had and held back and demonized intelligence from the likes of Joe Wilson; who saw the run up to the war for what it was; a shake down of the American people. You would have thought Scott McClellan’s recent cleansing of his soul would have brought around a couple pieces of Repug driftwood.
6. js | July 11th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
its the same basic thing they did in ‘nam Mark….its called cut and run…
7. neocon | July 11th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Tractatus,
Why are you so obssessed with Mark’s faith? I have noticed that in your recent posts you have mentioned his faith as the foundation of your disagreement them.
I think Mark clearly defined his comment in the remiander of the post. That comment was not intended to define liberals atheist or agnostic beliefs but simply to define them politcally.
And it’s spot on.
I liked how CO quickly sang to the choir though.
Stretch,
Still debating the nuances of the pre-war intelligence? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
peace, neocon
8. Fredrick Schwartz | July 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
7. neocon | July 11th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Tractatus,
Why are you so obssessed with Mark’s faith? I have noticed that in your recent posts you have mentioned his faith as the foundation of your disagreement them.
That might be because if he had his way he’d be shoving it down all of your throats seven days a week from Washington instead of Nevada.
9. Tractatus | July 11th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Why are you so obssessed with Mark’s faith? I have noticed that in your recent posts you have mentioned his faith as the foundation of your disagreement them.
I’m simply responding to what he puts out there. He’s the one continually asserting that “leftwing thinking is built upon a lie.” All I did was unpack the statement. I didn’t say anything in that comment that Noonan hasn’t said countless times before. I’m just illustrating how ridiculous it is.
Noonan is the one who makes his faith an issue by, among other things, asserting that his opinions are de facto superior to the opinions of those who do not share his faith (or even those who do not share his intensity of faith). It’s a ridiculous assertion to make, and it’s made all the more ridiculous by the fact that, well, he’s the one who typically comes up lacking in the whole truth/reality/fact department.
10. Danish Artist | July 11th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Fred Schputz,
Mark shoves his religion down our throats less than you shove your anti-religious, brimstone crap down ours.
I see more of the left’s uninformed electorate - the only way a liberal like Barak Hussein Obama could get elected with the promises of big government, higher taxes, cut&run miliary - we tried this in the mid-70s and 90s and it did not work.
Carter and the economy fell. Clinton got re-elected after moving to the center because that was the only way he would have.
11. neocon | July 11th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
And Obamas sprint to the center is further evidence that the majority of the electorate is not as far left as our resident liberals would like us to believe.
Obama knows that he needs to support the 2nd ammendment, push for victory in Iraq, and challenge the abortion on demand lobby, etc. to win. And as evidenced by his recent “re-defining” of his positions, he recognizes that.
Tractatus & Frederick,
Mark is as firm in his beliefs, as you are in yours. I have read many of the same comments from both of you directed towards those who disagree with you. I am guilty as well, sometimes.
I don’t think Mark is any different. What I do think both of you object to, strongly, is Chrisitanity. When this issue is raised, both of you lose objectivity because of your disdain. And I am not sure why.
peace, neocon
12. Tractatus | July 11th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Mark is as firm in his beliefs, as you are in yours. I have read many of the same comments from both of you directed towards those who disagree with you.
False comparison. For starters, I have never said and would never say, as Noonan repeatedly has, that anybody who does not share my belief system cannot be correct about anything.
What I do think both of you object to, strongly, is Chrisitanity. When this issue is raised, both of you lose objectivity because of your disdain. And I am not sure why.
No, I have no problem with Christianity as a whole. I do have a problem with people–like Noonan–who insist that theirs is the only correct way, with people like Jeremiah who use their religion to excuse their rather despicable views (see: Jeremiah’s “God-based” rationale for wanting gays murdered), and with literalists who demand that the world be brought into accordance with their beliefs, facts be damned. These are not problems with Christianity, but problems with the application and projection thereof.
13. Jeremiah | July 11th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Tractatus,
You reckon the world would be a “better” place if we just simply abolished morality and the laws thereof?
Ok, let’s do it…let’s GO FOR IT, BABY!!
Let’s legalize sodomite marriage in all fifty states. Let’s let women do whatever they want to do with their bodies and children. And as far as God is schools, we don’t have to worry there, cuz that’s already been settled.
Uuuuh, what next? Let’s see …. Let’s abolish the death penalty and build more prisons.
Uuuuh, what next? Let me see, let’s implement more federal funding for sexually transmitted diseases…medicine, surgery, contraceptives and the like.
The only drawback, however, is that, I don’t know how many hard-working folks will want to spend their hard earned money in taxes to support these things, you see.
But….we can do it, right?
GO FOR IT!!!
HA HA HAAAAAAA!
14. David B. Schmidt | July 11th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Stretchrun,
Joe Wilson, if you have read his report, actually confirmed the government’s findings before he denied them (starting to sound familiar) as well as the rest of his crap has been proven over and over again to be total lies. Talk about a dead horse.
Chalibi, aka “Screwball”, was another flat out P
OS that shouldn’t have been trusted–at least not without verification. Nonetheless, about half of Congress (if I remember correctly) is admitting to voting without reading the basics and no one brought up major opposition. These are the folks you voted for because I pounded mine to at least make an informed decision.
