“The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions,†columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote. “Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their ‘narrative of defeat and retreat’ (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed.
“It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign.â€
66 Comments
Funny thing about that photo, when McCain wanted to a photo-op follow up the military said the market was too dangerous. McCain previously went with the backing of 100 marines, two Apache helicopters and APVs, which McCain compared to a normal shopping trip.
McClueless also claimed Gen. Petraus travels in an unarmored Humvee (not true). He also previously claimed the insurgent uprising would be short lived (nope), the war would be cheap (nope), and the occupation would be short (now he says he’s looking forward to 100 years in Iraq).
Iraq is a losing issue for McCain, he still doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiite. The guy is wholly ignorant on matters of foreign policy.
Anyone figure out why we’re even there? What is it that’s being won?
McCain needs to talk up that war. He needs to always be in front of television cameras and never have the microphones turned off. Yep, front and center.
We may not have a choice…Irag so far is refusing to let us put permanent bases there. If the government asks us to leave, I would certainly hope we’d honor their request. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming elections there. I think Americans aren’t so stupid as to believe that it’s been this big success like McCain has been trying to spin it.
IF - in November Iraqiization has succeeded - IF - Iraqi troops are doing the fighting instead of US troops - IF - Iraqi government is functioning well - THEN - perhaps McCain can turn it into a winning issue. Otherwise he better look for that light at the end of the tunnel to be the hdeadlight on an on-coming train.
More difficult to deal with in the longer run will be the transformation of former allies such as Lebanon into enemies. Even NATO member Turkey is going its own way. The legacy of Bush’s elective war will haunt whoever is the next president.
Lots of “IFS” there…not much that Bush had invisioned has come to pass. I think the clerics are running things, what they say holds more weight with Iraqis than any elected offical. If we were smart, we’d be trying to to get them on our side…but they’d be too smart for that.
Obama is already hedging about getting out of Iraq.
There’s too much money to be made by the military industrial complex there. And the folks behind that pull the strings.
We’re in Iraq forever. Just as bush’s handlers meant it to be.
“John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign.”
Oh please, Mr. McCain, do what this neocon knucklehead is telling you to do!
Talk about shooting fish in a barrel of oil.
I don’t know about that, I don’t think Obama is worried that the war machine will lose money if we pull out, that’s more McCain’s style. I think he worries, like many of us, about the fate of the Iraqi people.
It won’t matter, if Obama is president, we’ll still stay in Iraq until we finished business there.
But what does “finish business there” mean? What are the goals and ARE they achievable?
If we don’t win in Iraq and get the terrorists under control we will have bigger problems in the Mideast. There must be no appeasement with Iran and the rest of the Islamic crazies. Like it or not the Mideast is one of our big oil suppliers.
I’ve been saying this since 2003 and it still is the truth.
Whenever the United States could have, should have, will someday leave Iraq, there will be a bloodbath and civil war.
Bank on it.
Today, tomorrow, a hundred years from now, or five years ago (just after “Mission Accomplished). Bloodbath and civil war.
Krauthammer is a knucklehead, a pimp for Rupert Murdoch.
First, the assault on and occupation of Iraq are based on a lie.
Second, the continuing occupation of a sovereign nation,on the face of it, is not a legal, rational or tenable proposition in the 21st century.
Iraq is not Korea, or Japan, or Germany. Now that we think of it, we should reduce or eliminate our military expenditures in those nations as well. Who are we protecting Germany from?
The neocon proposition that we can achieve geopolitical and military hegemony over the Middle East by occupying Iraq is cockamammy, and it is based upon the lie of self-defense.
We will not forgive or forget that lie. It is the elephant in the middle of room.
Hence, no, McCain will not win, cannot win, because his primary argument is based on a lie.
“There must be no appeasement with Iran and the rest of the Islamic crazies.”
Then why did your boy Bush try to appease them by attacking their ENEMY?!
Ben, come on. YOU know the answer.
Halliburton
Blackwater
Carlyle
“I don’t know about that, I don’t think Obama is worried that the war machine will lose money if we pull out, that’s more McCain’s style. I think he worries, like many of us, about the fate of the Iraqi people.”
