OT: 2008 Elections

[Jackdog]

I dont get it either...

Seems to me they care more about their own agendas than him.

No doubt. What's really sad is the reactions from the members of the church to this guy's bullshit. I guess W.C. Fields was right. There is a sucker born every minute.

[RobVarak]

Lo and behold, even that bastion of sky-is-falling in Iraq journalism the Washington Post has removed its head from its derriere for a glimpse of the real world:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01927.html

Conclusion:

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

It's going to be interesting to watch Obama triangulate in the general election. He can't admit the reality of the events without admitting his error with respect to the surge. He can't suggest plans for success without undermining his faux moral authority as the real anti-war candidate.

I still believe that no matter who wins, all the nonsense talk of immediate pullouts was so much hot air (and I've said so repeatedly in this thread), but it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the campaign.

As the friendly negative nellies at CNN like to point out, the economy (pardon me, the CNN-designated "recession") is ISSUE NUMBER ONE. But the Iraq issue will not be irrelevant, and the way the candidates handle it will reflect strongly on their perception in the electorate. Those debates that Jack is always talking about are going to be interesting indeed.

[JackB1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_ ... ma_pfleger

These people can't really want Obama to win. My God they call themselves his friends. What idiots. They know the media is waiting to pounce on anything coming out of that church and they still do this. I am not an Obama man,but I feel for him as he tries to distance himself from these idiots again.

I really believe this idiot is all about his own agenda and ego and his only desire is to rile up the Trinity Church congregation and hear all the applause and adulation. "Hillary is crying because a black man came in and stole the show from her"??? WTF? This is blatant racism. And why is this church even discussing politics? I thought the church was a place where you discussed your love of God? Best thing the media could do is just ignore this church completely and give it no more publicity at all.

[Jackdog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_ ... ma_pfleger

These people can't really want Obama to win. My God they call themselves his friends. What idiots. They know the media is waiting to pounce on anything coming out of that church and they still do this. I am not an Obama man,but I feel for him as he tries to distance himself from these idiots again.

I really believe this idiot is all about his own agenda and ego and his only desire is to rile up the Trinity Church congregation and hear all the applause and adulation. "Hillary is crying because a black man came in and stole the show from her"??? WTF? This is blatant racism. And why is this church even discussing politics? I thought the church was a place where you discussed your love of God? Best thing the media could do is just ignore this church completely and give it no more publicity at all.

No doubt man. I agree.

[dougb]

Lo and behold, even that bastion of sky-is-falling in Iraq journalism the Washington Post has removed its head from its derriere for a glimpse of the real world:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01927.html

Conclusion:

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

It's going to be interesting to watch Obama triangulate in the general election. He can't admit the reality of the events without admitting his error with respect to the surge. He can't suggest plans for success without undermining his faux moral authority as the real anti-war candidate.

I still believe that no matter who wins, all the nonsense talk of immediate pullouts was so much hot air (and I've said so repeatedly in this thread), but it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the campaign.

As the friendly negative nellies at CNN like to point out, the economy (pardon me, the CNN-designated "recession") is ISSUE NUMBER ONE. But the Iraq issue will not be irrelevant, and the way the candidates handle it will reflect strongly on their perception in the electorate. Those debates that Jack is always talking about are going to be interesting indeed.

In what sense has the surge succeeded Rob? For the past month U.S. aircraft have been bombing Sadr City. Are we to conclude then that the surge was successful in restoring the security situation -why then the need for aerial bombardment? And if there is less sectarian killing going on in Baghdad, could that not simply be more the fact that the ethnic cleansing has been largely completed rather than due to any intervention on the part of Iraqi and American forces? Remember there are about 4 million displaced Iraqi's both within the country and living in refugee camps in Syria.

And that's to say nothing about the major goal of the surge - to create conditions for a political settlement among the various parties in Iraq. Any evidence of progress on that front? Does Maliki's government look stronger or weaker after his little adventure down South in Basra? Any sign that most, or even a majority, of the benchmarks for political progress have been met?

Before we jump the gun and declare the surge a success, perhaps we might want to consider a few of these questions. Given that you're familiar with the history of the Vietnam war I would have imaged that you'd be a little more skeptical of declarations of progress.

Best wishes,

Doug

[kevinpars]

Sure, we have no choice but to stay in Iraq. How else are we to justify the fact that China now holds 200 billion dollars of our national debt. Plus, we owe it to the Iraqi people to see it through. That will happen no matter who wins the election.

[Teal]

Before we jump the gun and declare the surge a success, perhaps we might want to consider a few of these questions. Given that you're familiar with the history of the Vietnam war I would have imaged that you'd be a little more skeptical of declarations of progress.

Best wishes,

Doug

Nuts have been jumping the gun and declare the damned thing a FAILURE this whole time, so why not? As for Vietnam...that's a tired and senseless comparison. My military buddies on the ground in Iraq would call that what it is...bullshit.

