64 Comments Add your own

• 1. Treeline  |  July 19th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

  al-Maliki’s actual meaning more closely resembles the position of John McCain July 19th, 2008 at 10:29pm Matt Margolis

  This is beyond silly even for BFV. Where is Maliki’s quote side by side with a McCain quote. McCain is ok with us being there 100 years. How do their positions resemble one another? Sometime Matt I can’t tell the difference between you and Leo.

• 2. JPL  |  July 19th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  Where is Maliki’s quote side by side with a McCain quote[?]…. How do their positions resemble one another?

  Gee, Tweeline, did you think of maybe looking in the article that Matt quoted? Well, let’s see, here’s how it reported al-Maliki’s position:

  Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said [that al-Maliki’s position was that] the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements….

  And here’s how it reported McCain’s position:

  McCain does not think American troops should return to the United States until Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining a safe, democratic state.

  The 2 positions are virtually identical, twithead.

  Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/

• 3. Treeline  |  July 19th, 2008 at 11:42 pm

  “Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic,” al-Maliki said.

  McCain has us in Iraq 100 years. Obama wants to begin an orderly safe withdrawl within 16 months. To the Iraqis which postions is more realistic? It is rhetorical since the cons will naturally pick the 100 years and reason it is the shorter time period.

• 4. Gman  |  July 20th, 2008 at 12:30 am

  So what if we are there for 100 years? That will mean we have a strong alliance with Iraq which will be good for both the USA and Iraq. Treeline, don’t worry, libtards like you will not be there to do any heavy lifting anyway. I doubt you know or have even met a single person who has served in Iraq. So please don’t act like you care about our troops. If you don’t support the mission then you don’t support the troops.FOAD.

• 5. Jonathan  |  July 20th, 2008 at 12:57 am

  So what if we are there for 100 years? That will mean we have a strong alliance with Iraq which will be good for both the USA and Iraq.

  What part of ‘Maliki wants us to leave his country ASAP’ don’t you understand?

  If you don’t support the mission then you don’t support the troops.

  baby keefer, is that you? Oh, and FYI - that old talking point doesn’t carry any significant weight anymore.

• 6. Mark Noonan  |  July 20th, 2008 at 1:35 am

  Jonathan,

  But Maliki doesn’t want us out of there in your sense of it - not immediately. So, like most liberals, you’re merely allowing your unreasoning hatred of President Bush to blind you to reality.

• 7. Mark Noonan  |  July 20th, 2008 at 1:36 am

  Treeline,

  You must be another paid shill for the left..the “100 years” thing is such a mindless talking point that no one would actually post it voluntarily.

• 8. JPL  |  July 20th, 2008 at 2:04 am

  Tweeline and Jonathan, you’re both either ignoramuses or liars, because al-Maliki’s comments about a “short time period” for withdrawal only refer to combat troops, not to a residual force. As the article stated:

  President Bush and al-Maliki had agreed to include a “general time horizon” in talks about reducing American combat forces….

  As previously noted, al-Maliki agrees with McCain that the timetable for withdrawing combat troops can’t be arbitrary, but depends on the security situation.

  So what does al-Maliki have to say about the withdrawal timetable for a U.S. residual force? Well, surprise, surprise, he essentially agrees with McCain on that as well, because based on last week’s news reports, al-Maliki’s government is OK with the U.S. keeping residual forces in Iraq for years to come:

  Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister’s party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control.

  The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq’s provinces, U.S.-led [combat] forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

  After that, the country’s security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops [i.e., the residual force] would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

  Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

  Since McCain’s “100 years” comment referred only to a possible residual force, bottom line is that al-Maliki essentially agrees with McCain that a U.S. residual force might remain in Iraq for years.

• 9. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 8:48 am

  It’s really beyond the pale that Obamabots tried to credit their messiah with this recent turn of events in Iraq considering Obama never did support the war or the surge, nor did support even staying in Iraq when it was determined that genocide could ensue if we left.

