Last night I mentioned an issue that we'll see again before the Presidential race is done. Add another one to the list.
Barack Obama seems more interested in meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than David Petraeus. McCain has started lacing into Obama for just cause on the topic. Plus, other groups will play on the issue too:
Current facts on the ground are troublesome things for Democrats committed to making the Iraq War a huge issue in the fall. Consider too that the public views John McCain as the anti-George Bush, for reasons including his advocacy against war strategy prior to the successful surge.
Conclusion: the only "McSame" here is starting to look more like the ghost of liberal Presidential nominees past than the ghost of 43.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 28, 2008 10:17 PM | Email ThisMcCain will eat him up and spit him out on the successes our brave troops and the Iraq government are making over there right now.
Posted by: gs on May 28, 2008 10:27 PMBoth utilized the internet to cobble together a large following of self-righteous upper middle class "intellectuals." One difference between the two is that Obama has made it racial, which solidified his support among both African Americans and smug urbanites with liberal guilt. The other difference is that, unlike Dean, Obama has never led anything (other than a string of political campaigns).
Posted by: AD on May 28, 2008 10:37 PMHow dare you bring up his unwillingness to meet with his own country's soldiers? THIS IS ONLY A DISTRACTION!
Barry is all about change, and going to Iraq does not lead to change.
You gotta _believe_!
Posted by: steve miller on May 29, 2008 05:35 AMon a side note: Congrats to the Communists at Google who have chosen to celebrate the "anniversary of the 1st ascent of Mt. Everest" 3 days after ignoring the Memorial day Holiday. Any question who their candidate is?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 29, 2008 05:55 AMMy how times do change.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 29, 2008 05:55 AMIf I were to draw a idealogical parallel I would be pointing directly at Jimmy Carter. Jimmy's already proved most of the "change you can believe in" will end up as "only spare change in my pocket" and that is someting I can believe in.
Guys, if you want to slay (figuratively, not actually) Obama pin him to Carter, not Dean.
http://soundpolitics.com/public/2008/03/an_idea_for_a_presidential_deb.html
US Presidential Debate In Iraq During 2008
I have been thinking about the upcoming Presidential debates and I have come up with the following idea.
I propose that there be a Presidential debate in Iraq with the troops asking the questions. After all the President is the Comander in Chief of all the Armed Forces, so would it not make sense that the troops get to ask questions of the two people most likely to become their new boss?
I am sure that some will say well "What about the security of the candidates?". I have a two part answer. FIrst of all I say if the troops are serving in harms way what better way to show support and how much their sacrifice means then to put on a debate where the troops are at. This would show them that they are not forgotten and that their voices do matter. Secondly, it would not be a live debate due to the time difference (11 hour difference between Iraq and the west coast). It would be recorded and could be aired stateside after all the candidates have already left the location of the event. Not to mention we have had many a Politician (to include Sentaors McCain and Clinton) come thru without any porblems (due to hightened security levels and the fact that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq).
I think this would be a great way to show thanks to the troops and that they do matter.
Now, I *thought* the war was un-winnable, so how could Obama think the soldiers' work is "important"?
Perhaps because even the libs know now that betting against the U.S. Army was a mistake. They'll try to get on the victory train now.
Posted by: Gary on May 29, 2008 06:45 AMAnd Medic, an answer to your deep question- when they started looking as good as she does.
Bama has some real problems. Thank you, Clinton, for dragging out the primaries so all the world can see what a farce this chap is.
I was listening to a couple of clips the other day with McCain and the DalaiBama. Bama may win the beauty contest, but McCain is a great communicator (compared to the DalaiBama).
Posted by: swatter on May 29, 2008 07:11 AMThat's a GREAT idea! McCain should challenge Obama on this. Have pigs learned to fly yet. : )
Posted by: NW Denizen on May 29, 2008 07:23 AMhttp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 29, 2008 07:32 AMHaven't you learned anything from the left. Don't bother them with any facts. They follow the party line--"The debate is over, there is a scientific consensus that , anyone who believes otherwise is a and is no better than a Holocaust Denier."
Posted by: Bill H on May 29, 2008 07:34 AMThey follow the party line--"The debate is over, there is a scientific consensus that [insert here {the war in Iraq is lost} or {anthropogenic global warming is real}], anyone who believes otherwise is a [insert here {Iraq War Denier} or {Global Warming Denier}] and is no better than a Holocaust Denier."
