The Surge: Who Was Right? Lieberman and Bayh Square Off
Still in Chicago. Will board the bus to the airport in an hour. We depart at 8 p.m. CDT. Once I take off, I won’t be able to approve “comments.” Don’t be angry. I have to personally approve each comment. I’ll be flying for more than 14 hours, so it will take some time.
Barack Obama will soon arrive in Iraq. What awaits him, it seems, is at least as important as what he or John McCain or Nouri Al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, want to do in the future.
As I predicted in this space late Friday, Obama surrogates now assert that the difference between “timetables” and “time horizons” for troop withdrawals as so trivial that Obama was right about moving troops out — regardless of his opposition to the surge and his push for troop withdrawals last year. The Obama camp also appears to be adopting an attitude of Original Sin about the Iraq War. The U.S.-launched war in the land of the two rivers was the strategic original sin of the post-9/11 era and nothing arising from it can redeem that original fall from grace.
You can see this line of argumentation in today’s lively exchange on Fox News Sunday between Obama surrogate Evan Bayh, the Democratic senator from Indiana who chaired Hillary Clinton’s campaign in that hard-fought primary, and Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut Independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats but backs McCain to the hilt.
The McCain camp demands that Obama answer, while in Iraq, for his opposition to the troop surge. Lieberman said it would be virtually impossible for Obama to travel to Iraq and find the security that awaits him without the surge. Lieberman went so far as to say Obama was “prepared to lose in Iraq.” If Obama had prevailed and the surge been stopped, Lieberman said, Iraq could very easily be failed state with a vibrant Al Qaeda presence, massive sectarian unrest and untold humanitarian suffering due to violence, refugee outflows and diminished economic activity.
Bayh countered that the surge is less important that the war itself and the question now is who was right sooner about troop withdrawals. The two dots Obama wants voters to connect are: War and Withdrawal. The FIVE dots McCain wants them to connect are: War, Failure, Surge, Success, Withdrawal.
That, in essence, is the Iraq debate. Voter who care about the surge and consider it the central test of a commander-in-chief will side overwhelmingly with McCain. Those who see the war decision itself as the prism through which to evaluate a commander-in-chief will side with Obama, as they have lopsidedly since the campaign began. Those in between will have to decide for themselves if the war was worth fighting in the first place. For those who believe it wasn’t, I’m not sure the surge will prove decisive for them in McCain’s favor. For those who do believe some good can come out of the Iraq war, the surge and McCain’s advocacy of it, could prove pivotal.
Hence the intensity of today’s surge exchange. Here is the transcript. Happy reading.
WALLACE: As we discussed with Admiral Mullen, Iraqi prime minister Maliki seemed over the weekend to endorse Obama’s plan for pulling combat troops out of Iraq by mid 2010, within two years. Now he’s apparently backed off that.
But, Senator Lieberman, the Iraqis clearly want us out sooner rather than later, and they would like on a timetable. Why is Senator McCain resisting that?
LIEBERMAN: Well, we — Senator McCain and I and others — want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later, but we want us out in a way that does not compromise all the gains that American and Iraqi forces have made in Iraq, which Admiral Mullen spoke to.
And frankly, we want to stay there to a victory because we don’t want all those who have served in the American uniform there to have served or in some cases died in vain.
Remember this, Chris. We wouldn’t be having this discussion about how to get out unless the surge, which John McCain courageously fought for, taking on the president of his own party, popular opinion, risking his campaign, and which Senator Obama opposed, worked.
So I think that’s the good news. I think everybody — that is, Prime Minister Maliki, President Bush, people like John McCain and I — agree the sooner we’re out, the better. But it has to be based on conditions on the ground.
Senator Obama doesn’t seem to feel that way. It looked like he did a little bit after the primaries were over. But then he, pushed by MoveOn.org and others on the antiwar left of the Democratic Party, is back to a rigid time line. And that’s not wise.
WALLACE: Let me talk to Senator Bayh about that.