  Yet now, when victory is at hand, and the Iraqi government is looking at taking over all security responsibility, Obamabots seize the opportunity to credit Obama for having such a compatible.
  vision.

  This level of dishonesty and delusion is hard to combat and debate. It’s so detached from reality, where do you start?

  Although all of this will help us finish with a McCain Presidency.

  peace, neocon

• 10. Digitizer  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:04 am

  Along those lines, Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, who the Times calls a spokesman for the Iraqi government, has released a statement saying that Prime Minister Maliki’s statement was “misunderstood and mistranslated” and “not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq.” But as the Times notes al Dabbagh did not specify what had been mistranslated.

  Another interesting detail, noted by the Times. al-Dabbagh’s statement was released by CentCom. I do not know how often Iraqi government statements are released by CentCom.

  al-Dabbagh’s statement was released by CENTCOM?

  Centcom…oh this stinks alright. Stinks of more right wing disinformation.

  Again, I love this blog. A comical feast.

• 11. liberalDream  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am

  wow - your so deep in denial. One of the supposed reasons that we went to Iraq in the first place was to install democracy. Now you tell me over and over again that despite the polls saying that Iraqi’s want America out of Iraq we should only listen to the government. So now - they have made several clear statements supporting the US leaving - and still you make up reason why we should ignore that.
  Can you say hypocrite Mark

• 12. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:12 am

  Digitzer,

  And yet this from CNN:

  “But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”

  Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.”

  http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/

  liberaldream,

  You missed the point entirely, not a surprise though.

  Both of you need to learn, and understand the first rule of holes.

  peace, neocon

• 13. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:15 am

  I would like some liberal to tell me if Maliki also supported this position of Obama’s.

  updated 12:58 a.m. MT, Fri., July. 20, 2007
  SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

• 14. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:18 am

  Oh Mark,

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

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwqKQAF9EY

  And the number one flip flopper strikes again

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzwWKEhFv6A

  A vote for McSame is a Vote for a third term for george.

• 15. Casper  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:28 am

  So what does Obama say about a residual force?

  “Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.”

  Sounds like Obama, al-Maliki, and McCain all agree on this one.

• 16. Canadian Observer  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:30 am

  It is indeed comforting to know that the Iraqi people embrace the idea of having an American presence reside in their country for however long the U.S. defines.

  Tell us, will the new nation be known as the United States of Iraq from now on, bringing with it, of course, all the benefits that would entail?

• 17. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am

  Mags,

  I am not seeing the flip flop, help me out here. In every instance, McCain has suggested the possibility of a residual force in Iraq for security, only in the event though that they are not being attacked, wounded or killed, and has suggested that that presence will not be permanent.

  And I would like to know from you how you feel about Obama’s:

  - support for the 2nd amendment
  - desire to outlaw late term abortions
  - support for domestic spying
  - desire to send a surge into Afghanistan
  - desire to invade Pakistan
  - acceptance of a genocide in Iraq

  Get back to me when you can
  thanks
  neocon

• 18. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:33 am

  Casper,

  How do you square that with Obamas statement from July 20, 2007 in post #13?

  Help me out here please.
  thanks
  neocon

• 19. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am

  Exactly one year ago today, Obama supported a complete withdrawal from Iraq with the acknowldgement, and acceptance, of a potential genocide in Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s.

  Why doesn’t he care about the Iraq’s?

  Now he wants to leave a residual force to help secure the country?

  Why doesn’t he care about our troops?

• 20. David Shapiro  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:48 am

  Along those lines, Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, who the Times calls a spokesman for the Iraqi government, has released a statement saying that Prime Minister Maliki’s statement was “misunderstood and mistranslated” and “not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq.” But as the Times notes al Dabbagh did not specify what had been mistranslated.

  Another interesting detail, noted by the Times. al-Dabbagh’s statement was released by CentCom. I do not know how often Iraqi government statements are released by CentCom.

  C’mon! A statement released not by the Iraqi government, but by U.S. Central Command? How obvious does this lie have to be.

