Comments for White House sends press corps al-Maliki's praise for Obama plan »
Posted By ybdogsct 1 year, 5 months ago in NewsAn embarrassing slip up, when an aide mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan. Its timing is particularly embarrassing as Bush's "general time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. troops is being cited by some as resembling Obama's redeployment pro
Read Full Story at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 218
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Reuters article that the White House press mistakenly sent to the news media can be found here:
http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/07/19/-ira...
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That ought to shut them up on THAT issue..
These are publicly made "Quotes"...So they can't even shoot the messenger this time..
Hmmmm, a young dynamic Commander in Chief who thinks like it's the 21st century, or an aging and bitter battle worn commander in Chief, who takes his marching orders from rich angry old men and, who still thinks like it's 1970?? I wonder who would be our best leader?
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
gamahuche1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Worse, lfergie, worse..
This is fascism made flesh.
Some of our negating propellerites were trying out for the work-team but their reports came back: "rejected: too kind-hearted, lacking sufficient talent for creative perversion but with sufficient practice and more testicular fortitude may become viable candidates".
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What does one say to this? First they (this administration) implement 2 of Obama's plans. 1. Talk to Iran. 2. Bring the troops home from Iraq. Now this! It looks to me like they are throwing McCain under the buss but why?
Maybe it's all legit but knowing these guys I worry.
Reply -
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Because in an election year a Bush aide has just helped spread the word that Barack Obama is right (again) on Iraq - that we should redeploy in accordance with the wishes of a sovereign Iraq.
This is a plan that Nouri al-Maliki endorses, a plan that Bush has finally agreed to, and a plan that McCain now flip-flops to support despite calling timelines a form of "surrender" not more than a few days ago.
Obama has demonstrated an uncanny ability to be right. Obama was right in 2002 when he said we shouldn't invade Iraq. Obama was right when he said the Troop Escalation alone wouldn't result in diplomatic progress unless the administration applied more pressure on Iraqi politicians, and Obama is right when he called for a timeline for troop redeployment - a plan Bush himself has finally come to accept.
Reply-
Neutral
Aidenag1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't forget he has been right about what is needed in Afghanistan as well. Bush is now going to redeploy forces like Obama has called for for years... Something McBush thought was not needed until it became a political issue recently...
And that his calls for diplomacy with Iran were correct(bush is now sending people to talk directly with Iran, which Bush and McBush called Appeasement just last month)
Anything else im forgetting that Barack was right on, that Bush is now bending over and doing?
Reply-
Neutral
mivan41 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Timing folks, when Obama was advocating this the timing was wrong. Now after the SURGE, conditions are different. NOTICE the quassi time table that Bush set up with Maliki is dependent on how things are going on the ground and can be modified as needed. Maliki is in complete agreement with the depending on how things are going statement and Indicated so in his speech!
Reply-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Timing BS! If they would have not invaded Iraq in the first place we wouldn't even be talking about withdrawal. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan. Osama is still running free, why?
Not to mention if we would have invaded Iraq with enough troops to have properly secured the place it may not have become such a mess. The surge was 4 years too late. How's that for timing.
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MIVAN:
"NOTICE the quassi time table that Bush set up with Maliki"
Bush was ADAMANTLY opposed to timetables just several days ago. He only RELUCTANTLY acquiesced when al-Maliki refused to budge on the issue.
I find it laughable just how much Bush apologists need to contort their position to justify Bush's and McCain's flip-flopping. First, it was flip-flopping on talks with Iran. Now, it's flip-flopping on setting timelines for troop redeployment in Iraq.
What's next?
LOL.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Except that re-deploying of troops to Afghanistan is a tremendous error. Sad that Obama has to use that fop to American militaristic imperialism to get elected.
How to Save Afghanistan
Politics â;; Just because Afghanistan has problems that need to be solved does not mean that the West can solve them all. Those pushing for an expansion of our military presence there are wrong. We don't need bold new plans and billions more in aid. Instead, we need less investment - but a greater focus on what we know how to do.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/07/18/...
Reply -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Teech1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now, just who in hell does Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki think he is in supporting a proposed 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This a$$hole acts like he's Prime Minister of a sovereign nation or something instead of an occupied, conquered country.
Has he discussed this with Bush, Cheney and McCain yet? Have Neocons and Repukes signed off on this? What about the oil companies? The nerve!
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned18 Replies
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WRONG, yb, because B. Hussein has ALREADY abandoned his demand for a TIMETABLE for withdrawl!!!
You folks, like B. Hussein, are a day late and a dollar short on this issue!
Didn't you get the talking points? B. Hussein has CHANGED his website: no more 'demand' for a withdrawl in 16 months. No more 'timetable'! The 'timetable' of 16 months he so gleefully trumpeted for months has now VANISHED into the ether, replaced by calls for a "responsible and phased... ...removal", "directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government."
What happened to the 16 month DEMAND???
Now, it has been replaced by this pablum: "Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months..." (from the current B. Hussein website)
For a look at the original text, see this Politico article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517...
