Obama, the Democrats, and the Surge

[nonniey]

Another article to chew on.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/329myyan.asp?pg=2

[DjTj]

Rarely has a political party been so uniformly wrong, in such an obvious way, on such an important matter.

Unfortunately, the important matter the American people will remember in November is not the Surge. They will remember the decision to go to Iraq, the mismanagement in Iraq for the past five years, the struggling economy, and the simple fact that they are much worse off now than they were four or eight years ago. Voters tried to fire the Republicans two years ago, and they will finish the job this fall.

Republicans may try to cite the Surge as a great insight, but it is just one success in a sea of failures that will sink them this November.

[Destino]

I do enjoy how lost in all this is the fact that democrats were insisting on higher troop levels long before republicans did.

Here is BIDEN on Fox News June 13, 2004

WALLACE: So you would send in more U.S. troops to try to protect the new Iraqi government?

BIDEN: Well, let me put it this way: You've got to get troops somewhere, Chris. We have 138,000 people there, our forces there. Everyone I've spoken to has indicated that you need more forces there.

Hopefully, what will happen is, with the — seeing an Iraqi face now, in terms of running the country — and I agree with you about moving up, quite frankly, the turnover. And I'd even move up the electoral process from January into late October, November for the very purpose of getting Iraqis to invest in the political side of the equation rather than essentially be agnostic and standing back when you see this carnage going on.

So it's possible, it's possible there can be such a transformation in the attitude of the Iraqi people. I doubt it. But it's possible that more troops will not be needed because you'll have the Iraqis investing more, I said, in the politics.

But I think you need more troops. We have one last chance at Istanbul.

And by the way, the secretary said we never expected to get massive NATO involvement. No one ever suggested massive NATO involvement. I've been talking about no more than 3,000 to a maximum of 7,000 troops, NATO troops.

But bottom line is security. We've got to deal with the training of the Iraqis, which has been woefully inadequate so far — Iraqi forces, as well as disbanding the militias. So it's a tall order. I'm still optimistic it can be done. But we need more buy-in.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122540,00.html

Don't you just love how the media forgets to point this out. Damn liberal media.

What the SURGE is, is common sense kicking in AFTER RUMSFELD left. He was the guy pushing low troop counts. General's retired over this crap. The media should be pointing out the damn obvious. As soon as the idiot left the Generals got what they have been asking for form the start.

Let's look at a small bit of timeline:

Rumsfeld resigned: December 18, 2006

Bush announced the surge: January 10, 2007

[SUSkinsFan]

The link says the article is restricted from public viewing until 12:02am but I can guess the gist of it.

And let me say that this is a case where I would be more than happy for myself and my party to have been wrong.

[herrmag]

Unfortunately, the important matter the American people will remember in November is not the Surge. They will remember the decision to go to Iraq, the mismanagement in Iraq for the past five years, the struggling economy, and the simple fact that they are much worse off now than they were four or eight years ago. Voters tried to fire the Republicans two years ago, and they will finish the job this fall.

Republicans may try to cite the Surge as a great insight, but it is just one success in a sea of failures that will sink them this November.

You sir, are a beacon of hope. :laugh: Honestly, who gives a **** at this point. I'm throwing my vote away on a 3rd candidate, and will continue to do so until either the Dem's or the Repub's return back to respectability. I don't matter in this election, and I know it. We are so out of touch with our politicians, it's amazing we even bother voting. If we did actually care about the candidate more than the party, we'd have already seen a 3rd party (or 4th, or 5th) take control.

[herrmag]

The link says the article is restricted from public viewing until 12:02am but I can guess the gist of it.

And let me say that this is a case where I would be more than happy for myself and my party to have been wrong.

Just a question about your sig, of which I have no frame of reference. What is going on there?

[twa]

I do enjoy how lost in all this is the fact that democrats were insisting on higher troop levels long before republicans did.

One of them obviously wasn't,strange that he is their choice to lead instead of Biden.

The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now....Obama 07

but perhaps now they will listen to Gen. Betrayus ...IF they find time.

[Zen-like Todd]

I do enjoy how lost in all this is the fact that democrats were insisting on higher troop levels long before republicans did.

Here is BIDEN on Fox News June 13, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122540,00.html

Really?

Let's ignore the fact that you are using extremely general terms relative to a single individual's reference in 2004. It took me all of 10 seconds to beat that timeframe. I picked one person. Mccain. I typed "mccain 2003 troop levels" in Google.

The first result? An article from November 5th, 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-05-mccain-usat_x.htm

McCain: Force levels in Iraq inadequate

By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain sharply criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war Wednesday, saying the United States should send at least 15,000 more troops or risk "the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam."