[XXXIV]

My military buddies on the ground in Iraq would call that what it is...bullshit.

In that sense yes...as a soldier on the ground...

I know a few who have been there and one who is there...and they would agree to that completely...

but

As far as this country goes psychologically it does seem to be as much a morass as Vietnam.

Plus ...economically... it seems to be a bigger mess than Vietnam.

[Teal]

As far as this country goes psychologically it does seem to be as much a morass as Vietnam.

Plus ...economically... it seems to be a bigger mess than Vietnam.

The hype machine of the media, who want nothing more than death, disease, distortion, and downward spirals, has been a huge reason for the psychological whatever. You tell a lie long enough, and people begin to believe it. Who is scratching their heads in disbelief at all this stuff being pushed over here are those who are actually THERE.

Economically...war is expensive. Always has been. Always will be. There will be people who will tie every conflict we don't win in 180 days to Vietnam. We got a 'microwave' win over Saddam in the early 90's, with minimal casualties, and people think that's the measuring stick. Compared with EVERY OTHER WAR IN HISTORY...it's still a small, small number, especially for a war that has lasted as long as this one. Rebuilding takes even longer, as a people have to learn to live without a dictator for the first time in their lives, not to mention keeping the wolves at bay while the tender spots are toughened up.

[kevinpars]

Are you really suggesting that George Sr. should have kept going and gone for Baghdad in the first Gulf war? Is this argument really about suggesting that W was correct in invading Iraq despite the lack of 'weapons of mass destruction'?

Do you really think the Iraq people think the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the destruction of their country was worth it? Are these people better off now? Is America better off now?

Damn, the lengths people will go to to defend voting for W, the President.

Hope you enjoy spending 4 bucks a gallon for gas. If only we didn't have to 'press 1 for English', that must be the real problem.

[Jackdog]

Are you really suggesting that George Sr. should have kept going and gone for Baghdad in the first Gulf war? Is this argument really about suggesting that W was correct in invading Iraq despite the lack of 'weapons of mass destruction'?

Ask congress. They approved the action. They are all to blame. If they had a spine and did some homework you wouldn't be talking about this and I wouldn't walk with a limp.

Do you really think the Iraq people think the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the destruction of their country was worth it?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ 84,218 – 91,889. Those numbers still suck. It's horrific anytime an innocent civilian is killed. Sectarian violence was off the charts in 06-07. Things are starting to calm down a bit as the Iraqi Government and Army grow stronger.
The country wasn't destroyed. Many military targets,yes. Country. No. The northern and southern parts of Iraq saw little action. Most of the fighting was in the Sunni Triangle. Central Iraq.

Are these people better off now?

Yes. MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

Is America better off now?

Depends on where you live. Michigan's economy sucks right now.

Damn, the lengths people will go to to defend voting for W, the President.

I didn't.

Hope you enjoy spending 4 bucks a gallon for gas.

Not Bush's fault. Demand and supply. We are gas hogs.

If only we didn't have to 'press 1 for English', that must be the real problem.

WTF does that mean?

[RobVarak]

Given that you're familiar with the history of the Vietnam war I would have imaged that you'd be a little more skeptical of declarations of progress.

From the administration certainly, but if Vietnam taught us anything it's to believe nothing that the government says and everything printed by those impartial patriots at the NY Times and Washington Post

[Teal]

Are you really suggesting that George Sr. should have kept going and gone for Baghdad in the first Gulf war? Is this argument really about suggesting that W was correct in invading Iraq despite the lack of 'weapons of mass destruction'?

Do you really think the Iraq people think the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the destruction of their country was worth it? Are these people better off now? Is America better off now?

Damn, the lengths people will go to to defend voting for W, the President.

Hope you enjoy spending 4 bucks a gallon for gas. If only we didn't have to 'press 1 for English', that must be the real problem.

I'm not debating with you-there's no way to do it. You're off the reservation, billowing tired old cliches that have little to no truth to them.

We're having a little debate here, and you chime in with a bunch of junk out of left field. If you're going to debate this, please get your facts straighter-hundreds of thousands? That's just inflated leftist media baloney.

And I have NO idea what the hell that last sentence is about...

[wco81]

Ask congress. They approved the action. They are all to blame. If they had a spine and did some homework you wouldn't be talking about this and I wouldn't walk with a limp.

They passed a resolution. But Bush pulled the trigger. Commander in Chief wages war.

If they didn't pass a resolution, do you really think Bush would have held back?

No he would have at least made sure he got it passed along party lines, since the party that he was head of controlled Congress at the time.

Or he would have ignored Congress altogether, as he has in many other instances, using the unitary executive theory of governance.

Are these people better off now?

Yes. MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Iraq is a country of 25 million. If 1 in 4 died, that's way more than 100k.