Admiral Mullen didn’t mention Obama, but he did say this idea of a timetable for getting out in two years is dangerous. Why not agree that you’re going to make any decisions based on conditions on the ground, Senator?
BAYH: Chris, I think it’s important to note that Barack Obama’s judgment about these issues has been excellent from the beginning, the kind of judgment you’d want in a commander in chief, and others are now beginning to adopt his positions.
We wouldn’t be discussing surges in Iraq or anything else if Barack had had his way. We wouldn’t have started that war to begin with.
He was right about Afghanistan. That’s the place from which we were attacked. He’s been calling for more troops there now for over a year. And John McCain, to his credit, has now come around and adopted Barack’s point of view on that.
He has been for, as you say, a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As we heard, Prime Minister Maliki has embraced a more definitive time line, whether it’s the 16 months or something else. But clearly, they want a more definitive time line.
And even President Bush now is coming up with a variety of euphemisms — aspirational goals, time horizons. I mean, it’s starting to sound pretty much like a time line to me.
So it’s common sense, Chris. Any important enterprise, certainly something as important as a war — you want to have a plan. And a plan has to have some idea of what it’s going to cost, what the adverse consequences are going to be and how long it’s going to take.
So 16 months seems to be a reasonable goal. Let’s work toward that. Let’s bring this to a conclusion in a responsible way and focus on Iraq (sic) where the focus should have been all along.
WALLACE: But, Senator Bayh, even the Washington Post criticized Obama this week for — and let’s put it up on the screen — his iron timetable, accusing him of foolish consistency and that he’s ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome.
And here’s an exchange between Obama and McCain this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: I’m really astonished that he should give a policy speech on Iraq and Afghanistan before he goes to find out the facts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Again, two questions, really, Senator Bayh. Why the, quote, “iron timetable” that the Washington Post talks about? And secondly, this issue — why announce your policy before you go to Iraq and talk to the generals and the Iraqis?
BAYH: A couple of things, Chris. First, General Petraeus was asked recently about whether a 16-month period was a reasonable period of time, and he said it would depend on a variety of factors. He didn’t say it was unreasonable.
We’ve been there — will have been — 16 months from when the next president is inaugurated, almost seven years. We’ve spent $700 billion. Just think of all the other things we could have done — finished Afghanistan, energy security for our country — with those amount of resources.
What’s really surprising is that John, a man I admire and respect, says that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruct in Iraq, knowing all the consequences that have been adverse in Afghanistan because of our fixation on Iraq, he would do this all over again. That’s what is really surprising.
So Barack thinks that 16 months from January is a reasonable period of time. Let’s go for it. Let’s see. Let’s try and bring this to a conclusion on that time frame. If there are difficulties, we’ll address them when they arise.
LIEBERMAN: Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama’s policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn’t go to Iraq today. It wouldn’t be safe. Barack Obama and John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq.
John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line, because, as he says, he’d rather lose an election than lose in a war that he thinks is this important to the United States.
The reason I say Barack — if Barack Obama’s policy couldn’t — had been implemented — if Barack Obama’s policy in Iraq had been implemented, he couldn’t be in Iraq today is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat.
And that would mean today Al Qaida would be in charge of parts of Iraq. Iranian-backed extremists would be in charge of other parts of Iraq. There’d be civil war and maybe even genocide.
And the fact is that we are winning in Iraq today. And you know, you can’t choose, as Senator Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can win in Afghanistan.
The reality is if we lost in Iraq, which Obama was prepared to do, we would go to Afghanistan as losers. Instead, Al Qaida has its tail tucked between its legs as it’s exiting Iraq to go — to try to…
WALLACE: I’m going to…
BAYH: I have to respond to that. Barack Obama was not for losing in Iraq. Barack didn’t want the war to begin with.
John McCain opposed surging troops in Afghanistan until last week.
LIEBERMAN: Yeah, but what…
BAYH: Excuse me. Was John for losing in Afghanistan? I don’t think so.
