Fox News reports that The Chosen One’s public position on withdrawing all combat bridgades from Iraq might be kinda like his public position on the evilness of NAFTA and his rhetoric on wanting to heal racial and religious divides: just words (via ST reader NC Cop) - emphasis added:
As Barack Obama continues to criticize John McCain for saying he’s willing to keep a 100-year troop presence in Iraq, another Obama adviser has suggested U.S. forces could stay in Iraq longer than the Democratic candidate initially thought.
Adviser Colin Kahl wrote in a policy paper for the Center for a New American Security that the United States should transition to an “over-watch” force of between 60,000 and 80,000 troops by the end of 2010, according to an article Friday in the New York Sun.
That appears to be at odds with Obama’s public position of removing all combat brigades from the country within 16 months of taking office.
Kahl told the Sun his plan would still keep the U.S. “out of the lead” and mainly in a “support role.” He said the plan had nothing to do with the campaign.
The Obama campaign said in a statement: “The writing of Mr. Kahl, one of hundreds of outside advisers to the campaign, is not representative of Barack Obama’s consistent policy position on the Iraq war.”
But Kahl’s plan seems to jibe with other advisers’ statements that Obama’s withdrawal timetables are more a goal than a firm policy commitment.
Foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, for instance, told reporters in February that Obama’s plan to end the war in 2009 is not absolute, and that he reserves the right to revisit troop levels in Iraq upon taking the oath of office.
Former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama’s 16-month plan is a “best-scenario” and that the reality is he will try to withdraw troops “as quickly and responsibly as possible.”
Her comments were actually a little more detailed that that. Here are her full remarks:
Power downplayed Obama’s commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings. She was challenged on Obama’s Iraq plan, as it appears on his website, which says that Obama “will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
“What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president,” Power says.
The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:”So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn’t a commitment isn’t it?”
“You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009,” she said. “He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, ‘Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.’”
“It’s a best-case scenario,” she said again.
It’s nuanced, you see.
More from the Fox News piece:
Obama later affirmed that he would bring the war “to an end in 2009.”
Both Clinton and Obama have talked about keeping some U.S. presence in Iraq after withdrawing the bulk of American troops, but it’s unclear how broad that presence would be. Obama’s Web site states that “some troops” would stay in Iraq to protect U.S. embassies and diplomats and carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda if the organization tries to keep a base in Iraq after U.S. withdrawal.
Obama talked about keeping a “strike force” in the region Monday. That drew questions from McCain who asked, “Where are they based? What do they do? Now I’m intrigued. He has said he will pull out all troops before. How do you reconcile those two?”
Here’s the NY Sun piece, for the record.
So how many combat brigades is he going to withdraw, and in what time frame? Does he even have a clue? Yeah, I know the answer to that: It’s “hell no.”
Here we have another example of Barack Obama engaging in the “politics of the past” he so often decries in other politicians. He looks you in the eye and says one thing in public, over and over again in order to win over voters, but when you look at the fine print - or listen to what his key advisors are telling people, what he’s saying isn’t as clear cut as he’s made it out to be. Or in the case of McCain’s 100 years in Iraq comment, Obama knows he’s flat out lying, but he asserts the lie anyway again and again, purposely trying to mislead people about McCain’s position on leaving combat forces in Iraq, when it’s become more and more clear from his advisors that his own position would leave a significant number of combat brigades in Iraq - not just a few hundred for his “strike force” but possibly thousands - for longer than he’s telling his supporters. By his own logic and repeated falsehoods about McCain’s position on staying in Iraq, leaving that amount of forces in Iraq is tantamount to “wanting” to keep the Iraq war going, isn’t it? Will severely disillusioned anti-war supporters of BO start calling him a “warmonger” now?