And TrueSoldier's idea about having a Presidential debate in Iraq in front of the troops is one of the best I have heard in a long time; GREAT suggestion.
Of course Obama may not accept, but if he does not: Think of the instant come-back McCain can use:
''Senator Obama appears to be afraid to face our troops in the field and listen to what THEY have to say. Why is that ??.''
I am going to the State GOP convention in Spokane today, and will mention both of the above to the McCain campaign people who will be there.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 29, 2008 07:43 AM
LOL, someone pick me up off the floor.
I only wish I had medics like her.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 29, 2008 07:55 AMThe facts are: (1) Obama has visited Iraq, but it was before he announced is Presidency (i.e., in 2006), (2) McCain has visited Iraq frequently, (3) Obama has not stated that he won't visit Iraq in the future, in fact, he is considering a summer trip, and (4) McCain, inspite of visiting Iraq many times, still confuses basic facts (like mixing up Sunni and Shites regularly).
I do think it is important for Obama to visit Iraq before the election to get the latest real status. I don't think it should be a campaign promo shot and I think McCain's proposal isn't genuine for two reasons. One I think it is pure political showmanship in attempt to raise the issue. Two, I don't think it is wise from a security standpoint to have both parties candidates in Iraq at the same time, especially in the same place.
The real issue, however, is deeper than the RNC wants to make it out. Their rose-colored glasses approach will not change the Iraq issue. What needs to be debated is: (1) how do we define winning and losing, (2) what is the best way to spur the Iraqi government to take responsibility, (3) how do we free up forces to alleviate the strain of repeated deployments and the need for the forces elsewhere (like Afghanistan), and (4) what is the long term operational plan for the military (military shaping).
It seems to me, neither candidate is really addressing the last issue. From my past background of working as a civilian in the Navy, this is probably one of the most important issues. It speaks to the front of what future funding you need, what troop structure you need, what infrastructure do you need to plan, and what equipment needs priority. Reagon had this in the 80's with his 600 ship Navy, which wasn't just a number, but tied to a deployment structure that could meet Soviet agression anywhere in the world. It also incorporated proper rotation of ships, so that they were maintained regularly. Under Clinton, the "Peace Dividend" reduced the Navy's capability to in the 300's. This dramatically changed the infrastructure demands, and maintenance demands. Carrier rotation, for example, was a lot more fast paced with smaller, incremental maintenance periods. It is the same with Army brigades, Air Force planes, etc. We have been so focused on Iraq, that right now, there is little overall direction of where the military needs to be in 10 to 15 years. This is the real debate, since no matter whether it is McCain or Obama, Iraq will eventually be history. We can't have a fighting force soley designed to fight Iraq. We need to start shaping for future demands.
Posted by: tc on May 29, 2008 07:55 AM"I think it is pure political showmanship in attempt to raise the issue."
Last time I checked Obama wants to be the Commander In Chief. I think it would be good for him to meet with the troops on the frontlines and get their take of it and not the take that the MSM tells him.
As for your points:
(1) how do we define winning and losing
We win when the terrorists are no longer a threat, we loose through appeasement to the terroirst. It has been stated plenty.
(2) what is the best way to spur the Iraqi government to take responsibility
That is a fair question, but it appears that they have been doing a fairly good job as of late. Look at Basra, Sadr City and Mosul for proof. By the way when was the last time you heard about Fallujah in the news? Can't remember can you. Well perhaps it is because it is a much safer place than it was in 2004-2005 and the Iraqi military does the patroling there. The Marines are there for back up, but have spent most their time tarining additional Iraqi units.
(3) how do we free up forces to alleviate the strain of repeated deployments and the need for the forces elsewhere (like Afghanistan)
First of all we increase the size of the military. We can do that one of two ways. One, by canceling all federal funds to any public eduction institution that harrasses recruiters or refuses to allow them the ability to talk with students (allow the parents of the students to be there if you feel that the students may be taken advantage of, I actual encourage parents to meet with the recruiters) or two implement a mandatory two year service enlistment (call it a draft if you want, but I think it would do allot to give perspective and direction to kids right out of high school. If they have a scholraship lined up let them go to college and then they serve there two years. I also think that all Federal level politicians should have to serve two years to be eligible to run). As for repeated deployments. The military does have it better than they did in WWII where they stayed in theatre for the entirety of the war. I am not in any ways advocating a return to that policy, just trying to add some perspective.