LIEBERMAN: Of course not.
BAYH: And now you have Maliki, even President Bush, are moving toward Barack Obama’s position on this.
WALLACE: I want to…
BAYH: His judgment was right.
WALLACE: Gentlemen, I want to — we could continue this…
LIEBERMAN: Those questions — bottom line, no question that Barack Obama was prepared to lose in Iraq.
BAYH: That’s not true.
WALLACE: All right. All right.
LIEBERMAN: Forget what’s right or wrong…
That’s where the exchange ended, in a bit of a stalemate. This debate will surround all of the evaluations of Obama’s visit to Iraq: his, McCain’s and the country’s.
Lieberman and Bayh?
Fair and balanced?
Is this a cartoon? Is this a joke? The Bourbon Room? This is a cartoon, isn’t it?
You might as well have Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage debate one another.
We did lose in Iraq. It’s already over.
Republicans (and de-facto Israelis like Lieberman) handed the country over to Iran through their ineptness, and there’s no going back.
Big. Fat. Losers.
Republicans own this loss, just like they own 911. They’ve done more to undercut our national security than any other group in American history.
Iraq belongs to Iran now.
Thanks Republicans.
How do win a war that should have never started in the first place. What do you expect to win, oil contracts. Is that what our soldiers died for. If I remember correct, after the “surge” violence actually increased. When all the Iraqi leaders started to talk thats when the violence slowed down. None of this matters. When the Iraqi president says he wants us out, and his military is ready to take over, out we go. Are American tax payers supposed to keep paying to baby sit these people because they can’t figure out how to split up their oil money. If Exxon/Mobil, Shell, and Chevron were paying the bills for this war, how long do you think they would let this play out.
Senator Bayh is trapped by the left wing rhetoric that forces the moveon.org crowd to deny reality. The surge worked and the general did not “betray us”. Frankly, something is seriouslywrong when an allegedly “american” political party finds “good news” when we are losing but “bad news” when we win. But hey, if we had listened tot he Democrats (1) the soviet union would be alive and well, (2) Aghanistan would be a partof the USSR,(3) nicaragua, venezuela, colombia, el salvador and honduras would all have communist governments, (4) our military would not have stealthbombers or cruise missiles or modern aircraft carriers, (5) we would all be standing in ration lines for food, fuel and gasoline and (5) we would be deluged with leftist moaning about “malaise” and socialism as the “wave of the future”. Oh yeah, and remember, the left wing calls itself “progressive”. I am glad obama and his network news sepoys are going to Iraq. Unfortunately, however, they will return.
So now mccain and bush want to be heros for doing what should have been done 5 years ago in a war that never should have been started. Bush/cheney are traitors and criminals and should be prosecuted for the death, destruction, and dishonor they have caused. Think about the lives and families that have been destroyed and now those responsible will soon retire to a life of luxury. Most Americans really don’t care and only get angry when the price of gas goes up or when a foreign country buys their favorite beer maker. That kind of stupidity is why our Country will soon have a destroyed middle class and we will continue the bumpy ride downhill into the scrapheap of history.
typical obama spinners. whether we should have gone in or not, the fact is we are there. we should put all our efforts into winning. no matter what it takes. and we should not leave until the commanders on the ground say so.
the dems. continually debate stratagies which help there party rather than whats right for america. i find there policies disturbing.
Here is problem…the Republicans want us to believe that the war started at thje beginning of the “surge”…that is the big lie. This is like the buying a bad car…wether you change the engine or not, it made no sense buying the car in the first place.
Lets face it, if America were to lose in Iraq it would be a political windfall for the Democrats. The democrats are much more concerned about keeping power and seats than they have ever been about doing whats right for America. Here are just a few examples: 1] pulling out of Iraq early 2] Not drilling for oil in ANWAR, off the coasts, and domestically 3] not building new refineries immediately to process new oil reserves of the future 4] being more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks of the United States rather than by doing what is right for the American taxpayer. Everytime I hear a democrat speak it involves higher taxes on the more successful [rich]. The so called rich are also the ones who expand business, hire new employees, and pay the majority of the taxes already. Most of the economic plans I hear out of the democrats mouths are flawed and against sound economic principle. For the sake of our country and our children we can only hope and pray that our politicians start doing right by Americans so we we can have a future as a nation.