Reply-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
svensun - Could you please define more explicitly what type of racism you espouse? Do you hate blacks in general, mulattos, people w/ foreign or funny names, people who look like blacks, people who go to Black churches, or people who associate w/ blacks, or just blacks who have the audacity to run for president?
I can tell by your post that you will vote for J. Sidney.
Reply -
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SVENSUN:
"B. Hussein has ALREADY abandoned his demand for a TIMETABLE for withdraw"
Actually, Obama has NOT.
Obama has always been consistent that our troops need to be redeployed as quickly, safely, and responsibly as possible, but he has been flexible in exactly how much time that would take to accomplish. The 16-month timeline was simply a flexible estimate based on the available data at the time.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008...
"So my position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I've always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground. I've always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, by the way, B. Hussein's website contains this even more ALARMING REVERSAL:
"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."
WHAT?!?
Just how long does he intend this 'residual force' to 'remain' in Iraq?
100 years?
Has he run THAT idea by al Maliki yet?
So, who's talking like an imperialist now?
Reply-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Under every plan "a residual force will remain in Iraq." You are not making any points that alarming or express a major shift in policy for Obama. You are nit picking and it makes you look like a 7th grade girl who didn't get pick for the cheer leading team. But Obama did, and Obama said, and he was, shut your freaking pie hole no one is buying it! It's Obamas plans that Bush is implementing NOW!
Reply -
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um...idiot? Bush has planned to be in Iraq forever already. Don't blame Obama for Bush's mistake. Someone is finally going to end this nightmare and clean up his mess. Lord knows Bush isn't doing anything to try and clean it up. He is more than happy to dump that hot mess into someone elses lap.
He doesn't even really talk about it anymore. Fade into obscurity Mr. Bush. Fade away so we can get to the difficult task of rebuilding what you have destroyed.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For years we heard the administration claim over and over that the Iraqi government wants us there, and is begging us to stay. On the other hand, all they had to do was ask and we would respect their wishes and leave.
Al-Maliki perhaps took his cue from his challenger, al-Sadr, who has been clamoring for us to leave for years. Popular opinion in Iraq now mirrors that in the United States, with about 70 percent of Iraqis wishing us to leave.
At the end of the year, our Status of Forces Agreement expires. Without a 'new agreement' and 'understanding' with the Iraqi government regarding our presence there, we officially become occupiers.
Just getting the troops out of Iraq means nothing. Bringing them HOME means everything, and that is what the people in both countries demand.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama is hedging - wants to appear anti-war but is covering his bases:
"The Democratic candidate says he supports a phased withdrawal of troops, promising to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking office if he becomes president."
But he can leave peace keepers, bases, and guards, etc.
Combat brigades are only part of the presence in Iraq.
and probably leaves the Marines and the Navy in Iraq.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/0...
"The Obama campaign welcomed comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supporting Sen. Barack Obama's proposed 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Asked when most U.S. troops would leave Iraq, Maliki said: 'As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes. Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems.'"
Reply-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ybdogsct:
OK. So Bush is now trying to follow Obamas lead. Hmmmmmmmm?
Not because the polls show what a complete moronic idiot he has been. But because his way just won't work!!!!
Bush has been a failure at everything he has done. Now he is making America fail.
We need to imprison the lying traitor and try him for the treasonous acts he has committed, he and Cheney.
Not to hard to figure out why we were in Iraq. Hello Oil!!!
They have made their huge profits and are now looking to dump the problem on the Democrats to solve and take the blame for.
We should have kicked the Talibans asses long ago and beat them into dust. Instead we went after Bush and Cheneys god. OIL.
They don't care who they have to destroy to get it. They have oil fever like the old gold miners had gold fever.
No more neocon leaders. Vote them out and keep them out.
Reply-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
ProudBlueTexan1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
Reply-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PBT:
I voted. Over a million already.
They should hold a special vote to see if the people want Bush impeached. The vote would be overhelmingly yes.
A vote for Bush was a vote for tyranny and fascism.
Well all you Bush supporters out there. You got what you voted for.
Hope you are proud and happy to have helped destroy what America was.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Obama campaign issued a memo to reporters, 'Obama Leading on Foreign Policy, McCain Following':
There are two problems with John McCain's political attacks on Barack Obama's foreign policy. First, Barack Obama made the right judgment and John McCain has sided with George Bush in making the wrong one [in starting the Iraq War in the first place]. Second, the failure of the McCain-Bush foreign policy has forced John McCain to change his position, and to embrace the very same Obama approaches that he once attacked.
Just this week, Senator McCain has been forced by events to switch to Barack Obama's position on two fundamental issues: more troops in Afghanistan, and more diplomacy with Iran.
The next shift appears to be Iraq. For months, Senator McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq 'surrender.' Now, Bush is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government - a position that Senator Obama called for last September."
Reply-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, Obama IS RIGHT. Obama predicted that the Troop Escalation by itself would NOT lead to diplomatic gains and would siphon troops from Afghanistan.
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.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289050,00.html
"Unsatisfactory progress was cited in a number of political benchmarks, including the passage of a hydrocarbon law, a debaathification statute and electoral reforms."
http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalworld/intern...
"Afghanistan has been drawing a fresh influx of jihadi fighters and is becoming the most active front of the war on terror groups."
