Barack Apppeases his Base

In a NYT editorial, he 'refines his views' on the Iraq surge, again!

Here's some thoughts, Barry:
No matter your view on who lied prior to the action in Iraq. No matter how poorly planned and stupid the Bremer strategy was. No matter that Petraeus’ COIN strategy needed the involvement of the Sunni Sheiks who finally were fed up with Al Qaeda… the FACT is that AL Qaeda suffered a disaster in Iraq and this could NOT have been done in Afghanistan, even if we’d been able to hunt down and kill bin Laden within a year.

Because it took IRAQ to show the rest of the middle east who Al Qaeda really were.

Because in Afghanistan you couldn’t, and still can’t, easily tell Al Qaeda from the Taliban from just ordinary conservative Islamists.

I said before.. I’ll say again.. if the liberals REALLY wanted to make a meal of the surge, they would take credit for putting pressure on Bush and the Iraqi government.
But they aren’t doing that… they are only interested in showing Iraq is a failure and/or that our military is inept and criminal. Any way they can.

So I guess you have to choose whether Barry is more of just the same... always skirting the edge of lying for effect, or he's an idiot.

Whichever.. there's no hope of change; not for the better, anyway.

 

Oh my god, he refined his views! NO NO NO! That's unamerican! Changing your opinion is something pansy Europeans would do. As George Bush showed us, you make up your mind and you STICK TO IT, regardless of anything or anyone that might prove you wrong!

 

How about anything that proves you right? Or doesnt that count for 'Dubya'?

Barack is still saying he was against the surge, while pointing out it was successful in the end... what he's saying is 'Success dont count'

 

Re: RE: Barack Apppeases his Base

And yes, success shouldn't count. The factors Barack points out still hold true. It puts a strain on the military, this isn't the battlefield the US should be on etc. I really don't care about those factors, I care about this one factor. WE JUST SHOULDN'T BE THERE! They don't want us there, we don't need to be there and we shouldn't be there. Let the Iraqis take care of themselves.

 

RE: Re: RE: Barack Apppeases his Base

We should be there and that will become apparent... but the key is WE ARE THERE.

Much as you might want to see the US military defeated, it aint gonna happen... not in Iraq. And Barack wont see or make it happen either.

 

Re: RE: Re: RE: Barack Apppeases his Base

Name one good reason why we should be there that involves the best interests of Iraq? Not US INTERESTS but Iraqi interests.

 

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Barack Apppeases his Base

Apparently Pettyfog is in the 20% of americans who still blindly back our presence in Iraq, he's not going to change his mind because everything is awesome in Baghdad we're just being a "nation of whiners".

 

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Barack Apppeases his Base

If there is one thing this conflict has accomplished, then it may have been the end of the last two decades of work emphasizing high-tech strategies in war to the detriment of the soldier on the ground.

You can have stealth, bunker busters, bomb-detecting robots, satellite-guided drones, and any other advance an engineer or scientist can dream up. But these should support rather than supplant the importance of the manpower element. Our initial approach in Iraq suffered greatly from the slim force level put in place by Rumsfield and company. That doesn't let President Clinton off the hook: the "peace dividend" and subsequent decline in force levels share the blame with neo-con governance of Iraq after the defeat of Hussein.

I am glad Bush 41 had the professionals in place to assist the President when his Iraq strategy had proven faulty. The positive developments that have been made since the removal of Rummy and company have been amazing. Bottom line is that we should stay there and clean up the mess we helped create until the Iraqi people decide they can go on without us.

If Obama becomes President, then he'll no doubt make decisions that are incorrect. I hope it doesn't take him 2.5-3 years to realize his errors and start changing to fit the situation on the ground. Same goes for McCain.

I'm going to vote for Obama, but I like McCain and appreciate the contribution he made in shifting the strategic approach in Iraq. I think either man would bring a level of pragmatic thinking the office desperately needs at this point in time.

 

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Barack Apppeases his Base

Blindly? I actually READ what's going on... from boots on the ground.

I can make a case... and I think of the alternatives. What have you done other than repeat the meme?

You want me to requote what I said above? Or what?

 

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Barack Apppeases his Base

Well, since you READ, you've obviously noted that Afghanistan should be our central target and the clear focus of our strategy to root out global terrorism and the groups responsible for attacking us on 9/11. And to your point about not being able to tell the difference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who cares, they're both the enemy and the targets of NATO led forces in Afghanistan.