If 1 in 3 fled, then you're talking millions. Actually 2-3 million have reportedly fled, usually people of means like doctors and so forth. Did those expat Iraqis get surveyed about whether life was better since the war?

Hope you enjoy spending 4 bucks a gallon for gas.

Not Bush's fault. Demand and supply. We are gas hogs.

So the war wasn't the commander in chief's fault. What is Bush's fault?

When Bush took office, oil was around $25. Not it's been as high as $135 or so.

Demand hasn't risen by a factor of over 5 in this decade. Not even with all the new Chinese, Indian, Russian, etc. cars.

Does Bush have authority over agencies which oversee the energy futures markets, where we've seen market manipulation in the case of CA and may be seeing it in the oil futures market?

Does Bush preside over the SEC or have influence over the Fed (in appointing the Fed chairman)? What about encouraging the "ownership society" and a govt. which looked the other way as predatory lending got out of control and led to the credit crisis and the real estate bubble?

Does Bush have ANY responsibility over what federal regulators did or didn't do during his tenure?

Is he a potted plant made of Teflon and all the things which have gone wrong (or are just creations of the liberal biased media) the fault of everyone but Bush?

Must be great to be in charge but not have to accept any responsibility (in the eyes of dedicated hardcore followers) when things go wrong.

[Inuyasha]

I don't want another Bush or Clinton in the White House EVER!

[Jackdog]

When Bush took office, oil was around $25. Not it's been as high as $135 or so.

Demand hasn't risen by a factor of over 5 in this decade. Not even with all the new Chinese, Indian, Russian, etc. cars.

Does Bush have authority over agencies which oversee the energy futures markets, where we've seen market manipulation in the case of CA and may be seeing it in the oil futures market?

Does Bush preside over the SEC or have influence over the Fed (in appointing the Fed chairman)? What about encouraging the "ownership society" and a govt. which looked the other way as predatory lending got out of control and led to the credit crisis and the real estate bubble?

Does Bush have ANY responsibility over what federal regulators did or didn't do during his tenure?

Is he a potted plant made of Teflon and all the things which have gone wrong (or are just creations of the liberal biased media) the fault of everyone but Bush?

Must be great to be in charge but not have to accept any responsibility (in the eyes of dedicated hardcore followers) when things go wrong.

I guess your right. Bush made Katrina to f*** up black folks. But he bounced back this yaer and f***ed up a lot of white folks with tornados. Bush made my Packers lose in the play-offs.Bush made the football Wolverines suck this year.(Except aginist the SEC,he hates rednecks. See tornado comment.) Bush made my neighboor run over our cat. Bush made the kid at Taco Bell f*** up my order. Bush made me cum way to fast the last time I jumped my wife.

On the other hand I am glad he likes the Red Wings. Because he's making the Pens look pretty bad. But it's cool. The all and powerful Bush only has 6 more months to create shitty televison shows and the dollar vaule menu at McDonalds.

[dougb]

Given that you're familiar with the history of the Vietnam war I would have imaged that you'd be a little more skeptical of declarations of progress.

From the administration certainly, but if Vietnam taught us anything it's to believe nothing that the government says and everything printed by those impartial patriots at the NY Times and Washington Post

I think a healthy dose of skeptism for government pronouncements and what passes these days for media reporting, punditry, and analysis is certainly in order! The New York Times record in the run up to Iraq was little short of abysmal.

Of course, a little less Elizabeth Bulmiller and a little more David Halberstam type reporting would go some way to addressing the current shortcomings on the media side.

Couple of fascinating books I'd recommend (if you haven't already read them) are William Prochnau's 'Once Upon a Distant War' and Neil Sheehan's 'A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam'. First one deals mainly with reporters in the early days in Vietnam and the second deals with a lieutenant colonel's efforts to convince decision makers to adopt a sensible strategy over a period of over 10 years.

Best wishes,

Doug

[matthewk]

Bush made me cum way to fast the last time I jumped my wife.

If it's the person Bush you're referring to, I would've thought his image would have the reverse effect, but whatever works for you I guess.

[matthewk]

Iraq is a country of 25 million. If 1 in 4 died, that's way more than 100k.

If 1 in 3 fled, then you're talking millions. Actually 2-3 million have reportedly fled, usually people of means like doctors and so forth. Did those expat Iraqis get surveyed about whether life was better since the war?

First off, for Kevin - I did not vote for Bush in 2004.

Now back to the quote:
You're not reading the statistics right. If a family of 4 was asked if they had a family member killed and the answer was yes, you'd have a 100% yes vote, but only 1 person was killed. If another 4 person family was asked and the answer was no, you'f have 8 people polled, 2 people killed, but 50% of people polled had a family member who was killed.