Well Mary, that’s a nice thought and all, but really…
Dont you think he cares MOST about getting his own ass elected and then re-elected? And that takes M-O-N-E-Y.
Tons of which go into BOTH campaigns from the military industrial complex.
So yeah, I imagine once he clinched the nomination, the “big boys” pulled him aside and had a little “come to jesus” meeting as they say in Texas.
And I bet the subject of that meeting was “ok, enough with the peace stuff. What’s it gonna cost us to get you to see the light?”
Profit is as profit does.
Campaing contributions make the world go ’round.
As a committed Democrat (as opposed to a Democrat that should be committed) I strongly encourage John McCain to “make the War on Iraq the central plank of his campaign.”
Absolutely.
Ponder this for a moment - even if we “win” in Iraq, what have we “won?”
This says it all !!!
How did this Senator get elected, and how did Obama ever get chosen as Dem. nominee for President???
Polished oratory and empty promises of “Change” just don’t cut it with Chris Matthews or with anybody else I would think.
Chris Matthews slam-dunked Texas Senator Kirk Watson, when he asked the
Senator for just one example of Obama’s legislative accomplishments. Want to
see a politician choke on national TV?…..watch this….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
The 18 percenters (Congress) sure won’t get in the way of changing anything but their paychecks.
Right, George.
Because a hard-line against the hard-liners has had nothing but success so far.
The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing that has failed in the past and expecting a different outcome in the future.
OMGosh, Boxlock!
Good thing I’m not voting for Kirk Watson for President.
But don’t worry, Boxy. When we pull out of Iraq and spend the money we save to help you pay for health care, you’ll benefit whether you supported Obama or not . . .
John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign.”
Good luck with that!
This is one of the reasons I was so strong for Senator Clinton. She had her neck WAY out there about getting out of Iraq.
In one of the debates, she called out the fact that george bush was working behind the scenes to establish a permanent presence in Iraq. She called out for opposition to it.
If she had been the nominee and President, the pressure on her to get out of Iraq would have been enormous.
With McCain? We’ll be in Iraq forever. With Obama, we’ll be in Iraq forever. Obama’s supporters will grumble about it awhile. But then Barry will make a pretty speech and the faithful will shut up and sing.
Of course Bluejay, it’s really, really easy to be in opposition to what Bush did in Iraq.
That way, one does not have to have a plan, just be in opposition.
This is what Democrats have been running on since 2006, opposition.
No plans, just opposition.
Brilliant! That is, of course, if you really like political pandering and “do nothings” as the Democratic Congress has shown.
Taliban has taken over two towns in Afganistan, the forgotten war.
“Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war.”
Instead, the DemoRats repeatedly bent-over and funded the war EVERY TIME Bush asked for it!
Danm Liars!
Shame on the DemoRats for using the Iraq war for political gain. Lying to us about stopping it to gain votes.
And Pelosi LIED about bringing down Gas Prices!
Instead of decreasing, Pelosi DOUBLED the gas price!
Another Demo Lie!
“That way, one does not have to have a plan, just be in opposition.”
At least that is better than BushDaBum - no plan but charge in anyway!
Lets review the timeline of the liberals crying about the war:
-It was going to cost us 10,000 men and months to take Iraq because they were so well entrenched.
—–It took us less than a month and less than a 1,000 dead to take Iraq.
-We were never going to find Saddam.
—–We found Saddam and he was tried and executed by the Iraqg Government.
-The Iraq people were never going to vote or have elections.
—–Not only did they have elecions, but their turnout to vote was great.
-We were never going to capture or kill al-Zarqawi.
—–We did kill him.
-the Iraq military and security forces are never going to stand up on their own.
—-More and more every day the Iraq Security Forces are operating on their own and fighting battles. More regions in Iraq are under the control of the Iraq Security Forces.
-Then the liberals said we were never going to win the peace.
—-We implemented the surge and violence has gone down.
-Now they say we need a political victory….
At every turn the liberals have been crying about something and everytime we have been victorious.
