I would hope so
Oh yeah OH YEAH, your Momma (< That is a joke, chill, relax, take deep breathes
)(Can let me in again on what the topic is?)
Obama said to withdraw from Iraq--McCain said to Surge!!!
- Thread starter Fox Mulder
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Oh yeah OH YEAH, your Momma (< That is a joke, chill, relax, take deep breathes
)(Can let me in again on what the topic is?)
-
107Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
BadBoy@TheWheel
DT3's Twinkie
Rewards of Wisdom
As McCain's stand on the surge shows, experience cannot be separated from judgment.
by Matthew Continetti
In January 2007, with Iraq in flames and Democrats set to take over Congress, President Bush had two options. He could side with Senator Barack Obama and begin a gradual drawdown of American troops in Iraq, leaving the Iraqis to a grim fate and dealing a serious and consequential blow to American interests in the Middle East and beyond. Or he could side with Senator John McCain and change strategies, sending additional troops to Iraq in an effort to secure the population and assist the Iraqis in their fight against al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias--the so-called "surge" policy. This latter option was the one Bush eventually adopted, of course. And for that, he deserves the thanks of Americans, of Iraqis, and indeed the world.
The surge is over. The last of the reinforcements sent to Iraq have returned home. The Iraq those troops leave behind is an utterly transformed place. Since their first offensive operations began in July 2007, overall attacks have been cut by 80 percent. The sectarian bloodshed staining Iraq in 2006 and 2007 has almost entirely abated. American casualties have fallen dramatically, with U.S. combat deaths in Iraq in July 2008 the lowest monthly total since the war began more than five years ago. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been routed, and the global al Qaeda organization faces what CIA director Michael Hayden calls a "near-strategic defeat" in Iraq. Shiite radical Moktada al-Sadr remains "studying" in Iran, while his militia has been cut to pieces by U.S.
and Iraqi troops. The Iraqi army is progressing admirably; more than two-thirds of Iraqi combat battalions now take the lead in operations in their areas.
<SNIP>
The Iraqi government has met almost all of the "benchmarks" the U.S. Congress set for it, and, although a national hydrocarbons law remains elusive, the country's oil wealth is being divided among its 18 provinces. That wealth is increasing dramatically as security has allowed oil production to return to prewar levels (and as prices have soared). The major Sunni political bloc has rejoined the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Awakening, which began in Sunni-dominated Anbar province in the fall of 2006, has blossomed into a trans-sectarian, national, grassroots political movement. And Iraq is busy preparing for provincial and national elections that will further accelerate reconciliation by broadening and deepening the political participation of all the major groups.
<SNIP>
Had Bush listened to Obama and decided to retreat last year, not only would the progress we see today not have occurred, but it is quite likely that the situation in Iraq would be much worse than it was at the end of 2006. Bereft of U.S. security, Iraqis would have turned to the nearest sectarian militia for protection from the widening civil war. An empowered and belligerent Iran would have moved to fill the vacuum America left behind, thus allowing the mullahs in Tehran to pursue unchecked their policy of "Lebanonization" in Iraq. And Al Qaeda in Iraq would have continued its barbaric killing spree, using the departing American soldiers as a recruitment tool, evidence of American weakness and unreliability. It would not be al Qaeda but the United States facing a "near strategic defeat" on Osama bin Laden's chosen front. And a defeated America would have led to a more dangerous world.
<SNIP>
One of the chief lessons of the surge is that we are not powerless. Policy matters. The previous policy in Iraq was failing; Bush tried a new policy that is working. Another lesson is that, in this era of "soft" or "smart" power, force is still an effective means of achieving strategic goals. Those who argued that violence in Iraq would not stop until political accords were reached ignored the lessons of the first years of the war, when the Iraqis made great gains politically at a time of worsening violence. It was thought then, too, that the political gains would result in a more secure Iraq. Not so. When violence careened out of control in 2006, the Iraqi government was powerless to stop it. "Soft" power was useless. Military might was required to staunch the bleeding. And only when the violence was brought under control through the application of deadly force could politics resume and Iraq make its first real steps toward normality.
