drychnath

I watched an Obama speech yesterday where he said "Yes, the surge did help, but maybe my plan would have worked instead, we'll never know."

Or maybe it wouldn't have worked, and thank God we'll never know that either. The iraqi PM is asking for a troop drawdown plan now, he was asking for more troops before the surge. SOME withdrawl is possible now, but that doesn't mean that withdrawl was ALWAYS a great idea, or that the surge was a bad idea.

__________________
EQ2: Avenger Drychnath Malcherion -AB

Everything is on a great scale upon this continent, the rivers are immense, the climate violent in heat and cold, the prospects magnificent, the thunder and lightning tremendous, the disorders incident to the country make every constitution tremble. Our own blunders here, our misconduct, our losses, our disgraces, our ruin Are On a Great Scale.
-Lord Carlisle

Widem

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2007/07frusg.pdf

This is for all the retards who quote magic beans.

Anyways, declaring the war in Iraq as the source of the reason "America is going broke" will make you feel absolutely foolish after actually educating yourself on what we really spend money on.


On a different note, I don't even understand what the big argument over Iraq is anymore. McCain and Obama have almost the exact same plan. The only difference is Obama says I will pull troop out in 18 months, whereas McCain says that he thinks its foolish to set an exact timetable because that sort of thing has proved problematic in the past. They are already pulling some troops out of Iraq so first off I don't get why McCain just doesn't say "with the way things are going I feel we will be able to start serious withdrawls very early in my presidency" and why Obama doesn't say "i'm going to continue withdrawing troops as is being done now"

Pretty stupid when you see reality, but most people only see politics, which is what they are politicians.

Look further into the future. In 2 years and assume one or the other has won the presidency. Under Obama's plan all of our troops except for around 2000 (permanent? he hasnt elaborated just said he's leaving troops there for awhile.) will be out of Iraq. Unfortunately they won't be at home, they will be in Afghanistan. So essentially, same amount of troops fighting and same cost. As far as McCain, I have no doubt in my mind that troop drawdown is at hand, the Iraqis want it, the US wants it, and even more important the security there is getting better mostly b/c the security forces have no gotten a good foothold and very well trained as well as improved economic conditions. All the drawdown troops then go to Afghanistan and is wow, the same thing.

As far as this war goes, its going to play out the exact same way either way you throw it.

In addition, the whole war mongering McCain thing is such a laughable joke b/c its not like your candidate is against war, he's pretty much been advocating war his entire run so don't be stupid.

Otis

First of all, he's already hinting at it through surrogates.

But the bottom line is, politically speaking, McCain's pretty much backed himself into a "Victory = staying in Iraq" corner. He's snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory on this issue, and really it's inexplicable. Not too long ago, the GOP had the Dems backed into the "Win the war = we lose" corner. Now, they're off the hook politically.

And one of the sources of the Dems good fortune is an unlikely one indeed. George "Time Horizon" Bush (lol at that gross twisting of language). I wonder why Ol' Dubya didn't give McSame a heads up on the policy shift. It couldn't be because of all this "distancing himeself" he's done, could it?

__________________


John McMaverick

Widem

Thats where we will disagree. I don't think he backed himself into a "Victory = staying in Iraq." He has always been very clear that "Victory = staying in Iraq as long as necessary, with the amount of troops necessary, witht the strategy necessary" Which completely goes in line with his logic of why he refuses to give a timetable. I also think people don't change with the times. There have been some dramatic changes over the past 9 months in this war. As we agreed i think the surge in conjuction with everything else going on worked better than anyone had imagined.

Anyways, I find it funny that all this fighting back and forth still gets us to the same place in 2 years.

Otis

Widem, I have absolutely no doubts that you and I can understand a nuanced discussion of the situation. However the American public historically cannot. And it appears the same holds true for McSame.

Bottom line, in most people's (including McSame) thinking, the more he says he's for bringing the troops home, the more he agrees with Obama. It's unfortunately that simple.

It's certainly interesting to see how this has played out.

__________________


John McMaverick

Deson

First of, glad to see the real Otis return and I hope to see more of him even if the competition devolves to name calling and ideological bs.

Ok, your point to Widem about the public not grasping nuance, isn't one of the goals of the NObama( I can do it too!) campaign to try and elevate the discourse above the petty soundbites and actually engage the voters in meaningful discussion? Doesn't Obamessiah's oversimplification of McCain's policies and refusal to engage in substantive debate undermine that very goal? Do you think the American public is so far gone that even as impressive a person as Oblahblah won't be able to really connect beyond a superficial level?

__________________

Otis

I didn't say Obama oversimplifies anything, nor did I say he doesn't engage in substantive debate. I happen to think the opposite is true.

I think his press conferences, such as the one in Amman yesterday illustrate this. The assertion that he never says anything is a myth promulgated by those who prefer to not listen.

__________________


John McMaverick

Deson

I never said you said those things. I was making the point that the soundbites and divisiveness he once eschewed have become a central part of the campaign. Frankly I care little for what he says overseas if he won't engage in substantive debate at home. He could utterly kill McCain in a real debate on domestic issues yet doesn't engage much beyond the McBush rhetoric. By coloring McCain as Bush's third term instead of attacking the weaknesses in the McCain platform entirely on his own, he's engaging in precisely the kind of politics he decried not a year ago.

Obama is substantive, no question and I've defended him on that point on these very forums. However, he doesn't do as much as he could to dispel the myth because more oft than not his speeches are in fact, empty soaring oratory. I'm not saying he should be Hillary spouting of nothing but policy but he can certainly do more.

__________________

Panthera

He doesn't really have to when reporters shout out "Mr. President."

__________________

Deson

He doesn't have to but that's the main premise of his campaign, to reform our politics. Between that and Iraq, he promised us a new path, a new way. By making such promises he forever divorced himself from the mere politics of necessity and winning and elevated himself to the point of transforming the very way we think about politics. If that's not what he really wants or will really do, why is Michelle so proud? Who all is being deceived if he continues to eschew his own presentation?

__________________