And for anyone who thinks, “Hey, if this is true, it means Barack Obama isn’t planning on cutting and running after all,” just think of all the shifting positions he’s taken on the issue of the war in Iraq, in particular since he started running for president, and tell me with a straight face that you believe anything he says about it anymore. Not only that, but even if he did carry through and leave a number of combat brigades in Iraq til 2010 (assuming they are still needed), do we really trust this guy to be the Commander in Chief? The same guy who has said more than once that the deaths of our troops were “wasted” deaths all because of a “lie,” who believes the war was a “mistake,” and who routinely downplays the victories we’ve seen in Iraq since the start of the surge? Back in 2004, I expressed a similar belief about Obama supporter John Kerry:
Yes, we’ve got problems in Iraq and they’re being addressed and will continue to be. However, any President, as a Commander in Chief, must stay resolute and not waver in tough times. While acknowledging there are serious situations in Iraq to be dealt with, this President (along with Allawi) also has appropriately presented to the American people the positive side of what’s happening in Iraq because we need to hear both sides of the story. We generally only get one side of it in the mainstream press. John Kerry has given us his plan for how he’ll handle the situation in Iraq should he be elected President. Fine. But the face he puts on any comments he makes about Iraq is the face of someone who really wishes he’d never voted in favor of the war resolution, and would rather walk on hot glass barefooted than to have to deal with the consequences of it. Our troops, and the Iraqi people and the terrorists they face there, MUST see strength in a Commander in Chief, not pessimism and certainly not weakness.
This is not the time for jello spines from our world leaders, in particular, a US President. Our men and women (alongside the coalition and the people of Iraq who are fighting with us) are in the fights of their lives there right now and the last thing they need is a shaky CIC who regrets voting to send them there in the first place who’ll do little more than the bare minimum required there to get them out, rather than seeing the goal of democracy come to fruition in a place where it would do such good, not only for the people who live there, but for the region, and in fact the world. The sacrifices our troops have made, and continue to make, should not be made in vain for purposes of expediency. The President understands that. In my opinion, John Kerry does not.
And neither, in my opinion, does Barack Obama.
| Email This Post | Print This |
Given the chance, both Hillary AND Obama would implement the “slow bleed” in Iraq. Just like their forerunners did in ‘Nam.
Nothing new under the sun….
Comment by Tango @ 4/4/2008 - 8:05 pm
I really don’t see why this is such a big deal. The end game is the same; get the troops out of Iraq. Now, whether the conditions in Iraq mean that it’s more likely to be 24 months or even 32 months, the overriding idea is that they leave. I’ve never considered the exact timetable posted on Obama’s website to be carved in stone anyway. Heck, there’s a lot that can happen in Iraq before the man would even potentially take office, so the debate on exactly how many months or troop levels by 2010 should be viewed more as educated guesswork. But make no mistake, this is in stark contrast to McCain’s position to stay indefinitely. If there is a takeaway from the “100 years” thing, it is that, and it’s not supported by popular opinion.
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/4/2008 - 8:08 pm
Keep spinning Chen, you’re about to reach escape velocity…
Comment by Severian @ 4/4/2008 - 9:46 pm
“…it’s not supported by popular opinion.”
1. To my knowledge, no pollster has yet posed a question such as, “Shall [Obama/Clinton/McCain] withdraw all American troops from Iraq by ____ even if it means losing the war?” But there is ample evidence that even liberal members of Congress know the answer to that question, because they refuse to cut funding for it.
2. There is also ample evidence that politicians on both sides of the aisle make sacred promises on a stack of Bibles and their grandmother’s grave knowing they can always rationalize multiple ways of not keeping those promises.
3. Obama, Clinton and McCain are first and foremost politicians. Those who believe half what they say are naive at best, especially when all three have extensive records proving point number 2.
Comment by Bachbone @ 4/4/2008 - 10:20 pm
Chen lied saying, “But make no mistake, this is in stark contrast to McCain’s position to stay indefinitely. ”
Whatever…
If the left wins the election by lying you’ll feeeeel good won’t you Chen?
No principles but “the ends justify the means” for you….
Comment by Baklava @ 4/5/2008 - 8:20 pm
Yes, let’s run foreign policy by popular opinion! That’s the ticket!
We all know how wonderfully informed the U.S. public is by our wonderfully unbiased media who have absolutely no agendas of their own.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/5/2008 - 11:10 pm
How is that a lie?
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/6/2008 - 3:41 am
If you weren’t so deliberately disingenuous it would be obvious.
Hillary and Obama and other leftists like yourself) are trying to convey the impression that McCain wants troops fighting and dying there for 100 years. That’s openly dishonest.
McCain was very clear that this was NOT what he wanted. His idea was that we might have a base in Iraq for an indefinite time. We have bases right now in Germany for more than 60 years and in Korea for more than 50 years. The only troops that die there are from traffic accidents. THAT is what McCain was envisioning, and when you try to imply otherwise, you are (let’s be blunt) lying about his plans.
But it doesn’t surprise me. McCain is thinking ahead, about a secure Middle East policy for years into the future. Neither Clinton nor Obama have any policy ideas that extend beyond this November. It’s much easier to lie about McCain’s ideas than it is to develop your own, isn’t it?