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, I see, yb, the reason we're pulling troops out of Iraq is because the Surge FAILED, is that right? And that's why al Maliki wants our troops out sooner, rather than later, because the Surge failed, and there has been NO political progress in Iraq, so I suppose you must think al Maliki has decided the only way that HE and his fellow Iraqi politicians will be 'forced' into making 'political accomodations and benchmarks' is if they get the Americans out as soon as possible, is that it?
And the reason that Obama pulled down the text on his website that called the Surge a failure is because it IS A FAILURE, but he doesn't want to point that out, since he is a nice guy, and he doesn't want to embarrass McCain or Bush, is that right?
That makes a lot of sense - NOT!
Reply-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
svensun - Listen up closely. The surge did suppress the violence. The insurgents are not dumb; they simply withdrew for a while and are laying low.
NO ONE (not even Bush) has claimed that the surge has eliminated the sectarian hatred which Bush created when he eviscerated the political, military, and police infrastructure. The hope is that the lowering of violence will give the government time to build up and train its own forces. Something that they could not do till now, because the constant attacks were killing recruits and they were battling before they were fully trained.
Much of the violence was suppressed because the US army paid the local militias to stop fighting and help keep down the killings. They have no loyalty to the US.
As soon as our troops depart, violence will explode w/ a vengeance. The surge has only covered it up temporarily. Whether al Maliki can survive it is speculative.
That is why Bush is seeking to establish a permanent military base in Iraq.
Reply-
Neutral
sinophil491 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He did not trust al Maliki to become successful.
Honestly, I hope that the Iraq government can stand up on its own. The Iraqi deserve better.
The position that I have pushed from the beginning is that we do not belong in Iraq and never did. We invaded under false pretenses. We broke their country. We are obligated to fix it.
Any success the surge attains is not "victory." It is penance for our sins. It is compensation for our tragic mistake. It is an attempt to repair something that should not have been broken.
If you break an expensive vase in a store, you first pay for the broken item. Then you do not loiter around the store. You leave as quickly as possible so you don't break anything else. If you don't leave, the store manager will ask you to leave.
In Iraq, the store manager has asked us to leave. So we should leave
Reply -
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SINOPHIL:
"Much of the violence was suppressed because the US army paid the local militias to stop fighting and help keep down the killings. They have no loyalty to the US.
As soon as our troops depart, violence will explode w/ a vengeance. The surge has only covered it up temporarily"
Bingo. We're paying mercenaries to stay indoors. But they have no allegiance to the Iraq government or to the U.S. government. As soon as the money dries up and they are being paid by Muslim extremist groups, they will re-initiate the violence -- maybe in Iraq or maybe in Afghanistan.
SVENSUN:
"the reason we're pulling troops out of Iraq is because the Surge FAILED, is that right?"
From your own precious Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289050,00.html
"Unsatisfactory progress was cited in a 10 of the 18 political benchmarks, including the passage of a hydrocarbon law, a debaathification statute and electoral reforms."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually yes Svensun, the surge failed. It was clear from the beginning that it was just about political proaganda in the US and would fail.
Has the 'Surge' in Iraq Worked?
Politics â;; The surge caused a temporary, selective reduction in violence in Iraq. The US is decidedly weaker everywhere in the Middle East since the surge began, because of the surge. The Middle East is a large geopolitical balloon. Squeeze one point and air will simply displace to another. The balloon is getting more fragile and on the verge of bursting.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/07/18/...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am pretty certain Obama will be receiving accolades through this entire trip that the McCain campaign goaded him into doing. Those outside the U.S. see without the colored lenses of American tainted reporting and political predisposition.
All I can say is if you like the last 8 years, if your doing better than 8 years ago, vote McCain. If not vote Obama.
Seems like a no-brainer.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wrong.
There are many who willingly submited to his rule, and thus gained a far superior prosperity than they had prior to submiting.
The rule of Khan went to pieces when Genghis died, and his sons took over, and pure greed came into play.
Read the actual history of Genghis Khan, and get a different picture of reality. Please note that I'm not dismissing the bad things he did, there were plenty of it, by our standards. However, generally he cleaned out corrupt and gready "uberclass", replaced those leaders with people interested in the wellbeing and prosperity of everyone. Sum total, a city, region or country were in the end generally better of after his "hordes" visit.
As to Afganistan, I'd have to go back and check my books at the house, to see his actions in that exact area.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The real history of Attila is a lot more interesting than his reputation also. You know how they say that it's the winners who write history. Attila was one of the few leaders that was actually able to fight the Roman Empire with any success. When he was young, before he became head of the Huns, there was a Roman general who attempted to groom him as a potential ally. That was how he came to understand Roman tactics.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do not think I was wrong, while he was merciful and constructive to those who submitted, lord help those who resisted, and to Afgan he was brutal.
He also razed a city of all inhabitants who held out for a year.
Was he cruel, I don't think so as it was how he learned life, but he did value education and did promote it, but again you had to submit.
And I have read up on him in a few books, but not lately, just working off memory here.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
LumFan1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, ybdogsct, thanks for the heads-up on this article.