(4) what is the long term operational plan for the military (military shaping).
Another excellent question. I would say go back to the answer in number 3.
I can see you don't read NRO very often. They have blasted mcCain and Bush many times.
and yes they even go after libs too.
________________________________________
We can't have a fighting force soley designed to fight Iraq. We need to start shaping for future demands. (TC said)
___________________________________________
Let me remind you all libs/dems have ever wanted to do is cut, cut & cut our armed services.
And not to forget. It's the dem/lib party who couldn't wait to call our services (baby killers again)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 29, 2008 08:16 AMStop it buddy, your speaking way to much truth and no the Dem's well never listen.
The dem party has always treaded us as Red Headed stepchild.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 29, 2008 08:30 AMIf Obama now goes to Iraq, he looks weak, like McCain was able to manipulate him into making the trip.
If he doesn't go, he looks out of touch with those with boots on the ground!
Either way this is a good and winning tactic for the McCain Team.
Posted by: Sarah on May 29, 2008 10:48 AMIf Obama now goes to Iraq, he looks weak, like McCain was able to manipulate him into making the trip.
If he doesn't go, he looks out of touch with those with boots on the ground!
Either way this is a good and winning tactic for the McCain Team.
Posted by: Sarah on May 29, 2008 10:49 AMIf he doesn't go, he looks out of touch with those with boots on the ground!
Either way this is a good and winning tactic for the McCain Team.
Posted by: Sarah on May 29, 2008 10:50 AMIf he doesn't go, he looks out of touch with those with boots on the ground!
Either way this is a good and winning tactic for the McCain Team.
Posted by: Sarah on May 29, 2008 10:50 AM"The Dems/Libs/Socialist/Progressives have become so rich by capitolism..."
Nice play on words there, and I couldn't agree more!
Posted by: Smoley on May 29, 2008 11:14 AMTrueSoldier @17:
I did state that Obama is considering going to Iraq, independantly of McCain. McCain trying to make this a "joint" appearence is solely for showmanship.
On your response to point #1: By your definition, this is a never ending war, and therefore, it is "un-winnable." There will always be terrorists, just as there has been in the past. Also, Iraq did not attack the US on 9/11, and there were not terrorists in Iraq, specifically Al Quaeda, prior to the current war. Sadaam made sure of that (i.e., neutralizing any competition for control). We did not attack Iraq to fight terrorists. We attacked Iraq because: (a) Bush felt the sanctions weren't enough (the question is why?), (b) Bush believe Sadaam had WMD's, (c) Sadaam was a war criminal, in that he used WMD (gas) on his own people, (d) the Neocons had this fantasy of establishing an American Democracy in Iraq and then all the other Arab nations would see how good it was and follow suit (regardless of the fact that all these countries were under colonialism for years and the last thing they would want is a new colonial institution), and (e) several other pseudo reasons that had nothing to do with 9/11. Additionally, there was the fact that Sadaam threatened Bush's daddy, and Bush has had a vengence streak on anyone who threatens his Daddy (e.g., the reason he ran for TX Governor was to get back at Ann Richards for her comments at the 1992 Democratic Convention). The only tie to terrorism (at the start) was the snow-job by this administration that Sadaam had WMD's and would give them to Al Quaeda, who would in turn use them against us. This snow-job has proven to be total fabrication for two reasons: (1) there were no WMD's (as intelligence at the time indicated, but was ignored), and (2) Sadaam did not like (even despised) Al Quaeda. There is a big world of difference between Al Quada's jihaad driven, back to traditional Muslim controlled countries (like the Taliban in Afgahnistan) and Sadaam's modern, western based society he had built in Iraq.
Your response on my item 2 is just traditional Bush/McCain talking point. The real facts are that with regards to the government milestones they were supposed to reach, the Iraqi government is way behind the eight-ball and have not been aggressively pursuing. Even taking your military campaigns you speak of, these are a credit to our military and not Iraqi security forces. Take for example the recent excursion a few weeks ago, prior to the Sadr cease-fire, where American troops and Iraqi Forces where to take on Sadr's militia. The end result was the Iraqi's turned chicken and retreated, leaving the Americans to do the battle themselves.