Comment by Great White Rat @ 4/6/2008 - 12:17 pm
If I may, Sister, I must say that your blog is a pleasant experience to visit. For the most part, the trolls who visit are quickly dispatched/neutralized (a big problem for both BlogsForVictory and Newsbusters). Keep up the good work.
Comment by Jeff Harvey @ 4/6/2008 - 12:41 pm
GWR-
I know what McCain said. Here it is:
Now, McCain really said a mouthful there. Personally, I would add that perhaps the reason why groups like al Qaeda and the rest of the insurgency has had success “motivating” people is because people like McCain have stated that they have no problem with our presence in the region for 100 years. Is the perception that we are there to set up permanent bases and take over one of the reasons why we’ve encountered so much resistance? Something to think about.
If McCain wants to go on the assumption that Iraq would eventually be like S. Korea or Germany in the sense that we’d have a nice friendly base there indefinitely, perhaps he is the one who is naive with regard to foreign policy. It’s a different part of the world. Sooner rather than later, they’ll want us to leave. In all likelihood, it will continue to be a “war” as long as we’re there. Hence, the grief McCain gets over the 100 years comment.
But as far as me supposedly lying goes, let’s just look at the simple logistics of what he said, OK? If McCain sees us having a base in Iraq long after the shooting stops, that would mean that he envisions us maintaining troops in Iraq till the shooting stops and beyond, right? Seems pretty obvious. But the one thing that Mr. Maverick doesn’t lay out in is 100 year vision is a prediction on how long it will take until we don’t see troops “not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”. On the surface, it doesn’t matter, since he’s committed to have the troops there for however long that takes, and (again), beyond. If it takes 100 years so be it. See the problem here? (of course, nevermind the cost, as it’s becoming more and more likely by the day that we’ll bankrupt ourselves before that glorious milestone of no troops dying ever comes).
Any way you cut it, it still means staying indefinitely, and that I didn’t lie, and that it’s in stark contrast to the positions held by Obama and Clinton. I’ll concede that they’ve misprepresented what McCain had said to score political points on the campaign trail (unfortunately). They really didn’t have to, IMO. Like I mentioned earlier, staying indefinately doesn’t have a lot of popular support, so they could have made the point without resorting to that. In fact, they could do the right thing, turn it around, and challenge McCain to answer how long he’d be willing to keep troops fighting and dying in Iraq.
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/6/2008 - 1:33 pm
Personally, I think the reason why groups like Al Qaeda and the rest of the insurgency has had success “motivating” people is because people like the democrats are screaming for withdrawal at all costs. They know that the more headlines they make, the more people like Dean, Biden, Pelosi, and the rest of the “against the war now because it’s popular to be” group will scream for surrender. Do you honestly not see how that gives Al Qaeda what they want?
Need proof?:
Study: Antiwar Reporting Helps U.S. Enemies
So it would seem that not only to our enemies appreciate the anti-war candidates, they also increase activity against our troops when they hear it. Brilliant.
Please define “take over”? Does it mean remove a brutal dictator who had attacked no less than 4 sovereign nations while supporting terrorism and butchering hundreds of thousands of his own people? Is that what “taking over” is? Or perhaps it means setting up free elections and giving the people a say in their government, oh the horror. The “perception” is gained from the tremendous amount of anti-war propaganda from our wonderfully left leaning hollywood, media, and politicians. Something to think about.
Yeah, it’s not like the U.S. has bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, and Qatar. That would never work.
Oh, I see. So in every major war this country has fought, the U.S. President has known exactly when hostilities would stop? I had no idea. I could have sworn that they were fought until the enemy was defeated. Every time the enemy changes tactics, so does our U.S. military. You can’t plan it out like a picnic. Turning tail and running back home doesn’t seem to have worked well in the past, ask Bill Clinton.
Yes, I’m sure the U.S. will be filing for chapter 11 soon.
ChenZen your posts seem to reflect not only a complete lack of understanding about the Middle East, but in our history in general.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/6/2008 - 3:45 pm
Chen thinks he knows what is in somebody else’s head. Is Chen God? No.
I’d say 99.999999% of people (yes I’m generalizing) want no war and want an end to all violence. But if Chen grew up he’s know that ‘we’ aren’t part of the .00000001% who want war. ‘We’ and John McCain probably just know that peace through strength is MUCH better than peace (and instability) through submission.