The liberals do not want to win anything in Iraq, they just want to use it as a political hammer to beat the Republicans over the head with.
Retreat and surrender is all the Democrats have to offer.
Weeks, maybe months. Definitely not years …
Ben,
Thank you for the example of all the left has to offer. Retreat, Surrender, AND quips.
Uh, Nathan, I think that quip came from Rumsfield. Maybe Cheney? Not from me.
Wow…all that neocon armflailing and hot air has produced a helluva storm outside!
Will McCain get whipped because of his support for the war? You bet your boots. You can’t avoid the elephant in the room. The occupation of Iraq is based on a lie.
I’m not a theologian, but my reading of the Catholic doctrine of Just War makes indvidual support of the war a mortal sin.
“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”
Sounds like a mortal sin to me. Someone ask Sam Brownback what he thinks, or better yet, Sam should ask his Bishop.
I’m surprised this question hasn’t been formally addressed by the Church.
Hey Rupert Murdoch said that if we went to Iraq we would have cheap oil and gas!
What happened?
KansasDem,
I do believe that the Catholic Church did oppose the war in Iraq.
Where you are getting that it is a mortal sin to not oppose the war is beyond me though.
“Nathaniel” comes down from the mountain with –
I do believe that the Catholic Church did oppose the war in Iraq.
Where you are getting that it is a mortal sin to not oppose the war is beyond me though.
Yeah, “Nathaniel,” but then a lot of things are beyond you.
The Bishop should order that Brownback not be allowed Communion.
“bth” suggests –
“The Bishop should order that Brownback not be allowed Communion.”
Probably wouldn’t have any affect. Sam’s what they call a “Coyote Catholic.” If denied the bread and the wine he’ll chew on his leg and say, “This my blood and body!” and transubstantiate himself into the Body of Christ.
Tihart is Catholic too isn’t he?
No Holy Eucharist for him either.
But at least then the Bishop would be consistent in his treatment of politicians
I don’t know. John’s kinda old.
“John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign.”
That’s some pretty strenuous gymnastics there. Turn a 70 % unpopular war into a plus?
Maybe in his spare time, he could change down to up?
Pretty hard to justify “we have to be there” when there is no stake in it for the American people. We are occupying the second largest petroleum reserves on the planet and still the price of gas goes up?
Tell ya what John. Bring the troops home. Leave the private contractors. They asked to be there and I don’t really care if they come home anyway.
Iraq is just about all that McCain has with anyone other than the base. I don’t know why he won’t take the only good argument that the GOP has now (Drill now, pay less) That’s a pretty good argument for the GOP that may salvage their congress. The Dems should pay attention to that one.
Everything else is just to placate the base (people like Nathaniel, Regular, AmWay)
“Stability” is hardly a worthy political objective for the sacrifices US soldiers and taxpayers continue to make in Iraq. From an American perspective, stability matters only if its terms are consistent with the US national interest; stability for its own sake is meaningless.
Just what type of newly “stable” Iraq can emerge under the protection of American forces? There are several possibilities.
The first is that after the “moderate” Sunni Arabs (including Saddam Hussein’s former henchmen) wipe out Al Qaeda, and after the Shiite establishment consolidates supremacy on its side of the sectarian divide, there will be an Iraqi civil war. Like other civil wars, it will end, after months, years, or decades, either in compromise, the decimation of one side, or partition.
Another possibility is that the Arab Iraqis will reach some kind of compromise so as to focus their energies on destroying the US-backed Kurdish statelet and blocking Turkish inroads into northern Iraq.
Most likely, the Shiite Arab forces will retain control of most or all of Mesopotamia. Though historical animosities between Arabs and Persians are strong, even among Shiites, such an Iraqi government will probably continue to be penetrated by Iranian agents of influence and tilt toward Tehran.
Which of these plausible outcomes is a worthy political objective that could justify even a reduced level of American deaths, further damage to US global standing, and continued deferral of attention to other pressing challenges?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0617/p09s02-coop.html
Yep. Pope considers the war “Unjust.” That makes it a mortal sin and that’s cause to deny the Eucharist. I’m going to ask my priest to address it from the pulpit.
