Feel better?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, and after all the accusations by Biden and Obama, during the Bush years that the Iraq invasion, and the surge were wrong, a failure, a mess, that we should have pulled out, that it destabilized the area and made the world a more dangerous place, that the Iraquis could never come together--on Larry King, Biden says "I am very optimistic about--about Iraq. I mean this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. . . .You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. . . .I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

He has the hutzpah to give the Obama administration the credit for something he and Obama railed against.

There certainly was a popular line of thought at one time that reconciliation among Iraqi's was impossible. Even today the Kurds have retained a sense of autonomy from the central Iraqi government...

But to remark that Iraq might not end up a total disaster in the end does in no way contradict the assertion that it was a mistake to begin with. Additionally, the cost to US taxpayers and families to keep if from completely destabilizing the region has been quite severe.

That the sitting VP would put a positive spin on a US interest that hasn't fully played out??? OH THE SHAME...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

There certainly was a popular line of thought at one time that reconciliation among Iraqi's was impossible. Even today the Kurds have retained a sense of autonomy from the central Iraqi government...

But to remark that Iraq might not end up a total disaster in the end does in no way contradict the assertion that it was a mistake to begin with. Additionally, the cost to US taxpayers and families to keep if from completely destabilizing the region has been quite severe.

That the sitting VP would put a positive spin on a US interest that hasn't fully played out??? OH THE SHAME...

-spence

You are the King of spin Spence.
He said" could be one of the great achievements of this administration. . . .You're going to see a stable government in Iraq"

NOT "might not end up a total disaster"

Where was Obamas, Bidens, Yours or any Bush haters positive spin a year ago?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

You are the King of spin Spence.
He said" could be one of the great achievements of this administration. . . .You're going to see a stable government in Iraq"

NOT "might not end up a total disaster"

Where was Obamas, Bidens, Yours or any Bush haters positive spin a year ago?

So the idea that the Obama Administration could cleanly pull 90,000 US troops from Iraq over a year into the term isn't an accomplishment they can take credit for?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So the idea that the Obama Administration could cleanly pull 90,000 US troops from Iraq over a year into the term isn't an accomplishment they can take credit for?

-spence

The eventual draw down of troops from Iraq was ALWAYS part of the BUSH policy. What is it about success in Iraq that the Obama administration can take credit for, other than continuing the previous administration's policies?

The chutzpah is in continuing to trash the invasion, long after it was relevant to do so, in order to win back the congress and presidency, then turning around and claiming the previous "debacle" a success of the current administration.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The eventual draw down of troops from Iraq was ALWAYS part of the BUSH policy.

Yet for years they refused to state our intentions were short-term or even recognize the idea of a time line for withdrawal. We're not talking about a "date" mind you but even the idea.

I'd also note that the SOFA mentioned above was largely a product of the Iraqi government trying to get us to leave, not Bush itching to get the troops home.

What is it about success in Iraq that the Obama administration can take credit for, other than continuing the previous administration's policies?

Obama has been in charge for a year and has been negotiating Middle Eastern politics along the way. Though the security situation in Iraq had certainly improved by the time Bush left office, that's no guarantee that it would remain better, continue to get better or that the political situation, which is still quite fragile, could not fall apart.

The chutzpah is in continuing to trash the invasion, long after it was relevant to do so, in order to win back the congress and presidency, then turning around and claiming the previous "debacle" a success of the current administration.

So the voters think the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's off the table to challenge your opponents for supporting a failed foreign policy?

Just because it happened in the past?

This is a new concept, the idea that an elected official shouldn't be held accountable for their record in future elections. It certainly would make elections more exciting!

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Lets not give credit to a President and Vice President that vehemently opposed the troop surge and remember that in his presidential campaign this had become part of his platform to be elected.

It is the fault of those that have voted for him under false pretenses.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Lets not give credit to a President and Vice President that vehemently opposed the troop surge and remember that in his presidential campaign this had become part of his platform to be elected.

Obama definitely remarked that he didn't believe the surge was working in mid 2007 after troops had been deployed, but violence had yet to diminish.