<SNIP>
Obama not only lacks experience and judgment; he lacks the capacity to admit he made a mistake and is therefore willing to risk everything the surge has achieved. Obama got it wrong when the stakes were greatest, and on the central issue of our time. Why on earth would we choose to reward him for it?
As McCain's stand on the surge shows, experience cannot be separated from judgment.
by Matthew Continetti
In January 2007, with Iraq in flames and Democrats set to take over Congress, President Bush had two options. He could side with Senator Barack Obama and begin a gradual drawdown of American troops in Iraq, leaving the Iraqis to a grim fate and dealing a serious and consequential blow to American interests in the Middle East and beyond. Or he could side with Senator John McCain and change strategies, sending additional troops to Iraq in an effort to secure the population and assist the Iraqis in their fight against al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias--the so-called "surge" policy. This latter option was the one Bush eventually adopted, of course. And for that, he deserves the thanks of Americans, of Iraqis, and indeed the world.
The surge is over. The last of the reinforcements sent to Iraq have returned home. The Iraq those troops leave behind is an utterly transformed place. Since their first offensive operations began in July 2007, overall attacks have been cut by 80 percent. The sectarian bloodshed staining Iraq in 2006 and 2007 has almost entirely abated. American casualties have fallen dramatically, with U.S. combat deaths in Iraq in July 2008 the lowest monthly total since the war began more than five years ago. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been routed, and the global al Qaeda organization faces what CIA director Michael Hayden calls a "near-strategic defeat" in Iraq. Shiite radical Moktada al-Sadr remains "studying" in Iran, while his militia has been cut to pieces by U.S.
and Iraqi troops. The Iraqi army is progressing admirably; more than two-thirds of Iraqi combat battalions now take the lead in operations in their areas.
<SNIP>
The Iraqi government has met almost all of the "benchmarks" the U.S. Congress set for it, and, although a national hydrocarbons law remains elusive, the country's oil wealth is being divided among its 18 provinces. That wealth is increasing dramatically as security has allowed oil production to return to prewar levels (and as prices have soared). The major Sunni political bloc has rejoined the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Awakening, which began in Sunni-dominated Anbar province in the fall of 2006, has blossomed into a trans-sectarian, national, grassroots political movement. And Iraq is busy preparing for provincial and national elections that will further accelerate reconciliation by broadening and deepening the political participation of all the major groups.
<SNIP>
Had Bush listened to Obama and decided to retreat last year, not only would the progress we see today not have occurred, but it is quite likely that the situation in Iraq would be much worse than it was at the end of 2006. Bereft of U.S. security, Iraqis would have turned to the nearest sectarian militia for protection from the widening civil war. An empowered and belligerent Iran would have moved to fill the vacuum America left behind, thus allowing the mullahs in Tehran to pursue unchecked their policy of "Lebanonization" in Iraq. And Al Qaeda in Iraq would have continued its barbaric killing spree, using the departing American soldiers as a recruitment tool, evidence of American weakness and unreliability. It would not be al Qaeda but the United States facing a "near strategic defeat" on Osama bin Laden's chosen front. And a defeated America would have led to a more dangerous world.
<SNIP>
One of the chief lessons of the surge is that we are not powerless. Policy matters. The previous policy in Iraq was failing; Bush tried a new policy that is working. Another lesson is that, in this era of "soft" or "smart" power, force is still an effective means of achieving strategic goals. Those who argued that violence in Iraq would not stop until political accords were reached ignored the lessons of the first years of the war, when the Iraqis made great gains politically at a time of worsening violence. It was thought then, too, that the political gains would result in a more secure Iraq. Not so. When violence careened out of control in 2006, the Iraqi government was powerless to stop it. "Soft" power was useless. Military might was required to staunch the bleeding. And only when the violence was brought under control through the application of deadly force could politics resume and Iraq make its first real steps toward normality.