All I can say about this latest slip-up from the Bush administration: "Oops!"
And I agree, ML2007. This is one time that I think that the Bushies did something right. Does not make up for the last seven years, but it's a start.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The question is not what will happen to the luckless aide*;
I am wondering what will happen to Maliki?
We got rid of the last troublesome Iraqi leader who turned against his former friends.
We can show Maliki who is the real boss if we have to.
Or just want to.
__________...
*ok, if you happen to be this guy,
then what happens to you is probably
more important.
Tough.
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can picture George saying this with his two hands extended out with his palms in...Picture John Stewart imitating him:
"Now here's the plan, you see"..>We get a couple of dozen men in Iranian uniforms to sneak into the compound, you see."
"They have guns, of course...ya see where I'm goin with this"?
"now they shoot this Maliki guy, but before they do they make sure the windows are open and they shout something in Iranian so the people outside can hear them..you see??"
"But then, this is how we (snicker) kill two Arabs with one stone.."
"Get it??"...
"We can get this traitor out, after all we've done for him,
put another one of our guys in and he can attack Iran"..
"he he he"!!
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowl...
According to a Pew Research study, there are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. Regular viewers of the Daily Show / Colbert Report have the highest knowledge levels (54%). Regular viewers of the Fox News Channel have the second-to-lowest knowledge levels (35%).
Although the Daily Show / Colbert Report attract younger audiences [those still in school], more Daily Show / Colbert Report audience members (31%) have a bachelor's degree than Fox News viewers (22%).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6117542/
"Bill O'Reilly kept referring to The Daily Show audience as 'stoned slackers.' But viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed 4 years of college than people who watch The O'Reilly Factor, according to Nielsen Media Research."
LOL.
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/...
This table shows that people with advanced post-graduate degrees tend to vote Democratic over Republican by a 58% to 41% margin.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Pa...
"According to a Pew Research study, liberals have the highest education level of any typology group - 49% are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education."
http://www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/2003_Report_C...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/politics10...
Finally, a comparison of state education with an electoral map shows that 8 of the 10 most highly educated states (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, New Hampshire, and Oregon) tend to vote Democrat while 8 of the 10 least educated states (Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, Florida) tend to vote Republican.
Reply -
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No,I don't get my news from the Comedy channel, but your comment is typical accusatory hate speak.
I get my COMEDY from John Stewart, because we, unlike the anal neo-cons have a sense of humor and a sense of righteousness..
For YOUR information, I get my news from Fox, MSNBC, NBC, CBS
the web and my local newspapers.. Your divisive, mean spirited comments are typical of the beaten down apologist camp.
Go to a comedy club and loosen up, will ya??
People like you buy AK47s instead and end up in clock towers.
Ha ha ha ha ha...get it?? (you're a meanie)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Aotearoa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's nothing new, the Iraqis have been screaming for king george's war machine to get the hell out of their country. You'd think they'd have taken a hint ions ago. Bit of an embarrasment if you ask me, Iraqi prime minister agreeing with Obama.
ka kite ano
Reply-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain doesn't have to do anything. Obama's has put his foot in his mouth.
He will now have to come up with a specific plan, platoon by platoon, and determine what order to close the bases, and pretend like he doesn't know that Iran and Al queida are massed on the border just waiting.
Gas prices will go sky high, not because we get oil from Iraq, but because they will all be fight over it, and the supply will drop.
Reply-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't worry about it Klarissa. Merriot is going to build a 5 Star Hotel in the Green Zone. You know the bunch that brought us Iraq is going to create a new country in the middle of Baghdad, Declare Democracy, kill any Iraqi that objects, use that new country to start a new war with Iran and they will do it because they know they have some people in Ameica that will still vote for them.
Another 4000 American soldiers will die, another million will die in Iran, Democracy will also be declared there as the powerful few steal the resources.
Then they will all gather around with Hagee and Parsley and praise God for the land and resources he gave them. They won't worry because they won't ever be in harms way and the American Taxpayer will have another load of debt piled on them. Gas, Groceries, Utilities, and everything except wages will go up and there will still be people out there who will vote for them.
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
KLARISSA:
"McCain doesn't have to do anything. Obama's has put his foot in his mouth."
Guess again. Obama has demonstrated an uncanny ability to be right again and again. Obama was right in 2002 when he said we shouldn't start a war against Iraq in the first place. Now, Obama is right about establishing timelines for eventual troop redeployment - a plan Nouri al-Maliki promotes, a plan Bush has finally agreed to, and a plan McCain has flip-flopped to support.
KLARISSA:
"He will now have to come up with a specific plan"
Obama won't have to do that until after the election, when he grants Nouri al-Maliki's wish to sit and discuss a proposed timeline for troop redeployment.
KLARISSA:
"Gas prices will go sky high"
Gas prices are already sky high. Where have you been the last few weeks and why don't I see you pointing that same judgmental finger at Bush?
LOL.
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MCCAIN'S FIRST FLIP-FLOP ON TIMETABLES:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/15/...
"A crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years. 'Maybe 100,' McCain replied."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/1...
"Senator John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013. The remarks offered no proposals for how he would achieve that vision.