As we all know today, it's wasn't really the "Surge" that started the reduction in violence but the fact that Sunni's started taking their future more seriously led by the Anbar Awakening which began the year before. The extra troops certainly helped provide extra security though, and it's a combination of factors that have let to the conditions today.

The assertion that this was a part of his election platform doesn't really hold water. In September 2008, just two months before the election Obama stated that he thought the surge "worked" but also that it was costly.

Why would somebody change their stance just before a vote on such a critical issue? Perhaps Obama is less of an ideologue than some think...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yet for years they refused to state our intentions were short-term or even recognize the idea of a time line for withdrawal. We're not talking about a "date" mind you but even the idea.

The "idea" for withdrawal was when either the Iraqi government demanded it (not pretended for their constituents that they wanted it) or when it was safe to do so. Time lines, as it has been argued, can be a signal to the enemy when they can wait to safely have a massive "resurgence." Stated time lines that have no relation to conditions on the ground are stupid, political poop.

I'd also note that the SOFA mentioned above was largely a product of the Iraqi government trying to get us to leave, not Bush itching to get the troops home.

The Iraq government mouthed political verbiage about wanting our troops to leave in order to molilfy Iraqis who hated "the occupation." But the Iraq government did not demand immediate withdrawal (they knew that could be a disaster), nor even gave a stupid "time line" to do it. Their "dislike" of our "occupation" was a CYA political sham, knowing full well that our troops were the only guarantee of their safety and existence. Even the Iraqi people, when polled, wanted, something like 60% to 40%, our troops to stay till it was safe to leave (no time line).

Obama has been in charge for a year and has been negotiating Middle Eastern politics along the way. Though the security situation in Iraq had certainly improved by the time Bush left office, that's no guarantee that it would remain better, continue to get better or that the political situation, which is still quite fragile, could not fall apart.

This is what the Bush administration planned on--continuing improvement that would allow withdrawal.

So the voters think the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's off the table to challenge your opponents for supporting a failed foreign policy?
-spence

If you'r referring to my chutzpah comment, I didn't say the chutzpah belonged to the voters. It belongs to Biden claiming that Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of" his administration. And "you're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." Which is exactly what the Bush administration was derided for (by Biden, Obama, nearly the whole political left)--nation building--imposing democracy in the Middle-East where it was supposedly impossible. And --"I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences"--when he had wanted to partition Iraq into 3 states.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The "idea" for withdrawal was when either the Iraqi government demanded it (not pretended for their constituents that they wanted it) or when it was safe to do so. Time lines, as it has been argued, can be a signal to the enemy when they can wait to safely have a massive "resurgence." Stated time lines that have no relation to conditions on the ground are stupid, political poop.

I think there are plenty of reasons to not agree with this. First, the writings of Bush's most trusted advisors his first term appeared to strongly believe in a long-term US military presence in the region.

Second, the construction of gigantic military bases and the $770M embassy, the largest in the world.

And third, a SOFA position that bargained for a long-term US presence with nearly complete autonomy. It was this position that the Iraqi's rejected and led to a time line for withdrawal.

The Iraq government mouthed political verbiage about wanting our troops to leave in order to molilfy Iraqis who hated "the occupation." But the Iraq government did not demand immediate withdrawal (they knew that could be a disaster), nor even gave a stupid "time line" to do it. Their "dislike" of our "occupation" was a CYA political sham, knowing full well that our troops were the only guarantee of their safety and existence. Even the Iraqi people, when polled, wanted, something like 60% to 40%, our troops to stay till it was safe to leave (no time line).

I'd like to see a source for that poll as what I've read indicates otherwise.

If you'r referring to my chutzpah comment, I didn't say the chutzpah belonged to the voters. It belongs to Biden claiming that Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of" his administration. And "you're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." Which is exactly what the Bush administration was derided for (by Biden, Obama, nearly the whole political left)--nation building--imposing democracy in the Middle-East where it was supposedly impossible. And "I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences"--when he had wanted to partition Iraq into 3 states.

As I've said, the Obama inherited this mess and for them to see it to a positive milestone is absolutely an accomplishment they should be taking credit for.

So Biden's viewpoint may have shifted based on the observations from the ground? Isn't that exactly why you claim time tables are stupid? Because they need to reflect reality?