  “U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” PM Malaki said in an interview with Der Spiegel that was released Saturday.

  You can see why the US is resorting to lies. I mean to actually have a third party working for Central Command telling us we did not hear what we heard. It is over for McCain.

  “At the end of the war the British public voted
  Chruchill out of power in the election at the end of
  WWII. After fighting two World Wars. British economy
  was struggling. Churchill had no effective plan to
  deal with the growing independence movement in the
  Colonies. Atlee, with a promise of independence to
  India and a focus on rebuilding British economy won
  handily. Once Gandhi endorsed Atlee’s plan, Churchill
  had no moves left.

  So what is the relevance to today? McCain is a
  one-issue politician, as Churchill was. The one issue being war. And like Churchill, people will reject him
  as soon as the war stops being the main issue. To
  McCain’s surprise, Maliki of Iraq just endorsed the
  Obama plan for Iraqi independence. Checkmate.

  The inability to mix war and politics to form a
  coherent strategy brought an end to both men’s
  careers.”

• 21. Fredrick Schwartz  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:53 am

  19. neocon | July 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am

  And like you care about some army spec 4 from Two Sticks, Louisiana except how you can use him as a straw man for fascism. “The troops” to you are a cog in a machine that uses patriotism and religion to sell a product–white Christian Conservative hegemony in America– nothing more.

  Fetuses, people jumping out of terror attacked skyscrapers to their bloody deaths scores of floors below, American flags being threatened with Bic lighters, the crappy marriages of people ill prepared for the union but because they are male and female and of course Christian all are things to be “protected” by almighty conservatism. You guys are a joke; go ahead and vote McCain into office and inherit the wind.

• 22. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:04 am

  Mr. Shapiro,

  Please explain Obamas position from July 20, 2007 and how that merges with his current position.

  Please explain the CNN article that stated the same thing Centcom did.

  Please explain how Obamas initial plan of troop withdrawal was to be completed by March 2008 and how that coincides with this current timeline.

  Frederick,

  I sense a little hostility. Your presumption of my feelings only exposes your inability to argue the points coherently.

  Your racism is evident again that simply reveals a very closed mind and the inability to move beyond baseless sophmoric perceptions.

  You are definitely part of the problem
  have a collective day
  peace, neocon

• 23. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am

  “Maliki of Iraq just endorsed the
  Obama plan for Iraqi independence.” - Mr. David Shapiro

  You mean this plan?

  SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

• 24. Treeline  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am

  Neocon incompetence you have got to love it. Below is a cut and paste of what really occured.

  “An embarrassing slip up for the White House press office Saturday, when an aide hit the wrong button and mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s troop withdrawal plan.”

• 25. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:43 am

  Treeline,

  How do you know that “aide” was a neocon?

  I look forward to your proof
  thanks
  neocon

• 26. hermie  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am

  Neo..neo…neo.

  Don’t you know that statement has been officially scrubbed from the Obamamessiah’s history, and that any reference to it is racist, an attack on Michelle Obama and hurts their children?

• 27. Treeline  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am

  23. neocon | July 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am

  If the cons really believe our “MILITARY” should be used in every humanitarian issue around the globe, Bush Jr and McCain better start lining up more China debt to pay for it.

  The only foreign policy where Bush Jr. is succeeding is helping to stop one of the greatest humanitarian issues of our lifetime, the spread of Aids in Africa: without the military.
  .

• 28. Treeline  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:53 am

  How do you know that “aide” was a neocon?25. neocon | July 20th, 2008 at 10:43 am

  All aides working in the White House are good Bushies
  All good Bushies are neocons
  Therefore all aides working in the White House are neocons.

• 29. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:54 am

  Neocon

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

  In 1994 McSame said we need to pull troops out now, not when the situation was stabilized. Not when it was politically ok, not when a new government was established. he said now means now. And there is absolutely no difference between Haiti and Iraq. Both were Dictatorships. maybe the only difference is that Iraq has oil.