On your response to my item 3, you stated we need to increase forces as the solution. Have you seen the fact that Barack has called for this? (See here). I don't agree that the two items you stated will meet the goal you desire. I do agree that colleges shouldn't bar recruiters, but I don't believe there is a correlation between recruitment levels and this practice. There is a stronger correlation between the length of the Iraq War, the multiple deployment cycles, and the struggle for the military to meet monthly recruiting goals. I think if you are concerned about recruitment then you should be for Jim Webb's GI bill. Why is McCain so against it, yet it has bi-partisan support (Hagel, Warner, etc.)? On your second point, a "draft" in actuality or name-only has been called for by of all people, Charles Rangel. The reason is right now the volunteer services falls on the middle and lower class of our society and not the well-to-do's. Why didn't Bush's daughters serve? I don't agree with your point of requiring politicians to serve two years because (1) you can't back up the clock, and (2) do your really think Cheney would pass the military requirements to get into the service at this time (or even in 2000). You may have meant this statement as a slam against Obama, but remember there are also plenty of Republicans who also have never served, and some of them like Cheney (or Bush for that matter) worked the system to get around serving in the Vietnam war. I graduated the same time as Barack. If I had served in the military, the two years you talked about, what good would it have done for the current situation. Wow, we may have been involved in the grand campaign to liberate Greneda. Big woop-to-do! Obama graduated post-Vietnam and would have been out of the service (unless he reenlisted) prior to the first Gulf War. This is an area, however, where Obama's VP choice can definately benefit him, especially with a Jim Webb as VP.
I would say you punted on my item #4. Post Cold War, the Navy's goal (under Clinton) was to be able to sustain a major regional conflict, plus a minor conflict concurrently. This structure, plus ship rotation, dictated the 6-8 carrier force and the corresponding support ships. The Navy's role has been greatly reduced. However, if Bush is foolish enough to invade Iran, I wonder if the Navy has the right make up to clear the Iranian blockade/attacks through the straight leading into the Persian Gulf. Yes, we would have the air support, but would our submarine force and small attack ship force be well-suited for this type of battle. These are the strategic questions that are needed. The Navy also is more involved with Disaster/Humanitarian Relief efforts, like the Tsunami and New Orleans. In New Orleans, the Navy had to utilize Cruise Ships for berthing ships. This is the infrastructure questions. Instead the Navy, in the 90's was forced to accept ships they didn't need or want because it would help Trent Lott's Pascagoula Ship (private) building corporate lobby, which in turn took away public shipyard monies to maintain the existing ships.
Army Medic/Vet @18:
With regards to CNN and MSNBC, I do agree (especially MSNBC) that they also have gotten the "ratings" bug that puts ratings over accuracy. Look all media has bias, what is important to look at isn't the bias, but does the article or report concentrate on facts, biased opinions, or just a rehash of whoever side's talking points they get. The media (both sides) are getting lazy lately and would rather just retiterate talking points handed to them by the parties, instead of doing their own research. My issue with Eric's reference was the fact that his source is notorius for being a media outlet for the RNC (e.g., talking RNC/Bush talking points and regurgitating them without any original thought or analysis of whether the talking points are factual or not). The article was not balanced. Bloggers do need to pick up the slack of the laziness of the media. They can do it by not being lazy themselves. Research both sides of the issue. Do the analysis. Complete the staff work. Look at reports with a critical eye to determine what is pure spin and what is factual. To me, someone who is doing real work, is Poblano (at FiveThirtyEight.com), who is applying scientific models to the polls, and running simulations and what-ifs. This is what the news organizations should be doing, instead of just wanting a horse-race.
tc, you got more in you than the DalaiBama by a whole lot. I respect some of your discussion but you lose me when you try to make it debate between a real man and an empty person.
Obama doesn't even rise to the level of even thinking he has an independent brain. Empty suit comes to mind.
But, I do love your discussions. I just wish you were the candidate of the Democrats. You have more substance.
Posted by: swatter on May 29, 2008 12:18 PMtc then complains about political showmanship. Welcome to the big leagues. These are questions that presidents have to answer, and then make real decisions. It's not just hope and change, it's real world situations where muslim extremists blow stuff up, and conditions on the ground vary from day to day.