Hindsight being 20-20 has benefits but one has to live with decisions made. McClellan is another that has reversed his original statements with the plausible story he altered at the request of the publisher to sell books. Better yet, he has “refined” his position aka Sen. Obama. Just like “anytime, anywhere” means nothing to the man who claims words are everything.
Take all of that for what you will–the question still is “Do you want to win or lose?” That is what is important now.
15. kmg | July 11th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
2. David B. Schmidt | July 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
And finally, before someone brings up what the troops want–talk to them (I do regularly) and ask yourself why 1215 troops (largest ever), including at least two husband/wife teams, reenlisted knowing they would stay or face another tour.
Because their reenlistment bonus is tax exempt if they reup in a combat zone? Also, reenlisting won’t make you stay. If your term is to end during your deployment, you are involuntarily extended until after your return. They could also be thinking that a Democratic president is likely next year, so they won’t have to do another tour in Iraq. Those are just some possibilities. Everyone reenlists for their own reasons, so you can’t attribute a single reason to all of them.
16. Magnum Serpentine | July 12th, 2008 at 12:06 am
A simple solution to this is to pull the troops out in 2 weeks. Have them line up and march in mass into Kuwait and board planes and ships already waiting for them. Equipment that cannot be taken out in 2 weeks will be left, with the keys in the ignition and with a users Manuel for the Iraqi army to use. After all we destroyed their equipment time to pay them back by replacing what we destroyed with our own equipment.
17. Mark Noonan | July 12th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Tract,
Still haven’t read that report about the WMDs we found in Iraq, haven’t you? Really, you should…if nothing else, it will make you less tiresome.
That aside, you get it is a bit wrong - the leftwing lie is that the material is all there is and out of this lie comes the concept that man, being an entirely material being, can be perfected - that a system can be set up which won’t allow this entirely material man to be selfish, or greedy, or envious, or lazy, or mendacious…You don’t have to subscribe to the Bible to be on firm ground, but you must reject materialism.
And as for that creation story - if you had a bit of wisdom you’d understand that it tells the story of how mankind decided he wanted to live on his own, but he has nothing of his own…and our whole story from that moment to this is the story of God guiding us to voluntarily make the choice to be with him. With him, you’ve got everything - without him, you’ve got yourself, and nothing more, ever.
18. Mark Noonan | July 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Danish,
Heck, I didn’t even mildly try to impel religion down anyone’t throat in this entry - while I’ve got the rack and the cat o’nine tails ready for the heretics most of the time, on this thread I was talking about Iraq, and Obama’s manifest incompetance to be President. Naturally, this makes a leftist want to bring up religion on the theory that its better to talk about anything else than Obama…
19. David B. Schmidt | July 12th, 2008 at 2:26 am
kmg,
You are proof positive that you do not know jack about the military. I have dealt with everything from upper-class through the poorest of the poor but in the Marines we were all one class–mainly poor.
No one joined for tax-exempt status or the bonuses–or at least they didn’t re-enlist for them. Stop-loss was explained before we signed our lives away in your views and we serve with honor in our views — why are you trying to make us fail again?
Bascallly, (expletive deleted) you — get out of my way to make your world better whether you like it or not.
-Sgt. David S.
[BTW, don't challange this without a (expletive deleted) of backup -- the standard liberal puke will not fly. Start with the nasties in S.America]
Hope you have a wndeful evening RS
All others - sleep well at my expense…
20. kmg | July 12th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Schmidt,
You need to get off your high horse. Your greatly inflated sense of self-worth isn’t impressing me.
I spent 20 years in the Army (’85-’05), so you can STFU about whether or not I know anything about the military.
Don’t ask a question if you don’t want an answer. You asked why 1,215 troops would reenlist and I gave you just a couple of reasons why people reenlist. I said you can’t claim they all reenlisted for the same reason. You are the one who claims to be able to read 1,215 minds in order to say they all reenlisted for the same reason. With that kind of power you should be able to round up all the bad guys in Iraq in a matter of days. Good luck with that.
I didn’t give an opinion on stop-loss (though I do think it sucks and I can say it was not even mentioned to me when I enlisted), I simply pointed out your error. Since you are the one who made the false claim that reenlisting would keep some people in theater, maybe you are the one who needs to learn more about the military.
21. Tractatus | July 12th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
You don’t have to subscribe to the Bible to be on firm ground
That’s certainly not what you’ve said in the past; you’ve even said that any non-Christian religion or belief system can only be “correct” insofar as it coincides with Christianity. Why so coy about it now? Are you backtracking from how wrong you were before? If so, that would be a small bit of progress on your part. But I suspect you’re just engaging in a little CYA here.
the concept that man, being an entirely material being, can be perfected
I’ve never seen anybody but you forward this line, incidentally. You constantly parrot it, yet nobody else–certainly no “leftists”–has ever espoused it as far as I’ve seen. You might want to let that strawman go and form a more cogent argument.
BTW, how much of a literalist are you? Do you believe the talking snake story is literally true? If so, can one find “wisdom” from other stories about talking animals and magical fruit?