During his primary battle, Mr. McCain accused his rival Mitt Romney of setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, even though Mr. Romney was merely speaking generally about timetables that might be set in private discussions among Iraqi and American leaders. Since then, Mr. McCain himself has come under repeated fire for offhand comments that he could envision a United States peacekeeping presence in Iraq for 100 years."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MCCAIN'S SECOND FLIP-FLOP ON TIMETABLES:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/0...
"QUESTIONER: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if a sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?
MCCAIN: I think it's obvious that we would have to leave. I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/27/mcca...
"'If we do what Senator Obama wants to do, and that's immediate withdrawal, that would mean surrender in Iraq. So I guess that means he would surrender and then go back,' McCain said."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MCCAIN'S THIRD FLIP-FLOP ON TIMETABLES:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain/2008/...
"For Obama to talk about dates for withdrawal, which basically is surrender in Iraq, I think, really inexcusable," said McCain.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/0...
"When we withdraw, we will withdraw with honor and victory. An honorable and victorious withdrawal would not be possible if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned27 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
AntiNeoCon1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One of their officials on C-Span said sometime ago that conditions would improve in Iraq if we would just leave.
I guess King George is a bit slow on the uptake...or just don't want to leave all that oil to the Iraq leaders instead of his buds.
Reply -
-
100%
RCHIII1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Barak Obama 2002..
"I don't oppose all wars."
"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administrations pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again."
"I don't oppose all wars."
"And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism."
"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
Reply-
100%
RCHIII1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama 2002 continued...
"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda."
Basically, he was dead right. And he's right now!
Reply -
Neutral
RCHIII1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And more Obama 2002...
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
Yup, dead right.
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned9 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
mmrhe1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The real reason for the establishment of military bases in Iraq is to watch over our interests there.
Interests as in what Big Oil wants to do.
If only the world were as simple now as it was before when we could install who we wanted as leader like the Shah of Iran.
Then MAYBE we could get away with such shenanigans but the world is wise to our corporate amorality and these bases will do more harm than good.
So if this was the ultimate goal of this pathetic administration then they have ultimately failed.
Reply-
Neutral
saneman1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, and then you see a country like Iceland which is years ahead of the U.S. Within the next 1 1/2 to 2 years, Iceland will be totally off oil. They will be totally converted to hydrogen fuel. For the last 10 years, all city buses in Iceland have been operating on hydrogen fuel.
Reply -
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The real reason for the establishment of military bases in Iraq is to watch over our interests there."
"We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there," Obama said. He went on to speak against any desire to hold permanent military bases in Iraq, but followed by saying that he would leave in place a residual force of undetermined size behind to "perform limited missions" like going after remnants of al-Qaida and training Iraqi forces.
Despite claims of wanting to withdraw troops and not keep a presence, he immediately contradicts himself with the above statement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25676250
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We already know McCain envisions staying in Iraq for at least 100 years; it seems Mr. Obama wouldn't mind either. So then what part of his plan is representative of a change? Or better yet, what real difference is there between his plan and John McCain's plan? The truth is, there is no difference, and there is no real choice.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
agrovertic1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've follow this issue for a weeks and today i find out something new thanks for the info.
http://www.submiteaze.com/affiliate-join-progra...
Reply -
Neutral
breckandy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pretty simple.
Like in Viet Nam
Just make it like we are turning over the job to the Iraqi troops over a period of a few months, declare success and get out. Then give the Nobel Peace prize to someone with dual citizenship with Israel.
Reply -
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So Obama goes around saying that he will bring the troops home in 16 months. dragging their tails behind them in defeat.
Then the hordes on the border, waiting patiently, not expending people or arms, can march right in.
If this is how Obama sits down and talks, does he negotiate? or does he just do his diplomacy by standing up and preaching to whatever country he is in. Then gives them whatever they ask for.
He doesn't need a state department to lay the ground work - he will just proclaim.
Reply-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
-"He doesn't need a state department to lay the ground work - he will just proclaim"-
Havent you been paying attention for the past 5 years Klarissa?
The absolute, complete unmittigated failure that is the occupation of Iraq is a result of a lack of diplomatic support from the US State department and a Condi Rice bumbling of epic proportions.
The military has limited means of defeating a constantly morphing guerilla army. Commanders have expressed their limited ability to resolutely win without diplomatic efforts. WHERE ARE THEY?!?!?!?!
The only success that will result will be a diplomatic success which Obama has urged since before "Mishun Ackomplished" and even before the invasion.
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GW, the last 5 years are irrelevant.
I will be voting for someone to be president for the next four years,
I don't want and inexperienced president who tells the world what he is going to do, and then has to change his mind when he finds out that wasn't a good idea.
Wise presidents have state departments with people speaking the language of the people they are dealing with. They lay the ground work, come to agreements on what they can agree on, and set up and agenda at levels lower than the president to discuss the disagreements.
The president's power is greatly diminished when he preaches to the crowd, and makes statements that later have to be amended.
Obama is more interested in personal glory than what is best for us.
If he were wise, he would have said that he would continue the negotiations in progress and push for an early solution.