  Flip Flop in the extreme.

  2005 We should be in Iraq as little as possible.
  2008 We should be in Iraq for 100 years, maybe 1000 years.

  Nuff said

  flip flop flip flop flip flop

  A vote for McSame is a vote for a Third Term for george the disaster.

• 30. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am

  Treeline,

  Maybe because the spread of a disease doesn’t require military confrontation wherein an oppressive ideology promulgated by jihadists require a more active confrontation.

  Can you wrap your mind around that?
  peace, neocon

• 31. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:57 am

  Neocon,

  Actually I am going to add one more thing. Haiti was a war that was started under a Democratic elected president.

  The george war in Iraq was a war started under a republic party president.

  next

• 32. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am

  “And there is absolutely no difference between Haiti and Iraq.” - Maggie

  How do you debate someone so detached from reality? Mags, you have fallen off the partisan cliff and you simply embarrass yourself here daily.

  Anybody with an ounce of self respect would simply fade away, but you just continue to perpetuate blatant partisan dishonesty, which reveals a level of delusion seldom realized.

  Congrats
  neocon

• 33. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 11:21 am

  ONE YEAR AGO TODAY, OBAMA SUPPORTED GENOCIDE IN IRAQ.

• 34. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 11:24 am

  Treeline,

  Then McClelland and Powell are being dishonest?

  please explain
  neocon

• 35. Rich  |  July 20th, 2008 at 11:59 am

  Ah the fairweather Americans rear their ugly heads again. After saying for five years that we could not win the war in Iraq, now you libs are claiming after we have won that your position on leaving is the right one. Despicable.

• 36. Ricorun  |  July 20th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

  This just in: SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation with al Maliki.

  Be that as it may, I agree with those who accuse Obama of being very inconsistent with regard to the surge. He opposed the surge from its inception. And for a long time thereafter he stuck to the opinion that it would not have an effect, even on the level of violence. Then, earlier this year he started saying that of course 30,000 additional troops would help to reduce the level of violence, but what is really needed is political solutions. Oh please. Yes, political solutions are important. But there is no way to spin his statements on the tactical effects of the surge in any terms other than a reversal. Worse, Obama’s even more recent statements have him circling back — that other factors (e.g., the local Sunni population breaking with AQ, al Sadr’s cease fire, and neighborhood ethnic cleansing) were more important than the surge in quelling violence. That, to me, was another fumble on his part, and a rather serious one.

  My opinion is that it was all of the above. The surge was not the only component in quelling the violence, but it was an important one. The appointment of Petraeus was key. And his embedding strategy appears to have helped both to win hearts and minds and to bring the Iraqi army up to speed more rapidly. Those things, combined with coopting provincial populations and the extra American troops, allowed “friendly forces” to stay in areas that were cleared to secure and consolidate them from the ground up. No more of the top-down whack-a-mole strategy that dominated Rumsfeld’s tenure.

  All the while though, Obama has been consistent on the one thing that most people pay most attention to: his goal that American combat troops should be withdrawn in 16-18 months. He’s been saying that for 16-18 months. I’m sure he’ll be sticking to it through November and (if elected) on to January. And if things keep going in the same direction, by that time it appears reality will have caught up with the meme.

  I think one could effectively argue that there was a substantial amount of luck in Obama’s favor in the way things are shaking out. But I also I think one could effectively argue that Obama knew his would be an easy position to maintain, because it wasn’t dependent upon the success or failure of the surge. McCain’s position was much more risky — the surge had to succeed, at least tactically to a reasonable extent. Had it failed to have an effect on security conditions, his candidacy would have been dead. In Obama’s case, if the surge failed people would be crying for a dramatic and immediate change in strategy — i.e., get out of the briar patch. If it succeeded, people would be anxious to leave ASAP. Obama’s bases were covered either way. He didn’t need luck. If there was any luck involved it would be Maliki’s recent comments, coupled with his gov’t resisting Bush’s attempts to pressure them into a long-term status of forces agreement. That definitely worked in Obama’s favor — and definitely not in McCain’s.