Again, it's reinforcement that the Obama Administration is more pragmatic than people are giving them credit for. Hell, this "left wing radical" is scaling up US military actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen!

-spence

[TommyTuna]

Originally Posted by spence

So the idea that the Obama Administration could cleanly pull 90,000 US troops from Iraq over a year into the term isn't an accomplishment they can take credit for?

-spence

I guess that the fact the Status of Forces agreement to drawn down the troops in 2010 signed under Bush had nothing to do with it..fact wise that is.

Oh yes and Spence; Patrick Kennedy is not running for re-election, you should run for the seat, RI needs you, really needs you.

TT

[spence]

Originally Posted by TommyTuna

I guess that the fact the Status of Forces agreement to drawn down the troops in 2010 signed under Bush had nothing to do with it..fact wise that is.

Bush hasn't been POTUS for over a year now, these are Obama's orders and he hold the accountability for success or failure.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush hasn't been POTUS for over a year now, these are Obama's orders and he hold the accountability for success or failure.

-spence

You didn't get the memo?

Obama is the end all, be all - responsible for everything that is going on in the country - but only when that everything is dire and furthers the Conservative agenda. If something good follows through, well "Bush set the wheels in motion for that." They forget that 'Bush set the wheels in motion for the economy - right off a cliff' or that he 'set the wheels in motion to be in Iraq under false pretense for 7 years.'

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You didn't get the memo?

Obama is the end all, be all - responsible for everything that is going on in the country - but only when that everything is dire and furthers the Conservative agenda. If something good follows through, well "Bush set the wheels in motion for that." They forget that 'Bush set the wheels in motion for the economy - right off a cliff' or that he 'set the wheels in motion to be in Iraq under false pretense for 7 years.'

Perhaps you didn't get the memo circulating for the past eight years that Bush is the end all, be all of everything bad . . . oh . . . wait . . .you must have gotten the memo, or part of it--"the economy-right off a cliff" . . ."in Iraq under false pretense".

Actually, the economy was beginning its fall during the last year of Clinton's administration (the bursting of the dot.com bubble) and continued through the first year of Bush (of which Bush only served 7 or eight months--remember the delay due to Gore's challenge). Then Bush corrected the fall with tax cuts, etc., and the economy boomed again untill the banking failure that was inspired by, supposedly, a cluster of things that were initiated before Bush, and Bush again, initiated the corrective, the bank bailouts, taking the PR hit for doing so, and handed over (for Obama to inherit), an Iraq on its way to Biden's glowing appraisal, and the bank correction that "saved" the economy from depression, and Obama quickly acted by piling on to the correction an unnecessarily massive "Stimulus" and abandoned fixing the Social Security crisis by trying to add on to it a massively expensive public health care plan. And there's your economy being dragged toward the cliff again, and probably prolonged in the dumps longer than it normally would be.

Again, we get off topic.

And what is the opposite of a false pretense? A true pretense? Was Bush's pretense false because he knew WMDs didn't exist when he went searching for them. Or was his pretense a true pretense because he believed that there were weapons.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush hasn't been POTUS for over a year now, these are Obama's orders and he hold the accountability for success or failure.

-spence

Actually, O Slippery One, you know very well that if Iraq fails, Obama and his lefties will point to Bush and say "I told you so." If it continues to go well, AS BUSH PLANNED IT, Obama will take, and the left will give (as OBiden is futuristically doing) him the credit. If it tanks, it's Bush's fault. Win, win for OBama here. And you know it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, O Slippery One, you know very well that if Iraq fails, Obama and his lefties will point to Bush and say "I told you so." If it continues to go well, AS BUSH PLANNED IT, Obama will take, and the left will give (as OBiden is futuristically doing) him the credit. If it tanks, it's Bush's fault. Win, win for OBama here. And you know it.

Actually, if Iraq tanks under this Administration it's a loss for AMERICA and Obama will ultimately take a lot the responsibility.

As for Bush's "planning" this was shoddy at best and corruptly incompetent at the worst. Bush didn't "plan" for Iraq to be a success, rather they "dreamed" it and hoped for the best.

-spence