So… next time you think you aren’t lying Chen… remember you aren’t God and ‘we’ don’t want violence and war either. You lied. McCain never stated he ‘wanted’ what you said he wanted. He is a human being and I give him kudos for admitting what most Democrats don’t. We should be there to keep the peace as long as we have in Germany and Japan.
Comment by Baklava @ 4/6/2008 - 5:44 pm
NC-
Yea I saw that report and highlighted it on my blog a few weeks ago. It was incredibly convoluted and inconclusive. It’s not proof of anything beyond perhaps that we shouldn’t start listening to economists’ conclusions on the effect that stories in English-language mass media have on the minds of angry armed foreigners on the other side of the world in a war zone.
Well, I was trying to say that in the context of how the residents of Iraq would view our continued presence there, whether it has to do with the oil or an assault on their religion or the simple belief that we wouldn’t leave if they asked us to (by the way, would we?). There’s obviously a good deal of resentment going on over there, reflected by the high % of Iraqis who feel that attacks on US forces are justified:
Now, I don’t know about you, but that’s telling me that justification for attacks on our troops are rooted in “permanent base” propaganda, and not “anti-war” propaganda. I suppose I could ask how many troops have died because of rhetoric like McCain’s, but I won’t go there.
Wasn’t that one of the stated rationales for 9/11? I’d say that was a bad thing. And didn’t we withdraw from Saudi Arabia? Not exactly a sign that it was working.
Like many of those on the other side of the issue that I encounter in the blogosphere, we’re obviously not on the same page here. You’re viewing this war in that it is a “war” like WWII was a “war”. I view us as having won the “war” already, and what we’re doing now is nation building, putting down an insurgency and mitigating a bitter sectarian conflict in a country that is very skeptical (to say the least) of our presence there. The current situation is a heck of a lot more complicated than charging up some hill and planting a flag. Leaving Iraq would only be considered “surrender” for those who wish to view it through that narrow lens. “Cutting and running” could just as easily be seen as “cutting our losses” especially considering that the whole thing was reckless and foolish from the outset.
Anyway, perhaps I should rephrase. Based on the sentiment in the region, does McCain have any reason to believe that the hostilities will stop anytime soon? I’m not talking exactly when here. I’m talking more broadly about a rational assessment on whether or not we can expect the hostilities to stop at all if our intention really is to establish permanent bases, and if we can, would it come months, years, or even decades from now? That’s not an unfair question to pose to someone who his maintaining that a 100 year presence is possible.
We can have the debate, as others have, on whether the war is having a negative effect on the economy, or if we can afford (literally) to keep it going indefinately. Just remember that, with each war funding supplement that borrows hundreds of billions from our children, bin Laden smiles.
whatevs
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/6/2008 - 5:50 pm
Baklava-
You just followed up a snarky claim that I’m not God and that I couldn’t possibly know what is in someone else’s head…with an assumption that you know what’s in 99.999999% of people’s heads (including McCain’s). Absolutely priceless.
Well, that, and you appear to be putting words into my mouth.
And I didn’t lie for crying out loud, as much as you want it to be so.
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/6/2008 - 6:03 pm
And Korea, and Bosnia, and Kuwait…….
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/6/2008 - 6:04 pm
Of course you did! It didn’t support YOUR view, therefore it’s convoluted and inconclusive, I’m shocked……..really.
I didn’t realize you had such an intimate knowledge of how the Iraqi people felt, ChenZen! Was it from your many interactions with them? Perhaps it was from one of your many visits to Iraq? Oh, that’s right, your opinions are based on what most of the peoples opinions in this country are based on. A flawed, biased media that everyone knows is slanting the news coming out of Iraq.
Truly inspiring.
As for your opinion poll, I believe we have had this conversation before. There are insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq who are more than willing to cut not only your head, but the head of your family and anyone you may know. When someone you don’t know comes to your door, or even calls you on the phone, and asks you about your opinion on the American forces, what are you going to say? Polls like these are absolutely useless in the current conditions. Nice try.
Please refer to my last paragraph.
Thanks Chen, that’s the best laugh I’ve had for a while! Pulling out of Iraq before the country can stand on it’s own isn’t surrendering? Leaving Iraq to the insurgents as well as Al Qaeda isn’t “surrendering”? Only in your narrow view is leaving under these circumstances not surrendering.