Obama does not have much in the way of any policy for dealing with all of the real situations that would arise in a real presidency. Catering to the extreme left out-of-Iraq now, or the extreme left anti-energy crowd, the global warming nuts, etc. does not address anything. If the Democrats get Obama in, and he ends up deer-in-the-headlights like Carter, it will be a much longer spell before any Democrat ever gets elected to President again. What kind of party has their past leader out meeting with terrorists?
But hey blame it on Bush Talking Points. It got you through the last eight years.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 29, 2008 12:35 PM...so if a Democrat were to offer, it would be hailed as "reaching across the aisle". If a Republican offers, it's dismissed as "political gamesmanship". Got it, and thanks for the clarification.
this is a never ending war, and therefore, it is "un-winnable."
"there was the fact that Sadaam threatened Bush's daddy, and Bush has had a vengence streak on anyone who threatens his Daddy"
"The only tie to terrorism (at the start) was the snow-job by this administration that Sadaam had WMD's and would give them to Al Quaeda, who would in turn use them against us. This snow-job has proven to be total fabrication for two reasons"
"Why didn't Bush's daughters serve?"
"The reason is right now the volunteer services falls on the middle and lower class of our society and not the well-to-do's. "
Wow! for someone who doesn't like "talking points", you've successfully managed to squeeze in more than your share in one post.
The DNC approves of your message.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 29, 2008 01:49 PMSadly that was the downfall of several really good sergeants and one sergeant major. Couldn't keep their hands off of the gals, and they got caught at it. The sexual tension in that unit was pretty bad. But it was the Carter years so morale generally sucked. (If McCain will be Bush's 3rd term, then Barry O will be Carter's second.)
While most of them weren't as babe-a-licious as the gal in the ad, there were a few hotties in the mix.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on May 29, 2008 02:04 PMI so agree. Someone has been talking with the DNC.
____________________________________
Neocons had this fantasy of establishing an American Democracy in Iraq and then all the other Arab nations
_______________________________
It's always the Jews. Man is this one getting old.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iraq did not attack the US on 9/11, and there were not terrorists in Iraq, specifically Al Quaeda, prior to the current war. Sadaam made sure of that (i.e., neutralizing any
_______________________________________
Another lib talking point. GW never said Saddam did, but we all know that. Well maybe not the libs. Saddam broke so many UN rules, plus he tried time and time again to shoot down our planes.
Plus do you really want to talk about the bad guys/terrorists who Saddam allowed in Iraq for medical.
Let me SO remind you TC. You libs just couldn't wait to get us out of Nam (odd you put is there) yet who dems/lib said they would help South Viet Nam after we left. But you didn't(shut off all support) and the whole world saw what happen.
I can see you looking to do it again.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 29, 2008 02:14 PMLet's see, so you believe Bush and Cheney. So Clintonian. Let's see, Richard Clarke reported it. Paul O'Neill reported the same facts. Now we have Scott McClellan backing up the same administraiton mindset. Of course, all these people have a grudge. Never mind Cheney repeatedly stating on news programs that "Iraq attacked us on 9/11." Never mind the fact that Bush had to specifically renounce the fact that they didn't (after all) find a link between 9/11 and Iraq. All the pre-War spin by the administration was that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Bush tries to cast this off by using Clintonian logic of the fact that he never stated that "Sadaam order the 9/11" attack. No, but he and his administration were fervent in promoting the line that "Iraq attacked us on 9/11." Cheney to this day, still holds this misguided belief. This isn't DNC spin, it is common fact that you seem to be blinded to because of your Bush colored-glasses. I suppose you also still believe that there were WMD's in Iraq.
Rick D @32:
No, if Obama proposed it, it would also be for political showmanship (in my book). It is an unsafe venture. Obama has stated that he is thinking about visiting Iraq. His problem was he let himself be boxed in by RNC and McCain on this issue.
Jeff B @31:
You state that Obama is all show and no substance. Well go to his Blueprint page on his website. When you compare what has been posted, you will find the following:
Sorry, donkeys, there are only two ways to elect a Democrat President
(1) Get a crazed billionaire to start a 3rd party.
(2) Have the previous Republican incumbent fly away in a helicopter after being threatened with imprisonment.
Other than that...
Posted by: John Bailo on May 29, 2008 04:50 PMNow your voice is one of experience, we respect and we listen, and we're damn glad to have you safe.