The so-called “surge” is just another name for counter-insurgency.
The COIN plan saved a lot of Iraqi lives
and prevented a catastrophic politikal collapse into anarchy for Iraqi people.
Barack Obama,
who I support
and who I am going to most likely vote for,
was wrong on COIN,
very dangerously wrong.
If he went along with the Senatorial leadership at the time
everybody in “the know” saw Cambodia 1975 all over again.
Thank the Lord
David kept his cool and pressed on.
The lead Democrat in the Senate,
at the darkest moment in Iraq,
invested himself and his party into the dialogue of defeat.
They were from the Vietnam era
and their politiks were still tied into Vietnam story of defeat.
They did not understand
or did not want to understand
the ever changing reality on the ground.
It was a calculated politikal maneuver that failed.
The problem with modern politikal leadership,
who came from the Vietnam era,
is that fail to understand the modern warrior ethos.
Why do all these Iraq war movies fail?
Because they too invested into the dialogue of defeatism.
(and nobody likes a loser.)
These kids today are ferarless!
Absolutely fearless!
I am so impressed with our soliders.
I am so proud of them.
But I think Barack Obama has learned from that mistake
and can learn to adjust to the ever changing realities on the ground.
Nouri Al Maliki is one of the greatest success stories to come out of Iraq.
His leadership and politikal def hand is not only impressive
but inspiring at the same time.
Nouri was a right politikal leader for Iraq
at exactly the right time.
Now we really need to invest into
the people of Pakistan.
I see no other option but to help our “Little Brother”
with not only pressuring them into more action,
but rewarding them with roads,
schools and a whole lot of love.
Pakistan needs a mature balanced and well meaning friend
whole can listen not only work with them,
but to listen to them too.
We as a people
have failed to open our ears to the Pakistani conversation.
This too is a failure of leadership
that strikes me as odd.
What a price for so little. 4100+ American lives lost. Countless thousands injured. And the end result will be that we will leave Iraq. Yes we beat Hussein. But what is the short and long term gain? Nothing. Iraq was not the fight worth fighting. Bin Laden is still alive and in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
I think Bush and his presidency will go down as the worst in the entire history of our country.
The murderers of our citizens are still able to walk freely. And he is running around a country with strong neighbors waiting for us to leave. Can anyone say Saigon?
Obama was right. McCain seems almost relentless to spend American blood on misplaced targets. Obviously failing to grasp strategy during his military training his zeal to scatter American strength at multiple targets, leaves us open to unreasonable failure.
Q. Can you walk from border to border in Iraq without fear of confrontation? No.
I would rather fight my enemies then bystanders.
To James McDumbass: Great Rant…..did you get all of these talking points from the daily Kos? Nothing you said makes a lick of sense or is substantiated by fact. You are a clown!!!!!!!!!
Repubs own 9-11? If your boy wasn’t so busy getting blown by fat chicks, he might have done something. Why don’t you mention the fact that WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED SINCE……D@MN SURE NOT BECAUSE OF DUMBOCRATS
[...] The Surge: Who Was Right? Lieberman and Bayh Square Off [Fox] [...]
One question, If Obama was so against fighting in Iraq did his best to make life hard on our troops with all the games our gov. plays on the hill, why in gods name does he want to send our troops to Afghanistan? War is war death is death does it matter what country you bite the bullet in? To many people are letting our outlook slip here the troops will NOT be coming home they will be going to another war! I figure a lot of dems will start that’s where the terrorist are, well you dems better think back a few months remember it was YOU that said “terrorist is a republican bumper sticker slogan” gee when did you change that small mind? The Middle East is a large cesspool it is time to flush and move on to our problems at home, and with the outlook for our great country in this time of our lives one word says it all HELP!