Again, that is your opinion, not a fact. I realize that may come as a shock. Cutting our losses would be seen as cutting and running to our enemies. It certainly did after we fled Somalia. It was in fact used as propaganda by Osama bin Laden to help “motivate” and “recruit”, wasn’t it? So much for “cutting our losses”.
I have no doubt that this war is putting a strain on our economy. I just don’t happen to believe that we’re going to go bankrupt over it.
Yet I’m sure his smile is much broader when he hears of retreat from Iraq. When he watches his handiwork produce the exact results it wanted, namely a U.S. retreat, I’m sure he smiles from ear to ear. Of course, he’s been smiling since 2006 since the dems won control of the house and senate:
Al Qaeda, Iran, Hugo Chavez, N.Y. Times Celebrate Democrat Victory
Sure sounds like Bin Laden was smiling about the democrats winning in 2006.
Why do you suppose that is, Chen?
That’s more what I expect from the left, thanks.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/6/2008 - 7:32 pm
If obtuse and dull was something of value, all carved statues would resemble river rocks and chisels built for constructive actions would be peened into spoons!
Comment by forest hunter @ 4/6/2008 - 9:37 pm
NC-
Actually, if you read the whole US News article, I think it’s pretty clear to anyone that it was inconclusive.
Ah, I see. Just a worthless poll. Of course, it would make no sense whatsoever that the Iraqis wouldn’t want US bases there. It’s totally counter-intuitive, after all, so these polls MUST have been responded to under duress. And I suppose you know this because of your many interactions with them? Good grief. And coming from someone who just wagged a finger at dismissing a report that didn’t support one’s view.
I don’t see it as that narrow, I mean it the Iraqi parliament asks us to leave, it’s not like they’re telling us to surrender. It’s their country, and I’m sure everyone was expecting us to leave at some point, right? Declare victory and go home if we want to think of it in those terms.
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/6/2008 - 11:03 pm
Chen, Foreign policy should be based on polls or even votes of the Iraqi parliament?
It is my opinion that we should ask greenpeace to leave the U.S. Who is with me?!?!?! Let’s get the Congress to vote for that!
Chen hit the nail on the head when he/she wrote:
If you Chen are smarter as a liar than the military commanders on the ground who do not think we can declare victory and go home yet then… I don’t know what to say to you….
You perpetuate mistruths and arguments that aren’t based in facts. They are utopian wishes. Accept reality is what we are asking here.
BTW, I vote for Hollywood to leave the U.S. Who is with me???? Arghhh !
Comment by Baklava @ 4/7/2008 - 1:55 pm
Spoken out of pure ignorance, I’m sure. If you’d visited here more often, you’d know that NC Cop has more direct interaction and experience with the Iraqi people than you, Hillary, and your hero Obama combined.
Given the choice between accepting his assessment based on what he’s seen, or an assessment based purely on politics such as we get from you or the rest of the left, I’ll take NC Cop’s any day.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 4/7/2008 - 2:54 pm
ChenZen, NC Cop has been to Iraq - you can read a little about it here. He worked directly training the Iraqi police force.
Not sure what the purpose of your remark was - do you believe you have some special insight that he doesn’t?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 4/7/2008 - 3:13 pm
Pretty much and for the same reasons I already stated. It has nothing to do with who conducted it or why, it has to do with the reality of the situation on the ground. You know, reality, something the anti-war crowd deal with very rarely.
By all means, please tell me how I was wrong, I’d love to hear it. If you were living in the same circumstances how would you respond to a poll. I recently spoke to a lady whose nephew was in the military in Iraq. He told her that the Iraqis have a special signal that they have been giving to the troops letting them know that they are glad they are there. They can’t openly interact or thank the soldiers and Marines so they give a signal, sounds like they might be afraid, doesn’t it? However, I’m sure polls conducted under such circumstances are highly accurate.
Yeah, only 14 months worth, but I’m sure you and the rest of the left blogosphere know tons more about them than I do.
If the legally elected government of that nation asks us to, of course we will. You see, running a nation by polls, like most of the left want to do, can be very dangerous. Especially when you have a media like ours, much less like Iraqs.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/7/2008 - 5:21 pm
My last word…
NC-
Is it safe for me to assume that those you interacted with on a personal level weren’t among those who approve of attacks on US forces? I have no doubt that what you say is true, and that there are plenty of Iraqis who are glad we’re there and everything, but it’s less likely that you spoke to those who would have have preferred to kill you (or would have told you if they felt that way). Yet those people are obviously there, as you found out the hard way. The point is, as skewed as the perceptions gleaned from a opinion poll may or may not be, it is just as easy to argue that opinions gleaned from someone wearing the US uniform would be just as skewed (or more so). I mean, you didn’t think that someone is going to tell you that they felt that attacks on you and your brethren were justified, did you?