But he is a glory hound.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
KLARISSA:
"GW, the last 5 years are irrelevant. I will be voting for someone to be president for the next four years."
Except that McCain has vowed to continue many of Bush's domestic and foreign policies.
KLARISSA:
"Obama is more interested in personal glory than what is best for us."
Baloney. POST YOUR EVIDENCE.
McCain is the one who was accepted into the Navy through nepotism as the legacy child of his grandfather (an Admiral) and his father (also an Admiral).
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com...
"Navy pilot John Sidney McCain III should have never been allowed to graduate from the U.S. Navy flight school. He was a below average student and a lousy pilot. During his relative short stunt on flight status, McCain III lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents. Robert Timberg wrote that McCain's 'performance was below par, at best good enough to get by.'"
Reply-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
KLARISSA:
"yd, I am not talking about Bush or McCain."
This IS about McCain in comparison to Obama. Last I checked, they were both still in the running. It's laughable you would accuse Obama of being "more interested in personal glory than what is best for us" without ANY EVIDENCE, while excusing John McCain's DOCUMENTED actions.
Spare me your hypocritical, partisan double-standards.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain is the one who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class and broke so many disciplinary rules that HIS OWN classmates wondered how he kept from being expelled.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_r...
"McCain's grades were 'marginal.' He drew so many demerits for breaking curfew and other discipline issues that he graduated fifth from the bottom of the class of 1958."
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_...
"McCain was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain is the one who pursued a commanding RAG without having first commanded a squadron, the usual career path.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com...
"McCain, the 'below par' pilot, lost 5 military aircraft, the first during a training flight in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while trying to land.
He assumed command of RAG, which trained pilots and crews for carrier deployments. Some accused McCain of benefiting from favoritism, for the famous son of a famous father and grandfather, since he had not first commanded a squadron, the usual career path.
While Executive Officer, McCain used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and 'engage in extra-marital affairs.' This was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates."
Reply -
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The last 5 years are absolutely relevant. We cannot afford to repeat the same policy failures....McCain supports too many of those failed policies.
-"I don't want and inexperienced president who tells the world what he is going to do, and then has to change his mind when he finds out that wasn't a good idea."-
So you prefer the W style of REFUSING to accept responsibility for or even acknowledging failed policy?
-"The president's power is greatly diminished when he preaches to the crowd, and makes statements that later have to be amended."-
No, people understand that Presidents are human and should amend failures rather than 'staying the course' of those failures. Whats good for the country supercedes whats good for the President.
Obama has no cabinet at this point, how can he consult someone who doenst currently exist. He is merely expressing his vision at this point - what leaders do.
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain is the one who left his first wife, Carol Shepp, to marry multimillionaire heiress Cindy Hensley and then used her father's political connections to establish his candidacy in Arizona.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10249...
"Some of McCain's acquaintances, including Ronald and Nancy Reagn, were less forgiving, however. They portray John McCain as a self-centered womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to 'play the field'. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy Hensley, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.
McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.
(continued.)
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10249...
According to Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam: 'I know John McCain personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.
John McCain met Cindy Hensley and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.
This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.'"
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yd - you can continue to do pages and pages of this stuff.
Because you have so much material on McCain, it is obvious that he has had a lot of experience learning from his mistakes. ( several people has said that a good quality about Obama is he has learned from his mistakes. Of course, he has done so little he doesn't have much of a record.)
McCain has a clean record in congress, and has been happily married to the same woman for quite a few years. I has a son in Iraq.
I still have not heard what Obama has accomplished.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
KLARISSA:
"he has had a lot of experience learning from his mistakes."
WRONG. It's obvious McCain has made a lot of mistakes. You've posted ZERO EVIDENCE showing McCain has learned from any of it.
KLARISSA:
"McCain has a clean record in congress"
Actually, McCain was censured for his role in the Keating 5 scandal.
KLARISSA:
"I still have not heard what Obama has accomplished."
Obama has 12 years experience as a public official: 8 at the state level and 4 at the federal level.
Legislation Obama Has Sponsored/Authored in US Senate:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery
Legislation Obama Has Sponsored/Authored in Illinois Legislature:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?Mem...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/spon...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/spon...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/spon...
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?Mem...
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/0...
"Sen. John McCain said Sunday that Sen. Barack Obama, would be 'absolutely' qualified to be president."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142892
Why experience as a U.S. senator might not trump experience as a state legislator
"U.S. senators are gadflies. They flit from one issue to another, generally developing little expertise on any of them; devote a large portion of their day to press conferences and other publicity opportunities.
By contrast, in the Illinois Senate Obama worked out the details of legislation expanding health-care coverage and revising campaign-finance law. He wrestled with the minutiae of health-care policy, utility deregulation, transportation funding, school aid, and a host of other issues.
Obama will have spent more time as state legislator (8 years) than anyone since Abraham Lincoln."
Reply -
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/201929...
"We'll answer the question about Obama's fitness to become President by looking at what kind of qualifications George W. Bush had to become President.
George W. Bush was by his own admission and report cards a mediocre student. Meanwhile, Barack Obama rose from a solid middle class existence to earn his way into the Ivy League.