Sen. John McCain criticized the Bush administration on Wednesday.

"Victory can be our only exit strategy," said McCain, one of the strongest supporters of the war.

McCain also challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumfeld's assertion that the 132,000 American troops in Iraq can defeat the insurgency in the country. "The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives."

I mean, so are you just lazy, or what?

[War Paint]

Really?

Let's ignore the fact that you are using extremely general terms relative to a single individual's reference in 2004. It took me all of 10 seconds to beat that timeframe. I picked one person. Mccain. I typed "mccain 2003 troop levels" in Google.

The first result? An article from November 5th, 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-05-mccain-usat_x.htm

I mean, so are you just lazy, or what?

Good find.

[TrumanB]

I do enjoy how lost in all this is the fact that democrats were insisting on higher troop levels long before republicans did.

Joe Biden does not equal democratS. Let's face it - there were only a few national leaders, Democrat or Republican, willing to stick their neck out EARLY on and preach for more troops.

[Thiebear]

Rumsfeld was the worst thing to happen for 60 years.

You know its bad when both sides can claim victory due to one man.

[PeterMP]

I do enjoy how lost in all this is the fact that democrats were insisting on higher troop levels long before republicans did.

Here is BIDEN on Fox News June 13, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122540,00.html

Don't you just love how the media forgets to point this out. Damn liberal media.

What the SURGE is, is common sense kicking in AFTER RUMSFELD left. He was the guy pushing low troop counts. General's retired over this crap. The media should be pointing out the damn obvious. As soon as the idiot left the Generals got what they have been asking for form the start.

Let's look at a small bit of timeline:

Rumsfeld resigned: December 18, 2006

Bush announced the surge: January 10, 2007

Just to echo, using Biden as representative of the Democrats is seriously flawed. Biden has been touting a "third" option there for an extended period of time that was not endorsed or supported by any of the other major Democratic candidates and still isn't talked about by anybody else.

[Zen-like Todd]

And of course...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/12/17/biden_opposes_iraq_troop_surge/

Biden opposes Iraq troop surge

December 17, 2006

MANCHESTER, N.H. --Likely presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden said Sunday that he opposes sending additional troops to Iraq, even as the idea seemed to gain support from the Senate's leading Democrat, incoming majority leader Harry Reid.

"I will not to support a surge of troops unless it's tied to some reason for me to believe that they have a political solution," said Biden, incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Biden, D-Del., said any proposal to send about 30,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq should only follow a political solution that will end sectarian violence and civil unrest.

Earlier, Reid said he would be open only to a short-term increase.

"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said Reid, citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period of 18 months to 24 months would be too long, he said.

"The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically," Reid said.

Biden spoke at Southern New Hampshire University to about 100 people Sunday afternoon, in an appearance sponsored by the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire.

His speech was part a weekend swing through New Hampshire, aimed at boosting his chances in the state's first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

"The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards," Biden said.

He added that Iraqis should construct and hold to a political settlement for peace before the United States sends additional support.

Biden, however, held out little hope that a Democrat-controlled Congress would be able to force President Bush's hand on Iraq. Although Congress could withhold spending for military efforts in Iraq, Biden said such a move would only deny needed supplies to troops and would not speed a pullout.

Instead, Biden said it will be up to Republicans to join Democrats in convincing Bush to change course on Iraq.

Biden said the main challenge in Iraq is a cycle of sectarian violence and revenge killings. He said any peace initiatives must give each ethnic group an incentive to support a united Iraq, including a share of oil revenues.

Biden proposes that the Iraqis set up three semi-autonomous regions, one each to be overseen by the Suunis, Shiites and Kurds, with a central government having limited federal powers.

He would also include countries neighboring Iraq in peace talks, including Syria, Iran and Turkey.

[Destino]

Really?

I mean, so are you just lazy, or what?

Yes really and the only one being lazy here, though I'd call it dishonest, is you. You've found a quote... that isn't in line with what the republican leadership actually DID and ignored the rumsfeld time line. Even if you disagree with me the context I've added completely changes the light of the famous "surge".

Let's blend both of our positions and see what we get: Many Democats, many Republicans, and generals on the ground in Iraq argued for higher troop counts. It wasn't until Rumsfeld left the current administration that this idea was actually explored.

Any way you slice it the major road blocks between Iraq and the Surge has always been Rumsfeld.

[Zen-like Todd]

Yes really. Mind telling me if the majority of the GOP agreed with McCain or with the Republican administration. Also, include what the administration (republican) did. When did the troop levels increase.

Yes, I do mind. Admit you were lazy, and that the thrust of your argument was wrong. It's your job to prove your point.