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/7/2008 - 10:05 pm
No, actually at one of the police stations that I was assigned to, Tarmiya, several police officers were arrested for being a part of the insurgency. It’s a strong Sunni region and anti-U.S. and we got hit there on a constant basis. A friend of mine got hit so many times that he developed brain shear just from the amount of concussions from the IED’s.
Yet many times as we would walk patrols with U.S. soldiers and Iraqi soldiers the people would tell us that they were glad we were there, however, they were afraid to be seen talking to us in public for fear of retaliation. So, I just don’t think that you can take an accurate poll of what people feel about the U.S. in those conditions.
Have things gone perfectly according to plan? Of course not, I can’t think of a single war we’ve fought where everything did. I just don’t feel that abandoning Iraq is the answer. I believe it would cause problems down the line far worse than anything we are seeing right now.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/7/2008 - 10:20 pm
Or, to use an analogy, maybe once the realization that the allowance is about to be cut off sinks in, the kids will be forced to grow up and take some responsibility for themselves. I think that’s the basis for the rationale behind the phased, gradual withdrawal that Obama is advocating.
This, by the way, is another reason why I wouldn’t view it as a “surrender”. It’s not like we’d be literally dropping our guns and running all at once.
/Oops, I know I said the previous comment was my last word. Baklava can now rightfully all me a liar, I guess.
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/7/2008 - 11:17 pm
Invalid conclusion. Again, McCain has been clear about the 100 year commitment applying only if the violence stops. But that doesn’t prevent you from twisting his meaning.
At the service academies, they define lying as saying anything that deliberately attempts to give the wrong impression. It’s a strict definition, and not for those with flexible moral standards. And by that definition, you are definitely lying. Case closed.
As for your typical leftist tendency to base policy on poll numbers, that was debunked a long time ago. Consider this wisdom:
Comment by Great White Rat @ 4/8/2008 - 1:08 pm
And if that course of action turns out to lead to genocide and complete chaos like many experts believe it will, then what? Will Obama send troops to go back in? Will he send more troops to fight and die to retake the same property that they previously had?
That sounds a bit naive.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/8/2008 - 7:19 pm
GWR-
Holy crap, we are going around circles here. I’m going to try to put this in real simple language.
OK…And if the violence doesn’t stop? How long is McCain willing to give it?
If a 100 year presence in Iraq is fine by him, on the condition that the shooting had stopped, how much of America’s time, money and bloodshed would be acceptable to achieve that condition, assuming it’s possible?
That’s the point. He hasn’t said, so we’re left to assume that it’s the full 100 unless he clues us in.
Actually, I don’t think it has. The good portion of our economy is run on policy based on various forms of poll data. It’s called market research. Ex. It would be pretty counter productive to build purple cars if survey and analysis told you that no one wants purple cars.
Anyway, there’s also a distinct difference between basing foreign policy on domestic polls, and basing it on foreign polls.
If there are polls that leave the impression that we may never achieve peace if we build permanent bases in Iraq, I think it would be pretty irresponsible to just ignore them and declare “we don’t base policy on polls”. Not to mention the hypocrisy and arrogance of acting in defiance of the will of the very people that we are supposedly trying to grant freedom. (on a related note, I’ve long argued that best way out of Iraq is for the Iraqis to vote us out)
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/10/2008 - 1:49 am
Chen wrote, “My last word…”
I will point out that if you and others like you spent as much time investing in success rather than defeat - we’d be in a much different situation.
The enemy at times feel like they are this close “” to getting us to pull out based on opinion polls here. If only they can inflict more damage and kill a few more people….
There were 3 weeks in Iwo Jima that is extremely hard to stomach because of our losses which almost equal the 5 years spent in Iraq. The tears that have been shed because of those losses could fill Lake Tahoe. But what we have gained in the long run is no doubt many more saved lives and much more prosperity (better lives) because of the sacrifices. If you chen continue to focus on defeat like you do your lack of focus on what the future may hold with success is what gives you such LACK of perspective.
None of us ‘want’ to see death. All of us ‘care’. For you to think otherwise about us shows more about your lack of perspective about us than it reveals anything about us. Your rantings are lost on us BECAUSE you don’t relate to what we feel or know or believe.