Suuporters of Obama keep saying that his judgment was right about not going to war with Iraq. Why does the media not ask him how he would have responded to Sadam’s open threats to America and saber-rattling for years? Now that the information is out but was not divulged earlier for security or other reasons that our troops have found, and which have now been removed, more than 500 tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq, what does the media say to those who were adamant that there were no weapons of mass destruction? If we did not stop Sadam, he could have used them. against us and our allies. I would like to know the strength of Obama’s decision-making process, given that he belonged to a church that’s a pacifist, that he is beholden to anti-war and other groups, that he seems inclined to believe in his surrogates and has no independent judgment; I am an independent who just could not see him ready for the leadership of the free world. There’s more to leadership than showing your basketball skills, making speeches, and drawing crowds. America, please wake up and stop to think.
I guess that James McDumbass only thinks that fair and balanced is a discussion between Dirty Harry Reid and Nancy Do Nothing Pelosi.
Just FYI, both of the people are liberals!!! One even agrees with you!
The dems won’t admit that they all saw the same intellegence on Iraq in the beginning, and approved going to war, then when it wasn’t over in a weekend, they said oh boy, better back out and crawl back under the table where no one can hurt us!
Get a spine and some information if your wife will let you!
How many more people are going to leave his campaign, by the time this election is over he will most likely replace every staff member he has. It sad that now his top 7 economic advisors all have resigned, I just wonder how fox would have ran that over and over again if it was Obama. I know some of Obama staff have resigned but not nearly as much as McCain, he had more economic advisors resign alone than Obama total number. Oh yeah he has a lot of experience so if he makes unlimited amount of mistakes its ok because of his track record, what B.S….Obama has not only been right on most of the economic issues, education, foundation, etc but also on McCains supposed superior knowledge Foreign policy. Obama was right in not voting for the war McCain wrong and tried to justify it by attempting to fix a problem that we should have never been in.
-Obama was right in voting against the war McCain wrong for voting for it (I guess because he has experience its ok)
-Obama was right in having a timetable withdraw McCain wants to stay there for decades more which is wrong. Even the Iraq government wants us out, but not McCain he wants to ride this thing out because such a success. If this is the standard for success we as a country have fallen off.
-Obama was right in wanting to talk to Iran and McCain was wrong in wanting to use military actions because talking to solve issues is appeasement funny concept.
- Obama was right in wanting to focus in Afghanistan more not Iraq because they did nothing wrong to us and McCain is now focusing in Afghanistan.
So please tell me where the experience factor really worked for McCain. McCain can’t even tell the difference between the enemies on ground though he has been there. Are the American people that easily influenced because it seems like repeating something over and over again regardless of the truth behind it people will fall for it.
-Obama muslin wrong and if he was what does it matter. Not all Muslims are bad just like not all Christians are good.
-Obama and Elitist completely wrong McCain owns 7 houses, a private jet and has a net worth of over $100 million, if anything its McCain is much more an Elitist.
-Obama raising taxes completely wrong, he wants to increase taxes for the top 10% and lower taxes for the average American, middle and slightly upper (90%) unless you are in the top 10% or above $220,000 you are safe under Obama’s plan and it is the opposite with McCain take the time to see the breakdown.
The list can go on, most of you close-minded people need to open up and see both sides before making any judgment. Unless you have hidden feeling as to why. Many of you know nothing outside of what you see on the news do yourself a favor by researching before making another mistake.
LIEberman is only concerned with Israel and Bayh is afraid to say it. That’s what passes for debate in the controlled media
Its pretty sad that the war in Iraq has turned so political. Firstly, the surge has worked. Iraq was in a dismal place before this and even troops on the ground are happy to report that Iraq seems to be coming together. That said its not over yet and its pretty stupid of Obama to go on about a timetable (because he said it first and now cant back down even if generals tell him its wrong). 2ndly, McCain has always said that he will withdraw as and when it was deemed the right by BY THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND. he doesnt have to follow the line of a policy he said and cant back down from, he said he will listen to the professional. That seems to have been the smartest way to deal with Iraq as far as i’m concerned.