• 37. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

  Neocon

  a war is a war.

  United States forces occupied Haiti, United States Forces occupied and conquered Iraq. Whats the difference?

  A vote for McSame is a Vote for a third term for george.

• 38. JPL  |  July 20th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

  “a war is a war. United States forces occupied Haiti, United States Forces occupied and conquered Iraq. Whats the difference?”

  If “a war is a war,” and there are “no differences” between wars, then please explain how it’s possible for the Obamessiah to simultaneously favor sending more troops to Afghanistan, and while favoring withdrawing them from Iraq. Following your brilliant logic, this represents a profound “flip-flop” on “war” by Obama.

  Explain that one.

• 39. Mark Noonan  |  July 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  liberalDream,

  Uh, we are going to leave. Heck, I’d have our boys home tomorrow, if it were possible. What we’re saying here is that the report of Maliki agreeing with Obama’s position on Iraq is clearly false.

• 40. Mark Noonan  |  July 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  Ricorun,

  But like the Spiegel story, the story that Iraq is refusing any long-term agreement with us is a false report - a misinformation campaign by people who want to detract from McCain and give Obama cover for his entirely bone-headed position on Iraq back in 2007.

  It’ll work where it can be expected to work - in the MSM and the leftwing. Everywhere else, Obama is being more and more recognised for the dishonest, ambitious phony that he appears to be. He still might win in November, but his storyline is already wrecked…the only question is will it be wrecked enough in the public mind to deny him the White House? Time will tell on that - and in this is McCain’s opportunity to win.

• 41. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

  Thats easy JPL.

  Afghanistan had an active hand in the destruction of the WTC. They allowed the terrorist to stay in their country and gave them support.

  george went to and started the george war in Iraq for only one reason. To get elected president in 2004.

  Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC and Saddam was an enemy of the terrorist.

  Thats the difference

• 42. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

  And one more thing JPL

  Before you jump to conclusions, I did not or do I ever support Saddam. Its a fact that he had kicked the Data base Terrorist group (What al-Qaeda means in Arabic) out of Iraq years ago. But I still think its a good ideal he is gone

• 43. js  |  July 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

  translations from arabic can be very tough…and anything that appears vague like this is easy to abuse…

  and really…if al malaki said that he didnt say what they said he said…then there really isnt a dispute…

  42. Magnum Serpentine

  if you opposed the iraqi invasion, you supported saddam…if you oppose US involvement in Iraq…you support saddam…its easy to play with words…but when you do everything that you have done to contradict what you said…well….stooge comes to mind…

  you are pulling an obama!!

• 44. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

  “george went to and started the george war in Iraq for only one reason. To get elected president in 2004.” - Mags

  This statement again exposes Mags detachment from reality.

  Hard to believe no one has even challenged this piece of intellectual diarhea. Do you even remember the level of dissent in 2004? The Democrats considered Kerry a lock because of the war in Iraq.

  You need help Mags.

  Also, if a war is a war, then WWII and Iraq would have many similarities, right?

  looking forward to your response.
  thanks
  neocon

• 45. js  |  July 20th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  41. Magnum Serpentine | July 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
  “george went to and started the george war in Iraq for only one reason. To get elected president in 2004.”

  and you wonder why i call you a halfwit…after all thats been posted…you thing we started a war in iraq in 03….you really are stupid…the war over there was going on long long before Jr came along…we were in a state of war during the entire 8 years that the DNC controlled the white house…under slick Willy boy clinton and his sex games…

  war ends with a peace treaty stupid…not a cease fire agreement…

• 46. JPL  |  July 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  “Thats easy JPL. Afghanistan had an active hand in the destruction of the WTC….Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC and Saddam was an enemy of the terrorist. Thats the difference.”

  But if there are differences between wars (as you now concede), then how could there possibly be “no differences” between the invasion of Haiti in 1994 and the 2003 Iraq war, as you argued a mere 90 minutes ago? Or is logical thought simply beyond you?