By the way, liberals don't want the military to look "inept or criminal", the military is and should stay apolitical. Liberals do love to paint the current administration as inept and criminal, and as national polls show, were doing a pretty good job.

 

I cant and wont argue with any of that, on face.

What I can do is parse out your points and remind you that the situation faced in Afghanistan is far more complex to deal with than in Iraq. Ironically because it's rooted in a far more basic culture.

Ask a Russian vet of the 80's war, I'd think.

Recent news indicates that 'al Qaeda' type recruited foreign fighters are now leaving Iraq, or not going there in the first place, in favor of Afghanistan.
Which is good news and bad news.
Zawahiri himself, no doubt with approval of bin Laden if he's still alive, made Iraq the center of focus for al Qaeda. They lost. BIG. Not specifically due to the surge but due to their strategy and tactics, alienating the locals.

What the surge did is provide the sort of security, logistics and community interface that should have been done {actually, it was done.. I mean should have been the PRIMARY FOCUS} from the outset.

In essence, Bremer Iraq Occupation relates to Brown FEMA Katrina. Both failures and both failed because they went by the bureaucrat's bible. Did you follow the news on the Iowa floods? Brown's FEMA of the Katrina era would have worked JUST FINE in Iowa. Think now of what we had to do in Kuwait after Desert Storm. Can you see the point?

I'm sorry if you see my equation of liberal with leftist anti-military agitators but if you dont like it, I suggest you {rhetorical you} stop singing from the same hymnbook.

A very large segment of the anti-war agenda is indeed rooted in Marxist/Maoist strategy. As for political poles, I gladly throw retrograde polemicists like Pat Buchanan under the bus... actually I'd like to tie him to some RR tracks.

 

You are correct in many of your points, but I should remind you that the goal of the Soviet forces in the 80s and the NATO forces today are far different.

The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan with the purpose of occupying the country permanently, whereas the purpose of NATO forces today is to help the Afghani people fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Soviets ran up against the Mujahadeen (which I'm sure is what you were refering to), but NATO forces have the advantage of working with the Afghani tribes to fight against the tyranny of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their interests.

The real problem in Afghanistan is going to come fom the Pakistani government's refusal to work with NATO to root out Al Qaeda and the Taliban along the Afghani-Pakistani border.

 

Which is what you are saying.... that your opponents are Criminals corrupt and ... what.. fascists?
Every time you come out with that diatribe, I am more and more proud to call myself a Neo-Con. but that's only for want of a better description.
You find it convenient to ignore I distinctly pointed out that the Bremer stategy was a waste. Other than the Iraq elections, I cant think of a single thing that came out positive with him in there.... what maybe pissed you off is that it's exactly what would have happened with a Dem in office.

I can justify every freakin action on historic grounds, why dont you try to look at it the same?
I'm a realist, you're an idealist desperate to prove your world view holds water.
To do that you'll apparently overlook every tie of your party to the Chavez' and Castro's of the world. And more, I could even accuse Liberals of elitist racism, the exact view of the Pat Buchanan/ Ron Paul factions. You dont think those ragheads are worth one drop of blood.
There's anti-war, and there's agenda driven anti-war. There are former military officers who should be stripped of all their records and medals for what they've said about our military.
You havent said much about the issue but I asume you are against the US being 'The World Police'. Who would you prefer? And don't insult us all by saying 'no one'. We're adults here, not dreamy Sociology 101 putz's.

The UN? They've NOW even managed to corrupt the WHO. Which was once their shining example of global action.

Put it AGAIN, this way. I'm scared to death what's going to happen to our country when Obama's elected. But I'll hope for the best.. sorta like everyone in that way.
Sorta like what I hoped for when Nancy Pelosi's congress came in. Well, we can try again and maybe......

But why not actually look at the goods when the Emperor shows his new clothes? Look at WHY you think what you think before you throw at me.

 

"And more, I could even accuse Liberals of elitist racism, the exact view of the Pat Buchanan/ Ron Paul factions. You dont think those ragheads are worth one drop of blood."- pettyfog

So let me get this straight, liberals are racist?