Despite technically being AWOL, George W. Bush next proved his qualifications to direct America's economy by showing his prowess as a businessman. George W. Bush's entry into oil industry resulted in a bust of monumental proportions. George W. Bush continued to prove he was ill-equipped to be put in charge of making economic decisions when he became a part owner of the Texas Rangers, who traded Sammy Sosa just a few years before Sosa hit over 120 home runs in just two years.
(continued)
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The lasting legacy of Bush's leadership of Texas is remarkably similar to what he has done as President. Namely, appointing a string of unqualified people to positions of power and engaging in one sweetheart deal after another to further line the coffers of his biggest campaign contributors.
So, let's take a look at the qualifications of George W. Bush to become President. A one term Governor of Texas. A string of failures in the business world. An admitted recovering alcoholic.
On the other hand, Barack Obama was an Illinois State Senator for eight years and has been a US Senator since 2005. In other words, without any qualifications, George W. Bush sought to become the chief executive first of a large state and then the entire country, while Barack Obama has worked in the legislative realm in which people who say no to you don't get fired. Barack Obama is learning the process of government, while George Bush learned only that people ask high how when you say jump."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your wasting your time on blind idiots who only see what they want.
Here are some beauties from them AND Rush Limbaugh.
1) Hitler was a Socialist
2) poor people are poor by choice
3) the price of a barrel of oil does not effect gas prices (Rush, Sept. 2007)
4) oil companies aren't making any more profit with high gas prices than they were before
(they forgot to mention the $5billion in dividends, stock redistribution and bonuses to executives)
5) The war in Iraq saves us from fighting them here, even though we bragged about chasing them out of Iraq and don't know where they went!
6) "we still have troops in Europe and Korea, those wars aren't over either".
Hey geniuses: How many troops have died in those countries in the last 20 years?
There are dozens more, like making fun of Michael J. Fox and of course the long, long, long list of why John McCain should never be elected..Hey, it's THEIR words!
(they say we get our news from comedy shows)
THEY write it for us!
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you refuse to understand the merits of the discussion then I feel badly that I've wasted my time on soemone I thought could be capable of seeing that there are often 2 or more sides to every story..You remain in your one dimensional world..
The rest of us will attempt to stimulate thought.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In his speeches, references to healthcare, education and other issues are kept vague. Why doesn't Obama seek to distinguish himself with his policy ideas?
In today's times of anti-consumerist miserabilism, I'm all in favor of upholding aspirations like the American Dream. But you're not going to go far if you line up behind someone who can't spell out what that Dream should mean today.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another brilliant response to my personal e-mail from libsRfunny:
From: libsRfunny Block To: MRCOFFEECAKE
Read the articles for yourself. I don't have time to deal with morons.
MY RESPONSE:
From: MRCOFFEECAKE To: libsRfunny
Once again you slink out of here pointlessly and without merit...Goodbye..only until your next impatient and misdirected comment!!
.............................
They are getting more pathetic by the week!!
Reply -
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
another brilliant response sent to my personal e-mail by the great communicator:
From: libsRfunny Block To: MRCOFFEECAKE
Read the articles for yourself. I don't have time to deal with morons.
If this is all that we can expect form them, their only hope is to wear us down...
GANG: THEY AIN'T WORTH IT..
Let's just ignore Libs (all 3 of them including drop kick)
Klarissa, Alpha, Wolfie, Nixie,vidman (on the rare occasion where he speaks) and FSU.. That ought to cut down
on 1/2 of the distractors.
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The last in a trilogy of e-mails from LibsRfunny, who claims not to have time to answer my question, but has oodles of time to send me mean e-mails.
LibsRfunny doesn't see how hypocritical it is to obsess over
me, yet has "no time" to waste giving me the proper interpretation.
Once again, libsRfunny in her own ignorant words:
From: libsRfunny Block To: MRCOFFEECAKE
lol, read the articles for yourself, if you aren't too illiterate to do so. Several highly respected news organizations reporting Maliki says he DOES NOT support Obama's plan. Maliki was saying what the White House has all along.
It's hilarious when idiots like you send me messages and then act like some sort of victim. What a mornon. Good riddance. Dumbassses are too numerous in this world. Now I cna look forward to blocking yet another of them ;)
......
I refuse, unlike the queen of the narrowinded to block ANY e-mails from anyone who might provide me with educational info..Including Queen meanie!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
mmrhe1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
raza9
Especially since Honest John changed his tune!
And by the way, there is such a thing as having a sense of responsibility for what we started over there.
I see no big difference between wanting to pull troops out but REALIZING we have a responsibility for attempting to provide some security.
Reply-
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The US has accomplished its war aims. It has ensured Iraq's oil is priced in dollars and the Iraqi oil industry is now controlled by US oil companies. It has also established so far 14 miltary bases in Iraq and these are permanent establishments. It has spent trillions building the largest embassy in the world. The goal is clearly to stay there permanently just as they stay in 130 other countries in the world. Iraq is a critical nexus from a geostrategic perspective.