And for those liberals going on about the war was wrong etc. etc., get over it. We are there now and whoever is elected in November will have the Iraq war on their hands. This means we need someone who is going to be a strong leader when it comes to military and im afraid Obama doesnt have that – even though he’s trying to gain credit by diverting attention to Afghanistan (thank god Nato are there so its not just the Americans problem).
Could it be the insurgents are sensing that we are about leave? That might explain why the “Surge” appears to be working? The insurgents may be waiting for us to leave so that they can start back up again.
The Real question is what happens when the surge is over? Will the levels of violence go back to what is was?
Only then, can we say that the “Surge” has worked. Just like Bush did in May 2003, with his premature declaration that the war was over, McCain is making the same premature judgemnent about the “Surge”.
LOL at Lieberman’s hypocricy in this discussion… potential preview of Lieberman getting his butt kicked in a Veep debate??
Major Garrett, you are starting to sound as foolish as the Democrats. How could there be any confusion as to whether the surge worked or whether Obama was right, explaining for the situatioin we now find ourselves in in Iraq – success.
How could anyone for one minute give Mr. do-nothing, know-nothing Obama credit for anything? If anything was left up to a decision that Obama had made concerning any aspect of the Iraq war, surely disaster would have followed abruptly and without fail. And it does not require an I.Q. of 150 to understand that fact. My grandson, age 9, knows that full well.
McCain turned around the Iraq war and won it hands down, fair play! Any for anyone to suggest differently is a liar and a thief attempting to snatch the victory from McCain’s deserving hands.
Get a grip Major, you’re a good man, don’t fall into step with the far-left loons.
Comment by Michael in Atlanta
July 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm Could it be the insurgents are sensing that we are about leave? That might explain why the “Surge” appears to be working? The insurgents may be waiting for us to leave so that they can start back up again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That would imply that your boy Obama is completely underestimating and not understanding an enemy. McCain on the other hand seems to be fully aware of the enemy’s capabilities and is not endorsing a firm timetable. Do you even think about what you write Michael or is it all reactionary with you?
The REALITY is that the surge has worked, it IS over Michael, were you sleeping through it? They’re even drawing down “surge” troops right now Michael. Did you miss that too? if it hadn’t worked then 15 of the 18 benchmarks (that Democrats like Obama insisted on) could not have have been met. But like Obama and the Dems are want to do…they keep moving the goal posts when they have no credible response. McCain has stated elements of the Iraqi security forces, like their airforce, are not at full capacity and any modern army must have capable air support. This is established fact Michael…not “ah ha’s” and conspiracies are you like to cry out. al Qaeda in Iraq is on the ropes, that’s a result of the surge and the war Michael. That’s a strategic victory, if you think that’s al Qaeda playing possum you’re deluding yourself Michael. Intelligence and operations are right there on the ground, they know their enemy, they know it’s capabilities..no one’s playing possum Michael, get that notion out of your head, THE SURGE WORKED.
Comment by Tel…
July 21st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Comment by Michael in Atlanta
July 21st, 2008 at 1:05 pm Could it be the insurgents are sensing that we are about leave? That might explain why the “Surge” appears to be working? The insurgents may be waiting for us to leave so that they can start back up again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That would imply that your boy Obama is completely underestimating and not understanding an enemy. McCain on the other hand seems to be fully aware of the enemy’s capabilities and is not endorsing a firm timetable. Do you even think about what you write Michael or is it all reactionary with you?