<SNIP>
Obama not only lacks experience and judgment; he lacks the capacity to admit he made a mistake and is therefore willing to risk everything the surge has achieved. Obama got it wrong when the stakes were greatest, and on the central issue of our time. Why on earth would we choose to reward him for it?
I just knew you and I would get along. McCain is an idiot and not a conservative.
Exactly! There is nothing conservative about the man. He is just another republican pretending to be conservative to get elected.
Fox Mulder
Active Member
Not thrilled with him either, but you have only two choices--a no vote by any Republican/conservative is a vote for Obama so just consider that if you abtain. And Obama is as close to a communist as you'll l find in American politics (as a major candidate).
Sorry, I don't go for the vote for the lesser evil mentality. I'll write in ron paul or somebody else even if they have no chance at winning. At least I will have a clear conscience.
Actually, I will vote for Barry Obama. This country can not afford McCain for 8 years and if McCain is elected he will have a substantial chance of serving two terms. He will offend no one and do nothing and this country can not afford that. Obama on the other hand is Jimmie Carter without the personality.
He is a one term at best. Once he screws over the country ala Carter the electorate can't vote him out fast enough. Carter begat Reagan and Obama will cause a similar backlash against the inane that is liberalism.Though I will not vote for Obama but I was thinking the same thing. The best thing that could happen to this nation is let a very liberal president wreck it for 4 years. People will wake up and oust the democrats after that.Actually, I will vote for Barry Obama. This country can not afford McCain for 8 years and if McCain is elected he will have a substantial chance of serving two terms. He will offend no one and do nothing and this country can not afford that. Obama on the other hand is Jimmie Carter without the personality.
Fox Mulder
Active Member
I'm not telling you not to do abstain, I am simply telling you the reality of your choice. You have to do what you think is right. Personally, I'd much rather see McCain than Barack Hussein Obama.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
Actually, I will vote for Barry Obama. This country can not afford McCain for 8 years and if McCain is elected he will have a substantial chance of serving two terms. He will offend no one and do nothing and this country can not afford that. Obama on the other hand is Jimmie Carter without the personality.
what a dipstick
your logic sucks unless enough morons who have the right to vote end up not giving the Dems 60 senators
we need to get off this bullshit that the President is so powerful.
the only reason he is powerful is because congress is so fucking corrupt.
the checks and balances are not there because the fucking congress is more concerned about getting re elected.
no offense dipshit :24:
Fox Mulder
Active Member
Can't disagree there! :24:
This is what makes sense.
I see that you haven't stretched your vocabulary any. Wouldn't want you to hurt the few brain cells you have left. The president is powerful you twit and the reason is because he or she makes the decision unlike Congress which requires getting all the sheep to line up. Can you imagine what this country would look like if Stretch Pelsoi could make the decision alone! Geez, I shutter at the thought.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
Fox Mulder
Active Member
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
of course the President has powers. That is to also provide checks and balances.
But my point was congress is not holding their end of the deal.
I referenced Congress. That would be the body of politicians known as the House of Representatives and the Senate
Nothing to do with Speaker of the House and her ability to rule. She can control the debate but she can't control how people vote in a system that is clean rather than corrupt.
I can't stand McCain but he is the only thing that would provide restraint in the event the Democrats get 60 Senators. If you have a filibuster proof Senate along with a Democrat House and Democrat President it is a disaster in waiting.
But my point was congress is not holding their end of the deal.
Strauss said:
I referenced Congress. That would be the body of politicians known as the House of Representatives and the Senate
Nothing to do with Speaker of the House and her ability to rule. She can control the debate but she can't control how people vote in a system that is clean rather than corrupt.
I can't stand McCain but he is the only thing that would provide restraint in the event the Democrats get 60 Senators. If you have a filibuster proof Senate along with a Democrat House and Democrat President it is a disaster in waiting.
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
None of the President's men or women think they have to answer to Congress via legal writ because they don't believe in checks and balances. Congress needs to kick some Executive butt.
78,875Threads
2,185,392Messages
4,959Members