"There are former military officers who should be stripped of all their records and medals for what they've said about our military."- pettyfog

Just because you disagree with an officer or enlistedman doesn't mean they should be stripped of their hard-earned, well deserved medals. The only reason anybody in the military should be stripped of medals is treason. And short of Benedict Arnold in the Revolutionary War I can't name one officer since that has commited treason. I'm starting to question whether you support the troops or whether you just support the ones that agree with your radical viewpoint.

 

At the core of the leftist/liberal mindset is the 'victim mentality'. This is never more evident than in the Campaign season,.. which is just about all the time, now... in which we hear anecdotes about one 'victim' or another has been left out of the glorious enlightened society which the fortunate college educated and or prosperous share. Of course those anecdotes are usually either wrongly facted or just made up. Never mind - The assumption is that all poor, non-college grad people suffer at the whim of big corporation, big nation, big military, White European descent 'In-Crowd'.

They are unable to help themselves. 'Those poor darkies! We should send them our old clothes' mentality. Not to say that there no grounds for looking at those cases... it's the left that -usually- keeps the right honest.

But you tell me who made today's inner city youth incapable of dealing with adult life? Was it being under the thumb of 'the man' or was it government entitlement programs* -well intentioned or not- coupled with inability to enforce any sort of discipline within those services provided by agencies set up and operated by sympathetic government?
*aided by Rockefeller and Paleo-con republicans specifying that the poor family couldnt get those benefits with an able male in household.

The case can be made across many lines... you show me someone who complains loudly about separating church from state and I'll show you one who wouldnt mind at all seeing a poster on Jesus leading 'the poor minority' on a revolt against Rome.
Want evidence of that? What exactly are Rev Wright's sermons about, anyway!

The core conservative view is that everyone no matter where they came from or what their lineage is, should be offered an even chance at success is subverted.. they CANT have an even chance because of their skin color, doesnt EVERYONE know that?!!!
Soon enough this pervades the thinking of that victim class. And that thinking is now almost universal.
From the OJ decision, nuff said?

To a recent Ohio court case in which a black rural cluster community should be given free water utility hookups because they are black... never mind the white rural cluster communities, same income, same education, around them have to pay for the lines to be laid and hooked up. Because they are white.
Do you think THAT is going to 'help' or hurt race relations in that rural outpost. Citizens in that county are enraged and you would be too if it cost YOU ten thousand bucks for what others get free. PLUS raise the local tax and water rates once you pay for that hookup in order to cover the lawsuit award.

To Michelle Obama's senior thesis that her un-ease in the Princeton Community is somehow due to her being black, or is it she feels she doesnt belong because it was 'Affirmative Action' admission policies that got her in Princeton in the first place? Never mind any white high-IQ farm boy, on full academic scholarship, would feel just as much an alien.
Here's what I think: I think the Princeton student elite.. the ones who 'belong there' by lineage and tradition.. couldn't care less about the farm boy or the black inner city girl. They are who they are, but they aren't us.

At bottom line, terry, is the question: Did you even stop to think what I meant about Liberals being 'racist'? Did you bother to try to see examples of that? Or did you just jump to conclusions that I must be nuts. Or worse.

Look in the mirror.

 

First... I wasnt specific. Second - look at the pretenders at Winter Soldier, lok at the ACTUAL records of some accusing soldiers of crimes never happened. Like the guy who testified with Kerry before congress in the seventies. Like Kerry going to Paris to talk with the NVN.

I dont support troops commiting atrocities at all. Some WERE covered up, in fact. But some never happened.
Back to my point:
When you publicly, as an elected government official.. condemn your fellows on spurious hearsay, before they are even charged, let alone tried, what would YOU call that?

Jack Murtha - Haditha. Do your homework!

 

Now... back to the thread subject.

I find this interesting.... DON!

TimesOnLine: {Yes... the London Times, the only 'Times' worth reading for political view}
Eventually, we will all hate Obama too

The ending Summary:

Read it all!

 

Sometimes being America in the world is like being a military policeman in the Army -- no one likes us until they need something from us.

A good book that is in the same theme is In Defense of America, by Bronwen Maddox, an American journalist living in London. She writes (p.6) that Anthony Blinken, adviser to President Clinton and now Senator Joe Biden, argues that "a new wave of anti-Americanism was inevitable the minute that the Soviet Union fell".