Yep. The Pope has made an infallible judgment. People who actively support the war, as in vote for it, are complicit and out of communion with the Church. Spread the word. A lot of devout Catholics are in danger of committing a very grave sin. (How could a guy like Bush show such contempt for the Pope and such an affinity to a war monger like the Rev. John Hagee?)
“John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.” From Catholic newspaper in Houston. http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
Yep. The Pope has made an infallible judgment. People who actively support the war, as in vote for it, are complicit and out of communion with the Church. Spread the word. A lot of devout Catholics are in danger of committing a very grave sin. (How could a guy like Bush show such contempt for the Pope and such an affinity to a war monger like the Rev. John Hagee?)
Pope John Paul to Bush, in person, directly:
“You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made since you visited me, first at Castelgandolfo on 23 July 2001, and again in this Apostolic Palace on 28 May 2002.”
The Pope to me is nothing more than a preacher in a robe. He has no significance to me whatsoever.
Anyone know how many millions of Catholic voters we have?
Maybe the Maliki regime will tell us to leave:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41047.html
Maliki raises possibility that Iraq might ask U.S. to leave
BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki raised the possibility that his country won’t sign a status of forces agreement with the United States and will ask U.S. troops to go home when their U.N. mandate to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year.
I think Malaki believes he’s strong enough now to take care of bus., and will be telling us to leave.
Ironically this could be the one way that McCain could turn Iraq to his advantage. Declare victory and leave.
Actually and with some eye rolling, tongue in cheek, Malaki and the Iraqi army could do a pretty good job of defendind themeselves.
Why?
Because there would be no restraints once the U.S. left.
If there is an uprising, Malaki could just unleash the Iraqi Army to kill every man, woman, child, cat, bat, rat, dog and chipmonk that was in the way.
Harsh, but that’s the reality.
Gee regular, that sounds like what we hanged Saddam for!
Harsh, but that’s the reality.
Malaki will turn out to be as repressive as Saddam, however, the bush wish is that he’ll be our tyrant.
I don’t much care who declares victory and leaves, just that it’s done. bush can have the “credit,” McCain can have the “credit” too. End it, declare whatever was supposed to be, complete and bring them home.
Then learn a lesson and never give any president that kind of confidence again. make sure it’s a vote to go to war, not leaving it to the president. bush hasn’t deserved anyone’s confidence and he probably isn’t the last egomaniac that will hold that office.
Good news? Bad news? I don’t know:
http://www.kansas.com/wireupdates/story/436788.html
Iraqi violence down; war’s root causes unresolved
“This relative calm is the calm before the storm,” said Mohammed al-Sheikhli, director of the Transitional Justice Research Center in Baghdad. “The worst violence is not over because the calm may collapse any moment.”
That may prove true. Most of the root causes of the war - notably the power struggle between Sunnis and Shiites- remain unresolved.
U.S. troops have managed to suppress the conflict in Baghdad, maintaining an uncertain calm behind massive networks of blast walls that separate rival communities.
Political progress has lagged far behind security gains, some of them made at the risk of sowing the seeds of future conflict.
Fear and mistrust lie just beneath the surface.
Because there would be no restraints once the U.S. left.
If there is an uprising, Malaki could just unleash the Iraqi Army to kill every man, woman, child, cat, bat, rat, dog and chipmunk that was in the way.
Harsh, but that’s the reality.
Regular are you saying that the U.S. troops would fight the Iraqis army?
It has been said that we lost Iraq by not pulling out once Saddam was taken down and continued to occupied
their country. The Iraqis listened to the U.S. as to why they were there and seeing that the conditions have been met and we stayed. The problem with the Iraq occupation is like if I were to kidnap you love one.
Now I will give them all they want, build them a beautiful home to live in. Feed them and cloth them in the finest fashion. Would that make it OK with you that I kidnapped them? No matter how good we will make it in Iraq it does not negate the fact we took over their country by force and imposed our rules over them.