• 47. liberalDream  |  July 20th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Mark - what exact conditions would you support withdrawal from Iraq? Not so general that its not a plan (the bonehead answer you give everytime ) but very specific plans on the exact conditions in which you would leave Iraq..

• 48. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don\'t-mess  |  July 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  As regards Iraq, the die is cast. What McCain wants and what Obama wants are irrelevant.

  Send more lambs to the slaughter. Keep troop levels the same. Withdraw. Is there a difference as far as the US economy goes?

  If the US tries to conquer Iraq by sending in everything and everybody, it’s a mess. It’s a mess now. If the US withdraws it’s a mess that draws Turkey and Iran into the picture. And Russia and/or then becomes policeman.

  Under all scenarios, oil stays high and the US Departments Of War and Social Control still get the huge budget allocations. If Obama is elected how’s he going to get any budget passed without giving the War and Internal control apparatus everything they want?

  I dislike Pelosi and Reid as much as anyone here does but for different reasons. If not replaced in a leadership challenge, they will be the ones telling Obama how it is and how really the House Leadership is Boehner and McConnell. And that Obama better go along with that. Or else.

• 49. Treeline  |  July 20th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

  Then McClelland and Powell are being dishonest?34. neocon | July 20th, 2008 at 11:24 am

  While they were speaking for this administration yes. They learned they were being lied too and then used by the neocons. Therefore they resigned. There is no reason for good Bushies to resign.

  When you have a shread of decency like Powell and Scotty this is not too difficult to follow.

• 50. Mark Noonan  |  July 20th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

  liberal,

  Can’t be that specific as, like you, I am not possessed of all the Facts of the case….the generals on the ground are, and President Bush is, Maliki, too…but you and I lack sufficient data to judge the precise set of circumstances justifying a withdrawal. That said, we can withdraw when the Iraqi government has a military instrument sufficient at least to prevent an internal overthrow of the regime. That point seems to be reached, or will be reached fairly shortly - thus it is time to start working out when and how to withdraw…with the understanding that we will retain some troops in theater, and probably 50-60,000 in Iraq for at least some years.

• 51. js  |  July 20th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

  pretty much, i think bush already spelled out what should be conditions for withdrawal…and neither al maleki or mccain have contradicted that…but the on the other hand…pelosi sucks up the second she smells the possibility of a timetable…which was a lie published by a demoncrat leaning source in germany…and obama is doing what obama does….

  he will say anything he thinks will get you to vote for him…just like the rest of the DNC…and history has proven that to be true….

• 52. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

  Treeline,

  If you’re saying that the entire WH and administration staffs, all the way down to the press corps are good “bushies” and involved in this big deception then you are more delusional that I thought.

  Mr. V,

  Current realities simply do not support your assertions. And why would anyone look to someone like you for leadership? Self doubt and moral equivocation are not impressive qualities.

  http://www.nypost.com/seven/07192008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/al_qaedas_market_crash_120538.htm?page=0

• 53. liberalDream  |  July 20th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

  if you do not have enough information or knowledge about the situation to give detailed plan - then i suppose you would also have to concede that you do not have enough knowledge or information to say if Obama’s plan is a good one either. I suggest you keep mum on the subject until such time as you educate yourself about it…

• 54. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

  liberalDream,

  Which Obama plan are you speaking of?

  - His plan to wihdraw all troops by March, 2008?

  - Or his 16 month withdraw plan?

  - Or his plan to do a condition based withdrawal?

  - Or his plan to immedately withdraw and leave the Iraqi’s to suffer genocide in 2007?

  have a nice day
  neocon

• 55. Mark Noonan  |  July 20th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

  liberal,

  Not at all - I have sufficient data to know that Obama’s plan to have had us out by March of 2008 would have been a complete disaster. This is something which can be discerned even without knowing the exact facts, but of knowing the basics and applying that basic knowledge to the stored data regarding warfare…

  A quote from Winston Churchill will give you an idea of what I mean here:

  The Truths of War are absolute, but the principles governing their application have to be deduced on each occasion from the circustances, which are always different; and in consequence no rules are any guide to action. Study of the past is invaluable as a means of training and storing the mind, but it is of no help without selective discernment of the partciular facts and of their emphasis, relation and proportion.