You and Kate Norley have earned the right to talk about Iraq!
Obama hasn't got a F'N clue about the victories you have produced in Iraq!
But we do, and we thank you for your brave service!
PS: Make sure you pin a flag on your lapel, Obama just started to do that! (just kiddin)
Oh and
3: The wanna be Commander in chief of our military not wanting to ever meet with and get the opinions from our brave troops?
Watch him, he will have to!
What? Hey fool. SHOW ALL OF US where GW said Saddam was part of 911?? PLEASE!
And far as Clark. YOU forget, he loved GW until he was removed from office. (911 report)
My o my how lib's change their colors.
I noticed how you left out the part about Nam & Iraq and the dem party, why does it hurt?
It's a stain on the dem party that will never go away!
So go ahead TC. Try and beat me out of this one. I don't forget, because I have love ones in Iraq.... JERK!
So you have any childern to send there fool?
Your so worried about GW, what about you???
You really want to go head to head with me!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 29, 2008 05:28 PMThey will never cross the isle to the right!
Posted by: HW on May 29, 2008 06:46 PMWRONG! There were terrorists in Iraq, google Abbu Abbas, the terrorist that killed wheelchair bound American citizen Leon Klinghoffer in 1988 and threw his body overboard a cruise ship, the Achilli Lauro.
Posted by: pbj on May 29, 2008 09:07 PMCare to provide a source for that TC? I mean if Cheney said it over and over, finding a legitimate source ought to be easy.
Posted by: pbj on May 29, 2008 09:10 PM
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
"The only tie to terrorism (at the start) was the snow-job by this administration that Sadaam had WMD's and would give them to Al Quaeda, who would in turn use them against us. This snow-job has proven to be total fabrication for two reasons: (1) there were no WMD's (as intelligence at the time indicated, but was ignored), and (2) Sadaam did not like (even despised) Al Quaeda. "
Posted by: Rick D. on May 29, 2008 09:46 PMHere is my rebuttal,
TC said: By your definition, this is a never ending war, and therefore, it is "un-winnable."
So we should just give up and run away? Great strategy.
TC Said: Also, Iraq did not attack the US on 9/11, and there were not terrorists in Iraq,
Completley false. I helped guard 3500 members of the PMOI in 2004 who surrended to US forces at the start of the war. They are a group that was placed on the terrorist list by Bill CLinton in the 90's and they were in Iraq for some time prior to the war as it was widely believed they helped Saddam gas the Kurds (so obviously Saddam new about them).
TC Said: here was the fact that Sadaam threatened Bush's daddy, and Bush has had a vengence streak on anyone who threatens his Daddy (e.g., the reason he ran for TX Governor was to get back at Ann Richards for her comments at the 1992 Democratic Convention). The only tie to terrorism (at the start)
If it is a fact provide me some concret proof of it. Show me a news article or speech where President Bush said any of this. If you can't do that then it is hard to take that as a fact.
TC said: Your response on my item 2 is just traditional Bush/McCain talking point.
So now you know exactly what I have seen? WOW that is impressive. As for the milestones, yes most of them have not been met on time, but can you tell me how long it took our great nation to actually become a functiong country after the Revoulutionary War? I will give you a hint, it was longer than what we have spent in Iraq so far.
TC said: The end result was the Iraqi's turned chicken and retreated, leaving the Americans to do the battle themselves.
Not entirely true. Yes the IRaqi's did need our help with air power as the Iraqi air force consists of Sesnas right now and I just do not think that a Cesana flying low would have put the fear of Allah into the insurgents. As for turning tail some Iraqi's did do just that, but not all of them.
TC Said: Jim Webb's GI bill. Why is McCain so against it, yet it has bi-partisan support (Hagel, Warner, etc.)?
He is against it as am I until they add in the ability to transfer benefits to your family. Do you realize that right now a soldier has 10 years to use all their collge benefits or loose them. Sounds like an easy task, but it is not that easy as most soldiers when they get out can only afford to go to college part time as they still need to work to be able to live.
TC said: On your second point, a "draft" in actuality or name-only has been called for by of all people, Charles Rangel. The reason is right now the volunteer services falls on the middle and lower class of our society and not the well-to-do's.