[Brando70]

Lo and behold, even that bastion of sky-is-falling in Iraq journalism the Washington Post has removed its head from its derriere for a glimpse of the real world:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01927.html

Conclusion:

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

It's going to be interesting to watch Obama triangulate in the general election. He can't admit the reality of the events without admitting his error with respect to the surge. He can't suggest plans for success without undermining his faux moral authority as the real anti-war candidate.

I still believe that no matter who wins, all the nonsense talk of immediate pullouts was so much hot air (and I've said so repeatedly in this thread), but it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the campaign.

As the friendly negative nellies at CNN like to point out, the economy (pardon me, the CNN-designated "recession") is ISSUE NUMBER ONE. But the Iraq issue will not be irrelevant, and the way the candidates handle it will reflect strongly on their perception in the electorate. Those debates that Jack is always talking about are going to be interesting indeed.

I do find it funny that the mainstream media can't be trusted until they produce one editorial you agree with

I think we are seeing progress in Iraq over the last year. If the trends continue, Obama will probably have to re-evaluate his position. I hope the Iraqi security forces can continue to strengthen and stabilize so they can take over more of their own security.

[JackB1]

I think we are seeing progress in Iraq over the last year. If the trends continue, Obama will probably have to re-evaluate his position. I hope the Iraqi security forces can continue to strengthen and stabilize so they can take over more of their own security.

I certainly am happy that there is some progress in Iraq, but it always leads me to this question.....what happens when we leave? We do HAVE to leave sometime and won't all this progress be temporary? Once we are gone, what's stopping all the extremists from moving back in?

[Teal]

I think we are seeing progress in Iraq over the last year. If the trends continue, Obama will probably have to re-evaluate his position. I hope the Iraqi security forces can continue to strengthen and stabilize so they can take over more of their own security.

I certainly am happy that there is some progress in Iraq, but it always leads me to this question.....what happens when we leave? We do HAVE to leave sometime and won't all this progress be temporary? Once we are gone, what's stopping all the extremists from moving back in?

Well, hopefully, people will shut up all the nonsense about 'bring them home NOW', and let our boys over their continue to train the Iraqis, and do their job. Then, when the job is done, we can say we did everything we could, and leave it to the Iraqis. If they rise up and defend their country, great. If they kowtow to the towel headed knuckledraggers again...well, it's their funeral.

[pk500]

I certainly am happy that there is some progress in Iraq, but it always leads me to this question.....what happens when we leave? We do HAVE to leave sometime and won't all this progress be temporary? Once we are gone, what's stopping all the extremists from moving back in?

Jack:

You're fooling yourself if you think the U.S. will completely leave Iraq.

Nearly 71,000 U.S. troops were still in Germany as recent as 2004, a legacy of WWII. The U.S. still has nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea, a legacy of the Korean War.

If you think the U.S. presence will be removed from Iraq, you're dreaming. Uncle Sam will have a strong military presence -- definitely tens of thousands of troops -- for generations to come, regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

As Tom Friedman said, we conquered Iraq, and now we own it. That will be the case regardless of how stable the Iraqi government becomes. South Korea and Germany have stable governments, yet the U.S. still has significant military presence in both of those nations more than 50 years after the respective conflicts ended.

Expect the same in Iraq. That's why it's absolute folly for any candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- to say they're going to pull out of Iraq completely. It's smoke-and-mirrors bullsh*t, a political plank made of balsa wood.

Take care,
PK

[Slumberland]

I say we make them the 51st state. Flood them with fast food, Xbox 360's, and Gap outlets. Turning them into a fat, employed nation with a myriad of distractions will do wonders for curbing extremism and transforming the region.

I'm only three-quarters kidding.

[Jackdog]

I certainly am happy that there is some progress in Iraq, but it always leads me to this question.....what happens when we leave? We do HAVE to leave sometime and won't all this progress be temporary? Once we are gone, what's stopping all the extremists from moving back in?

Jack:

You're fooling yourself if you think the U.S. will completely leave Iraq.

Nearly 71,000 U.S. troops were still in Germany as recent as 2004, a legacy of WWII. The U.S. still has nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea, a legacy of the Korean War.

If you think the U.S. presence will be removed from Iraq, you're dreaming. Uncle Sam will have a strong military presence -- definitely tens of thousands of troops -- for generations to come, regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

As Tom Friedman said, we conquered Iraq, and now we own it. That will be the case regardless of how stable the Iraqi government becomes. South Korea and Germany have stable governments, yet the U.S. still has significant military presence in both of those nations more than 50 years after the respective conflicts ended.

Expect the same in Iraq. That's why it's absolute folly for any candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- to say they're going to pull out of Iraq completely. It's smoke-and-mirrors bullsh*t, a political plank made of balsa wood.

Take care,
PK

I was going to make a similar post. I agree PK,even the balsa wood comment. It really doesn't hurt that we have troops in countries that sandwich Iran. Think that was planned?