  Just so you know - a Truth of War is such a thing as “the morale is to the material as three is to one” and “there is no substitute for victory”. In Obama’s plan, both of these truths were to be laid aside without such laying aside being in accordance with some other necessary action.

  In war, you don’t want to withdraw - that is a truth of war…but you sometimes may withdraw if the enemy is overpowering you and you want to extricate your forces before they are destroyed or because you want to withdraw to a better position to continue the fight.

  In war you don’t want to stop short of victory unless your main strategic ends have been met - this is a very rare occurance in that you usually cannot attain your strategic ends short of victory, but Korea showed that you can bleed an enemy so badly that he’ll just want to stop, even though you don’t want to expend the effort to force him to surrender in the open field.

  There was no way for the enemy to ever force our withdrawal, and there was no better position for us to fight it out than where we were going during the surge - Baghdad and Anbar Province. Moving the army to Kuwait or elsewhere would not have fulfilled any military purpose and would not have left us in a stronger position to defeat the enemy in the field against us.

  So, a withdrawal would have been to give up the fight short of victory, and without having punished the enemy to the point where decades would pass and he still wouldn’t dream of trying conclusions again with us. Meanwhile, our withdrawal without having been defeated would have been spun into a crushing victory by the enemy and while we became demoralised by failure in Iraq, the enemy would become inspired by it…and while the enemy would remain vastly weaker than us, the difference in spirit between the two sides means that we would be forced to the defensive while the enemy recovered the initiative he had on 9/10, and we’d have paid a high price for this.

  The actual timing of the withdrawal is a not just a political event, but a logistic event, too…we don’t just willy-nilly pull ourselves out…and given that I don’t know the inner workings of either the White House or Maliki’s government nor am I a logistics expert I simply cannot give an exact set of circumstances which would say, “time to go”…but I can tell when an ignorant fool has come up with a bad idea…and Obama came up with his on Iraq in January of 2007.

• 56. liberalDream  |  July 20th, 2008 at 5:57 pm

  Deleted - obscenity.

• 57. Casper  |  July 20th, 2008 at 8:41 pm

  neocon,
  “Which Obama plan are you speaking of?

  - His plan to wihdraw all troops by March, 2008?

  - Or his 16 month withdraw plan?”

  Actually, it’s the same plan. You are just looking at it from two different points in time. If we started it now, we would be out in March 2010. If we wait until when and if he takes office we are looking at July 2010.

  “- Or his plan to do a condition based withdrawal?”

  Again, it’s the same plan. He has said all along that the rate we pull our troops out would be dependent on the conditions on the ground.

  “- Or his plan to immedately withdraw and leave the Iraqi’s to suffer genocide in 2007?”

  Considering he never said that, you can’t really count it as part of is plan. What he actually said can be found here:

  http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/20/obama_dont_stay_in_iraq_over_g.php

• 58. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don't-mess  |  July 20th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

  Neocon: I don’t want to lead anything or anybody. Whatever happens in the US election or in Iraq or in Afghanistan isn’t going to stop me from having a couple of fried eggs for breakfast.

  I have my opinions but I like my money better. It I want to fly somewhere, I don’t have to take my shoes off at security. I may bring all the bottled water and Big Macs from the food court I wish to onto the plane. If the government wants to tap my phone they have to get a court order valid for 10 days which applies to cell phones as well as landlines and the judge would redact any personal information in the transcript. Furthermore, the judge would cancel the wire tap if after 10 days he or she sees no progress.

  Income taxes are 10%. Capital gains taxes are 1%. And none of that’s changing if McCain is president or if Obama’s president. The USA will go along its merry way and that’s fine by me.