I met quite a few well to do people that joined the military because they felt it was their duty. Of course I know you will say the numbers show more middle and lower class are in compared to rich people, but compare that number to how many rich people there are in our country compared to how many middle class and lower class people there are. Of course there will be a higher percentage of middle and lower class people due to the numbers.
TC Said: don't agree with your point of requiring politicians to serve two years because (1) you can't back up the clock, and (2) do your really think Cheney would pass the military requirements to get into the service at this time (or even in 2000).
I never said to make it retroactive did I? To clarify my point, seeing that I have to, I would suggest making it a requirement starting from the date that it was passed as law and anyone who was already serving in an elected position would be grandfathered in.
TC said: Why didn't Bush's daughters serve?
So when was the draft reactivated? Oh yeah and the draft as it stands right now only covers males. Try again.
TC said: If I had served in the military, the two years you talked about, what good would it have done for the current situation. Wow, we may have been involved in the grand campaign to liberate Greneda.
It would give all Americans a greater understanding of what the Armed Forces is all about. Even if you serve in peace time it would give a greater perspective to the sacrifices our armed services make to ensure that we continue to enjoy our freedoms.
TC said: wonder if the Navy has the right make up to clear the Iranian blockade/attacks through the straight leading into the Persian Gulf. Yes, we would have the air support, but would our submarine force and small attack ship force be well-suited for this type of battle.
Well considering they have been using small vessels as of late I don't think that is much of a concern. Seriously though I am not too worried about the Iranian Navy. They do not have much of an airforce and that tends to be one of the biggest threats to our Navy. Besides why exactly would we have to break a Naval blockade? If we were to go to war with Iran (and I doubt that is on the horizon anytime soon) we could go in by land (via Iraq and Afghanistan) and by air (same routes). If we take the ports then the Iranain Navy is screwed. As for me punting, No I told you I feel that we need to build up the military strength so that we do have force projection like we did in the 80's.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 30, 2008 12:00 AMThanks.
Yet isn't it funny how fast people like TC and other libs forget what their leaders said just before the war.
Plus the part where GW lied. Ok libs, if GW lied. Tell me why it took a year before we went to war? Do any of you libs/dems remember that the dem's wanted Bush to meet condition after condition before they gave their OK.
Well folks he met them all and you dems/libs said go. Now either Bush is SO much smarter than the dem's/libs or he didn't lie at all.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 30, 2008 06:24 AM1. Some have called by to provide the news source. This is so funny because I have made the same exact rebuttal many times here and the response I get from you jokers is that you aren't going to do my research for me. You make a statement and don't back it up with the source and then say I have to prove your statement. So turn around is fair play :-). I will state that when Cheney was being interviewed by one of the morning hosts (or maybe it was Barbara Walters), he did restate his opinion that Iraq attacked us. It was also the same interview where he basically stated to screw the majority of Americans who don't believe him. If I have time, I will look up the exact quotes.
2. With regards to the Democratic talking heads, this too is funny for two reasons. First, I think they were wrong also. As I stated in the past, I am an Independant. As an independant, I am not blindly tied to one parties talking points. Second, in the quotes, you won't find an Obama quote. This is what makes him different from Hillary. He was against Iraq from the beginning. It is a question of judgement and his was right from the start.
3. To TrueSoldier, thank you for the detailed responses. I will give you (and a few others) that he blanket statement I made of "no" terrorists in Iraq before the war was incorrect. It is true, however, that Al Quaeda (as an organization) was not in Iraq, and when the American Public is concerned about terrorism, the "who" they are concerned with is Al Quaeda because they are who attacked us on 9/11. Yes, their may have been one or two Al Quaeda members, but the organization wasn't present and operating. It is the constant administrations conflating Iraq and Al Quaeda as the reason for going into Iraq that gets my "goat." Maybe it is just me, but I find this line of reasoning ludicrious.
Posted by: tc on May 30, 2008 08:00 AMre-read that and get back to me...
As for "[Obama]was against Iraq from the beginning. It is a question of judgement and his was right from the start."
Actually the jury is still out on this little excursion into the middle east. History will be the final arbiter of whether an action taken was "right" and it's far too early for anyone to make that decision today. Obversely, Obama may be viewed in history as the Jeannette Rankin of his time, and I for one would not that legacy placed upon me.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 30, 2008 11:50 AM