Comment by Baklava @ 4/10/2008 - 12:54 pm
So now you’re making assumptions based on what he has not said?? Hmm..OK. Since Obama hasn’t said much of substance about anything, I suppose I can ascribe any sort of malevolent intent I want to him, and you’ll agree, right? After all, that’s your standard.
Or, I can simply conclude you’re more not the least bit interested in an honest discussion, only spewing whatever untruths you think will help your candidate. Yeah, I think I’ll go with option B.
So you think the nation’s public policy should be based on the same thought processes used by…an ad man??? Abso-freaking-lutely unbelievable. Here America is locked in a death struggle with islamofascists, and you want our course in the central front of that war to be decided with the same seriousness you’d put into choosing the color of your car. Here’s a hint: how we conduct the war on terror shouldn’t be decided based on who hired the best ad agency.
One thing I’ll say for you: your affinity for judging critical matters with no more deep thought than what paint job looks best does explain why you’re in the Obama camp. But I digress….
So all we need is a good push-poll and your ideal president would change his mind, eh? Yeah, that’s certainly a definition of leadership. You also overlook the fact that polls can be influenced by slanted news coverage, and we’ve no shortage of MSM types who’ve been rooting for the US to lose the WOT since day 1.
As for the Iraqis wanting us to leave, I think NC Cop’s got your number there. I wonder how you’d vote in a poll or election if you knew the wrong response would get you beheaded.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 4/10/2008 - 10:43 pm
GWR-
Why do you guys keep putting words in my mouth? I haven’t ascribed any “malevolent intent” to McCain. I’m just saying he’s wrong. Or confused. I’m not arguing that he wants 100 years of death and destruction in Iraq. I’m arguing that a stated policy of indefinite presence and/or permanent bases might just lead to it. Big difference.
I would have thought it obvious that I was making an analogy, but I digress. The point being that when the success of a policy affects and is affected by the opinion of the people that the policy is directed at, you might want to gauge that opinion somehow and alter the policy accordingly (especially when that opinion is literally a matter of life and death i.e. support for attacks on our troops).
Now, you can certainly argue that polls conducted in a war zone may be tainted or unreliable. I’ll concede that point, and we can debate to what extent that may be true. Perhaps that extent would be taken into consideration. But the belief that we’re going to put down an insurgency without paying attention to what the heck is pissing the Iraqis off just doesn’t seem based in logic IMO, and if the aforementioned poll has even half validity, one has to think that just talking about permanent bases at this point is a bad idea and counter-productive to what we’re trying to accomplish over there. This isn’t a “left wing” or “right wing” idea either:
It’s a tactically sound idea.
McCain is wrong. That’s it.
Comment by ChenZhen @ 4/11/2008 - 2:27 am
What would you like ChenZen a casualty number at which time we will pull our troops out? Perhaps McCain should say “If we lose 5,000 soldiers we will pull out of Iraq.” That certainly wouldn’t cause any problems would it?
Perhaps a date: “We will leave by June of 2009.” Then Al Qaeda and the rest of the insurgents will sit around amassing weapons and making plans just waiting for the withdrawal, instead of getting killed by the thousands like they are now. Great idea.
How about a price tag? “We will leave if we have to spend another $100 billion.” I guess the bad guys wouldn’t use that against us either.
So the purple car thing was one of them thar analogies, you say? Thanks for dumbing it down for us, I appreciate it.
I think the analogy of comparing building purple cars to a subject as complex as foreign policy, international terrorism, and rebuilding a nation is a bit childish.
Not to mention the fact that Bush’s predecessor, Slick Willie, pretty much governed by public opinion. He did whatever he thought would make him more popular, not what was the right thing to do. He had several chances to kill Bin Laden before 9/11 ever happened, but he was afraid it would cause “problems” so he ignored the problem. Thanks, Bill!!
Governing by opinion polls is dangerous. Clinton was wrong. That’s it.
So in any nation that we have troops, if people start suddenly blowing up things demanding that we leave, we should turn tail? If groups in Poland, Japan, Germany, Korea, Kuwait, etc start demanding we leave, even if their government isn’t, we should retreat?
So your proposal is to give every two bit dictator and terrorist a perfect blueprint on how to defeat the U.S.? Brilliant again!! I certainly don’t see any problems arising out of that.