Pursuing this war endangers our security, increases the chances of a domestic terrorist attack, weakens our defenses, and motivates our enemies to join together in opposition to our domineering presence around the world. Does anyone believe that Russia, China, and Iran will give us free reign over the entire Middle East and its oil? Tragically, we're setting the stage for a much bigger conflict. It's possible that this war could evolve into something much worse than Vietnam.
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Being an unchallenged sole superpower was never accepted by us with a sense of humility and respect. Our arrogance and aggressiveness have been used to promote a world empire (er, democracy) backed by the most powerful army of history. This type of globalist intervention creates problems for all citizens of the world and fails to contribute to the well-being of the world's populations. Just think how our personal liberties have been trashed here at home in the last decade. All in the name of 'freedom' and 'democracy' and National Security of course.
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Eventually, we will come to realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America's resources to promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed policy.
Creating an artificial Iraq after World War I as a unified country was like mixing water and oil. It has only led to frustration, anger, and hostilities-- with the resulting instability creating conditions ripe for dictatorships. The occupying forces will not permit any of the three regions of Iraq to govern themselves. This is strictly motivated by a desire to exert control over the oil. Self-determination and independence for each region, or even a true republican form of government with a minimalist central authority is never considered-- yet it is the only answer to the difficult political problems this area faces. The relative and accidental independence of the Kurds and the Shiites in the 1990s served those regions well, and no suicide terrorism existed during that decade.
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Our Responsibility is to look inward and attend to the constitutional needs of our people, and forget about the grandiose schemes to remake the world in our image through the use of force. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, It is certainly to be hoped that pulling troops out of Iraq will not lead to the counterproductive step of increasing troops in Afghanistan. But then, our "oil imperialism" is already working hard to invent "reasons" why we need troops in Afghanistan to protect our companies.
The Afghan Pipeline You Don't Know About
... and speaking of oil, just when we were barely getting used to Big Oil and Iraq hitting the front pages of American newspapers in tandem, here comes Afghanistan! Who now remembers that delegation of Taliban officials, shepherded by Unocal ("We're an oil and gas company. We go where the oil and gas is ..), back in 1999, that made an all-expenses paid visit to the U.S. There was even that side trip to Mt. Rushmore, while the company (with U.S. encouragement) was negotiating a $1.9 billion pipeline that would bring Central Asian oil and natural gas through Afghanistan to Pakistan?
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, and who was a special consultant to Unocal on the prospective deal? Zalmay Khalilzad, our present neocon ambassador to the U.N., George W. Bush's former viceroy of Kabul and then Baghdad, and a rumored future "Afghan" presidential candidate.
Those pipeline negotiations only broke down definitively in August 2001, one month before, well, you know - and, as Toronto's Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin put it, "Washington was furious, leading to speculation it might take out the Taliban. After 9/11, the Taliban, with good reason, were removed -- and pipeline planning continued with the Karzai government. U.S. forces installed bases near Kandahar, where the pipeline was to run. A key motivation for the pipeline was to block a competing bid involving Iran, a charter member of the 'axis of evil.'"
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, speak of the dead and not-quite-buried. It turns out that, in April, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (acronymically TAPI) signed a Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement to build a U.S.-backed $7.6 billion pipeline. It would, of course, bypass Iran and new energy giant Russia, carrying Turkmeni natural gas and oil to Pakistan and India. Construction would, theoretically, begin in 2010. Put the emphasis on "theoretically," because the pipeline is, once again, to run straight through Kandahar and so directly into the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pepe Escobar of Asia Times caught the spirit of the moment perfectly: "The government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which cannot even provide security for a few streets in central Kabul, has engaged in Hollywood-style suspension of disbelief by assuring unsuspecting customers it will not only get rid of millions of land mines blocking TAPI's route, it will get rid of the Taliban themselves." Nonetheless, as in Iraq, American (and NATO) troops could one day be directly protecting (and dying for) the investments of Big Oil in a new version of the old imperial "Great Game" with a special modern emphasis on pipeline politics. .....
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/335023
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mmrhe1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Iraq is a critical nexus from a geostrategic perspective"
I think that sums up why Obama's hand will be forced to maintain some presence in the region unless the Iraqis or another force can make that position unteneable.
I agree with most of what you say raz but calling Obama and McCain the same is off base IMO.
There were those who spouted the same thing about Gore and Bush in 2000 and naively voted for Nader as an alternative.
Look where that got us!
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Adviser to Obama, Zbigniew Brzezinski published a book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, in which he portrays the Eurasian landmass as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any possible adversary from controlling that region. He notes: "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." He predicts that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious Central Asian strategy can not be implemented, "except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." [Brzezinski, 1997, pp. 24-25, 210-11]
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The book also theorizes that the US could be attacked by Afghan terrorists, precipitating a US invasion of Afghanistan, and that the US may eventually seek control of Iran as a key strategic element in the US's attempt to exert its influence in Central Asia and the Middle East. [Brzezinski, 1997]
Major figures from the U.S. political Left & Right are all members of common groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, including Brzezinski.
Obama seems like little more than the latest controlled creation of the CFR. That's why I see Obama and McCain as the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign...
Reply
-
-
-
Wang123Comment removed: Retracted by user
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.