  I’ve been long crude oil and commodities, short USD for a long while. It’s all good, brother.

  You like rooting for the USA in wars? I say “knock yourself out”. It’s as good a hobby as any. Myself I follow most pro and college sports pretty closely. I like golf. I like boxing. I like to have a nice dinner and relax. I like to go fishing now and then. Everybody has his or her own trip. I happen to be indifferent to the “war on terror.” You’re a fan. I got no beef with you, friend.

• 59. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don't-mess  |  July 20th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

  Neocon: You also won’t find anyone in this world who hates Colin Powell more than I do.

  I don’t think a more bloodthirsty and less-principled person walks the Earth. I didn’t agree with anything George W Bush did, but I have a grudging respect for how he snowballed Congress every step of the way no matter what. And he never backed down from anything. He got nearly everything he asked for except to privatize social security and to keep Terry Schiavo on life support. Dick Cheney strikes me as an opportunist who made a lot of money off of the wars. Whatever. Rumsfeld? Underneath all the bs there was probably something of a public servant there.

  Colin Powell, however, is in a class by himself. How he can be such a bald-faced liar, so cowardly, and so vicious is amazing to me.

  There’s talk of his joining Obama’s foreign policy team. Well, as a foreigner, I’ll tell you that I’m ready to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but if all he has to offer me is Colin Powell and a Fundamentalist Baptist reading of the Bible, I’d just tell him to go away, far, far away.

  Who really knows? If he gets good numbers to work with in Congress, Obama won’t have to sling Colin and the Bible around too much. If the Houses are close then it’s the god-and-pony show with Powell and Obama. Joy.

• 60. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

  I just don’t see why you hate Powell so much. He is a very reasoned, principled man and, even though I disagree with him, I have tremendous respect for his decision to step down from DefSec because of his beliefs. That’s what real men do.

  I don’t root for America to win wars, in fact I despise war, but I despise people who kill innocent women and children in the name of oppression and theocracy moreso. There is just no way to morally excuse the actions of radical Islam and I will go to my grave advocating their demise, and if that includes war, so be it.

  Also I think you have very distorted views of the administration that is based on propaganda and half truths. Cheney has given more personal money to charities than any other politician, period. Having been raised in Montana, I know of some people that know him personally, because of his Wyoming roots, and to a person they speak very highly of him. He could have stayed in the private sector and made twice as much money.

  any, have a good night
  neocon

• 61. neocon  |  July 20th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

  Casper,

  How can you have a hard 16 month withdrawal plan that is based on conditions on the ground?

  What if conditions on the ground dictate a 24 month presence? Which plan supercedes?

  C’mon don’t be such a sycophant
  neocon

• 62. Casper  |  July 20th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

  neocon,
  “How can you have a hard 16 month withdrawal plan that is based on conditions on the ground?

  What if conditions on the ground dictate a 24 month presence? Which plan supercedes?

  C’mon don’t be such a sycophant”

  Good question. I guess I would trust that our military can accomplish the mission given to them. We all have deadlines. I met with my principal the other day and he gave me a list of programs he wants me to teach. I have about forty-five periods to teach my students 10 different programs. I think I can do it. I know I will have to make some adjustments on the way. Some programs will take longer than I expect to teach, others will take less time. Regardless, at the end of those forty-five periods the kids leave, and they better have the skills they are suppose to have. I would expect that our military is is even more capable of meeting a deadline.

• 63. Casper  |  July 20th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

  neocon,
  BTW, I agree with you about Powell. I would vote for him regardless of which party he ran for. In fact, if Powell ran as McCain’s VP, I would seriously consider voting for McCain. You were raised in Montana? So was my wife. In fact we lived in Helena for for four years.

• 64. neocon  |  July 21st, 2008 at 9:14 am

  Casper,

  Managing a war is a bit different than managing a classroom.

  I was raised in Missoula. Go Griz!

Leave a Comment

Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Matt Margolis on Twitter