So is the surge working? Its primary objective still looks out of reach:
“This relative calm is the calm before the storm,” said Mohammed al-Sheikhli, director of the Transitional Justice Research Center in Baghdad. “The worst violence is not over because the calm may collapse any moment.”
That may prove true. Most of the root causes of the war — notably the power struggle between Sunnis and Shiites_ remain unresolved.
U.S. troops have managed to suppress the conflict in Baghdad, maintaining an uncertain calm behind massive networks of blast walls that separate rival communities.
Political progress has lagged far behind security gains, some of them made at the risk of sowing the seeds of future conflict.
Fear and mistrust lie just beneath the surface.
“My Shiite neighbors were very good. They told me to leave because the militias would kill me,” said Firas Ahmed, 27, who fled Baghdad for the mostly Sunni city of Tikrit. “Despite the improvement in security in Baghdad, I cannot go back because I’m afraid the situation might deteriorate suddenly.”
Reasons behind the decline in violence include the U.S. “surge” troop buildup of 2007, the Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and a cease-fire called by al-Sadr last August.
When President Bush ordered the “surge,” U.S. officials said the goal was to bring down the violence so that Iraqi Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish politicians could forge power-sharing agreements necessary for long-term stability.
The lack of substantial power-sharing agreements has often been cited as a failure of the surge strategy.
No matter how you slice it or dice it, Bush’s Misbegotten War was started on a lie. It’s unjust, immoral and illegal. We’ll deal with that. The Iraqis will do whatever it is they do. Because they have dealt with a long string of invaders and would-be occupiers and because they are a civilization with thousands of years of culture, achievement and accomplishment, they’ll do just fine with Halliburton, Blackwater, KRB, the Lincoln Group et al.
Again to repeat, Catholics are in contempt of the Holy See and out of communion with the Church if they actively support Bush’s Misbegotten War.
Can you build it?
“Yes, we can.”
Sounds like Bob the Builder.
Do you know how to build it?
“Yes, we can.”
What about the price of Gas?
“Yes, we can.”
How about all the tax increases you propose?
“Yes, we can.”
The new Democratic Party Mantra:
“Yes, we can.”
What about pulling out the troops in Iraq?
“Yes, we can.”
What about the Democratic party being the recipient of the most money from millionaires?
“Yes, we can.”
What happened to the party of the people?
“Yes, we can.”
Will you overtax the people?
“Yes, we can!”
And put them in harms way?
“Yes, we can!”
Will you negotiate with terrorists?
“Yes, we can!”
Will you try to appease terrorists and our enemies like Chamberlain did before WWII?
“Yes, we can!”
What states or territories are you going to give away to appease them?
“Yes, we can!”
Nathaniel
Posted June 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
KansasDem,
I do believe that the Catholic Church did oppose the war in Iraq.
Where you are getting that it is a mortal sin to not oppose the war is beyond me though’
———
The Pope came out against the Iraq War. But I’ve been told my several devout Catholics who support the Iraq War that this is ONLY the opinion of the Pope and is not church doctrine. Therefore, the Pope can be ignored. Now how about that for devotion to your church leader?
Phantom
Posted June 16, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
Malaki will turn out to be as repressive as Saddam, however, the bush wish is that he’ll be our tyrant
Malaki the tyrant? How about an appeaser of Iran? Did anyone notice last week when Malaki made a personal trip to Iran to reassure them of their safety if and when the US puts bases in Iraq?
How come we have spent billions defending Iraq only to have their so-called leader reassuring our sworn enemy (according to Bush) of their safety from us?
Why is no one from the Bush Administration or Congress upset about this? After all, Bush himself said -either you’re with us or you’re against us-.
Apparently what success we might have mustered in Iraq for the moment has come at the price of ongoing Taliban victories in Afghanistan, including a raid on our detention facility that released 1500 or so Taliban fighters. We are failing to successfully maintain the fight on both fronts. Given that a Taliban base in Afghanistan would put us back to square ine in the real war on terror, we’re in real trouble here.
But Jed don’t you hear, according to the main leaders in this fight Iraq is the real war on terror! OBL said so and because of that Bush said so too. You don’t think that OBL would lie to us just to keep us tied up in Iraq do you?