The REALITY is that the surge has worked, it IS over Michael, were you sleeping through it? They’re even drawing down “surge” troops right now Michael. Did you miss that too? if it hadn’t worked then 15 of the 18 benchmarks (that Democrats like Obama insisted on) could not have have been met. But like Obama and the Dems are want to do…they keep moving the goal posts when they have no credible response. McCain has stated elements of the Iraqi security forces, like their airforce, are not at full capacity and any modern army must have capable air support. This is established fact Michael…not “ah ha’s” and conspiracies are you like to cry out. al Qaeda in Iraq is on the ropes, that’s a result of the surge and the war Michael. That’s a strategic victory, if you think that’s al Qaeda playing possum you’re deluding yourself Michael. Intelligence and operations are right there on the ground, they know their enemy, they know it’s capabilities..no one’s playing possum Michael, get that notion out of your head, THE SURGE WORKED.
################################################################
If the “SURGE” has worked, why are we not decreasing our level of troops in Iraq? Is there a government in Iraq that both Sunni and Shiite support?
The Republicans are making the same mistake as before. Due to the many Bush blunders, We have destroyed that countries government and military. Our military cannot be put on hold in that country while it decides how to govern itself. The truth is, we should have known better than to invade this country with no plan for what happens next.
Additionally, You are the one that is delusional. One of the reason you support McCain is the he is against a timetable in Iraq, because he believes the insurgents will stop fighting and wait till we leave.
Bo wasn’t even there when the vote was taken on Iraq. No vote, no say, bite the bullet.
Why is it that Obama constantly reminds us that he wouldn’t have voted to go to war in the 1st place? We see that whatever issue comes up, he tries to get on both sides of an arguement. He wasn’t a Sen. back then, and it wasn’t an easy choice to make for anyone in Congress. Saddam was constantly playing games with the inspectors and targeting our planes with his radar. We knew he had a certain amount of chemical weapons because Saddam himself said so, but when the U.N. inspectors asked to account for them, he wouldn’t produce them. What were we supposed to believe? This was after 9/11 and we told him like we told the taliban: We’re not playing your game anymore. The fact is we’re in Iraq right now. Do we go the extra yard and try and win and possibly plant the seed of FREEDOM in the Middle East? Or do we play Monday morning quarterback about what we would’ve, should’ve done. Why would Obama trip our soldiers so close to the finish line,when Iraq is finally starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. If we leave before Iraq is truly ready, it will be more disastrous than anyone can imagine. John McCain see’s this and that is why Ibelieve he is ready to make the hard decisions as President. Obama is no leader if he is so willing to allow Iraq to fail just to win an election for his own ambition. Wake up America!!!!
Comment by Tim from Hershey,PA
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 am
Why is it that Obama constantly reminds us that he wouldn’t have voted to go to war in the 1st place? We see that whatever issue comes up, he tries to get on both sides of an arguement. He wasn’t a Sen. back then, and it wasn’t an easy choice to make for anyone in Congress. Saddam was constantly playing games with the inspectors and targeting our planes with his radar. We knew he had a certain amount of chemical weapons because Saddam himself said so, but when the U.N. inspectors asked to account for them, he wouldn’t produce them. What were we supposed to believe? This was after 9/11 and we told him like we told the taliban: We’re not playing your game anymore. The fact is we’re in Iraq right now. Do we go the extra yard and try and win and possibly plant the seed of FREEDOM in the Middle East? Or do we play Monday morning quarterback about what we would’ve, should’ve done. Why would Obama trip our soldiers so close to the finish line,when Iraq is finally starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. If we leave before Iraq is truly ready, it will be more disastrous than anyone can imagine. John McCain see’s this and that is why Ibelieve he is ready to make the hard decisions as President. Obama is no leader if he is so willing to allow Iraq to fail just to win an election for his own ambition. Wake up America!!!!
################################################################
Exactly what light at the end of the tunnel is there in Iraq?
Is there a government that both Sunni and Shiite support?
Are the Sunni and Shiite about to sit down and work out a peaceful solution to their decades of hatred?
What has the “Surge” done other than make insurgents wait until the “Surge” is over to start back again?
Stewart…
Wow, nice blog….