After reading many of the articles against permanent bases, I’m not completely convinced that it’s the best idea, I will admit. I believe McCain was trying to say that we will support the Iraqis and not abandon them, rather than trying to put a dangerous timetable on our withdrawal.
I know from personal experience, not a poll, that the Iraqis have been afraid of our withdrawal since 2004. I can’t blame them since all the dems have been screaming since 2004 is “WITHDRAWAL!! WITHDRAWAL!!”.
They’re afraid that we are going to leave and the bad guys are going to start filling mass graves with those that befriended or worked with the Americans. And then you wonder why the Iraqis haven’t stepped up more? Priceless.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/11/2008 - 3:00 pm
I really have been loath to enter this discussion, but sadly I must. ChenZen, I am sorry but we have permanent bases in the Middle East, and the countries that host those bases don’t feel like we are occuping them. It is idiotic to believe that once Iraq has a stable Government, and Military, that we will need to keep a very large force there. But to assume, as you do, that this is going to last 100 years is blantantly foolish. 1 John McCain won’t be alive in 100 years, and the next President will most likely not have the same feelings as John. So your point is moot at best. 2 I don’t think the Iraqis are going to allow that to happen, before they break up into 3 seperate countries. 3 If that happens, we are going to be spending way to much time in Kurdistan as a peace keeping force between the Turks and Kurds to care what happens in the rest of Iraq, which means we will be there 100 years later. 4 Reason #3 gives us a good reason to see our present course thru to completion. So McCain’s comment is correct, and to add/assume anything else than what he said is just vapid leftie rhetoric.
Thinking this thru clearly shows that no matter what, our futures are tied to the Middle East. Let’s add that there is a good chance once bin Laden dies, that AQ will break up and become a footnote in history. Most of his senior leadership is dead or captured, there is just going to be no one who cares enough to continue carrying the torch for this movement. Especially once Iraq becomes more prosperous, which, with it’s natural resources, it will be soon enough.
No matter how you slice this tho, the very fact that so much time has been spent trying to stick words in McCain’s mouth, that he clearly didn’t intend, is pure foolishness. You would be better served to just agree to disagree than carry on your point. But whatever. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 4/11/2008 - 4:40 pm
And that’s where you’re putting words in McCain’s mouth. I didn’t see him say anything about remaining indefinitely, or remaining if the Iraqis (once they’ve had the time to establish a stable government and be reasonably free from terrorist interference) ask us to leave. You know you’re misrepresenting his stance, and you persist in it. That’s dishonest no matter how you try to spin it. And it’s really rich to hear a supporter of Obama, who has no substance at all, argue that McCain hasn’t been specific enough.
What was pissing the Iraqis off was AQ’s brutality when it moved into some of the provinces. The surge worked in large part because of willing cooperation from the local sheikhs and population. The belief that everything will be serene if we pack up tomorrow and leave those brave people to the tender mercies of the islamofascists and Iran isn’t based in logic at all. Fact is, people like you are AQ’s last best hope.
As for your absurd idea of governing by poll numbers, NC Cop’s pointed out where that can lead you. Not much to add to that. He’s right. You’re wrong. That’s it.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 4/12/2008 - 1:48 am
Which is one of the reasons I’ve wondered if the Surge would have worked if we tried it earlier. Sometimes things have specific times when they will work, and in this case I’m not sure it would have until the local population got a full and good taste of AQ’s tender mercies. Nothing will make you look less like an evil occupier than the occupation by other, far worse actors, which apparently has woken up the people to reality.
That’s the beauty of fighting Islamofascism over in Islamic countries. As long as it’s just Israel and “The Great Satan” getting their noses bloodied, you won’t get squat out of the rest of the Islamic countries for help, mainly lip service. Once their noses get rubbed in it and their societies see just how loving and tolerant these people are, we are finding a lot more allies. This is going to be a multi-generational war, and the more up close and personal it is for them, the harder it will be to sit on the sidelines and stay uninvolved or remain unhelpful. Misery not only loves company, it demands it.
Comment by Severian @ 4/12/2008 - 8:46 am
As SEV has written, sadly the logic and understanding mode that holds true for the Iraqi people is the same as in America and blood will have to run in the streets again for them to rejoin the reality aspect of fighting the AQ’s and other allied efforts that also seek for American destruction.
Willful ignorance is the worst kind and as we are being sabotaged from within our own political and judicial structures, there is much more to follow before true Americans get the upper hand.
Comment by forest hunter @ 4/12/2008 - 7:49 pm