[IHOPSkins]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/12/17/biden_opposes_iraq_troop_surge/

Biden opposes Iraq troop surge

December 17, 2006

MANCHESTER, N.H. --Likely presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden said Sunday that he opposes sending additional troops to Iraq,....

Nice Find

Someone was :owned:

Maybe Bidens strategy in IRAQ is like Obama's....it depends on the wind direction :laugh:

[DGreenistheBest]

Unfortunately, the important matter the American people will remember in November is not the Surge. They will remember the decision to go to Iraq, the mismanagement in Iraq for the past five years, the struggling economy, and the simple fact that they are much worse off now than they were four or eight years ago. Voters tried to fire the Republicans two years ago, and they will finish the job this fall.

Republicans may try to cite the Surge as a great insight, but it is just one success in a sea of failures that will sink them this November.

Home run, sir. :applause:

[Destino]

Yes, I do mind. Admit you were lazy, and that the thrust of your argument was wrong. It's your job to prove your point.

I wasn't lazy and my argument wasn't close to wrong. Declaring yourself right after finding McCain verbally disagreeing (which he did often) with his administration (though rarely voting against them) is no great find.

I edited my post to add some substance.

[IHOPSkins]

Unfortunately, the important matter the American people will remember in November is not the Surge. They will remember the decision to go to Iraq, the mismanagement in Iraq for the past five years, the struggling economy, and the simple fact that they are much worse off now than they were four or eight years ago. Voters tried to fire the Republicans two years ago, and they will finish the job this fall.

Republicans may try to cite the Surge as a great insight, but it is just one success in a sea of failures that will sink them this November.

Hmmmmm

"Just one success"

If that success is the last success of the war IT IS WHATS MOST IMPORTANT (VICTORY)

But your are right

The perception of the voting public is whats important.......not reality (sarc)

[Destino]

Nice Find

Someone was :owned:

Maybe Bidens strategy in IRAQ is like Obama's....it depends on the wind direction :laugh:

I never argued that democrats supported the latest "surge". My position is simple, the understanding of the Iraq war and troop levels has been poorly reported. The surge came late because of Rumsfeld, not democrats. Feel free to show how the democrats stopped the surge until Jan 2007.

[Destino]

Hmmmmm

"Just one success"

If that success is the last success of the war IT IS WHATS MOST IMPORTANT (VICTORY)

But your are right

The perception of the voting public is whats important.......not reality (sarc)

Victory? We achieved that we Saddam's government was defeated. What we have been doing since is providing security. The country still isn't anywhere close to anything you are I would consider peaceful. We've been a free of charge rent-a-military for a while.

Are you really trying to argue that the surge won the war? I didn't realize that so much capital had been invested in it remaining successful. This should be interesting.

[Zen-like Todd]

I wasn't lazy and my argument wasn't close to wrong. Declaring yourself right after finding McCain verbally disagreeing (which he did often) with his administration (though rarely voting against them) is no great find.

I edited my post to add some substance.

You attempted to conflate the position of one politician (who it turns out, didn't actually support the surge at the time it was implemented) with that of an entire party, and attempted to suggest that given the timing of those statements, the entire PARTY held a certain view before an entire other PARTY held that view, is totally ridiculous. If it wasn't lazy, it was intentionally misleading, which is a far more grievous lapse in judgment.

[IHOPSkins]

I never argued that democrats supported the latest "surge". My position is simple, the understanding of the Iraq war and troop levels has been poorly reported. The surge came late because of Rumsfeld, not democrats. Feel free to show how the democrats stopped the surge until Jan 2007.

Earlier........

I do enjoy how lost in all this is the fact that democrats were insisting on higher troop levels long before republicans did.

Here is BIDEN on Fox News June 13, 2004.

and later

The first result? An article from November 5th, 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-05-mccain-usat_x.htm

Last time I checked McCain is Republican

Rumsfeld or Republicans are to blame?

:owned:

[IHOPSkins]

.....Are you really trying to argue that the surge won the war? .....

Nope

You miss the point again

The argument was about perception vs reality

If you win the last battle of the war.....you win the war

CURRENTLY the surge is successful.....see above

BUT

Voters are not necessarily in touch with what is real....they might be persuaded to vote against the REALITY OF CURRENT SUCCESS in favor of a perceived better course

Doesn't matter this "BETTER COURSE" continues to change depending on REALITY

McCain supports the SURGE....Obama supports the PURGE :laugh:

(Obama scrub of negative surge propaganda)

[Burgold]

Last time I checked McCain is Republican

Isn't this part often up for debate? I keep hearing that McCain isn't a "real" Republican. Do you guys ever stop flip flopping?