Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThere's a lot less than meets the eye in the rumored US-Iraq accord.
On the surface, it would seem that the US and Iraqi negotiators have sought to cut the baby in half, splitting the difference between Barack Obama's 16-month timetable that would remove US combat forces by 2010 and McCain's sort-of timetable to have US combat troops out by 2013. If early reports are true, American combat forces would remain in until the end of 2011, roughly halfway between the "Obama plan" and the "McCain plan." In addition, as envisioned in both the candidates' plans, tens of thousands of additional US forces would remain in Iraq to train and equip the Iraqi armed forces, battle terrorists, protect the Rhode Island-sized US embassy, and help Iraq secure its borders.
Not much to get excited about. Here's the way to read what's going on behind the scenes.
It's tempting to see the US-Iraq talks as somehow related to the political imperative of the 2008 campaign, but that's myopic. There's a real American strategy at work here, and it's one that most of Obama's advisers and many of McCain's can sign on to. The primary objective is to preserve the US alliance with the ruling Shiite-Kurdish bloc in Baghdad, a task that is becoming more and more difficult as time passes. Driven by the need to secure a legal basis for US forces to stay in Iraq beyond December 31, when the UN authority expires, the United States desperately needs an agreement.
But to get such an agreement, they have to craft language that Prime Minister Maliki can live with. Earlier this year, it appeared as if the United States was going to cram an agreement down the throat of the Iraqi government. Because that government is so heavily dependent on US military and political support, the Bush administration might have been able to do just that. Apparently, however, cooler heads in Washington -- reinforced by insistent pleading from the Maliki regime -- convinced Bush and Co. to accommodate Baghdad. Nationalist pressure on Maliki is so strong that any agreement that simply extends the US mandate in Iraq without a timetable, and without restrictions on the activities of private security companies, would have fatally wounded the Maliki government. So negotiators are trying to craft an accord that Maliki can live with, but which preserves the independence of US forces.
The jury's still out on whether either side can pull this off. Anti-occupation nationalists in Iraq will scrutinize the accord, and it may or may not win the approval of Iraq's national assembly. Even so, given the slow-moving nature of the Iraqi political system, approval of the proposed pact might go right down to the wire, i.e., sometime in mid- to late December. And that's assuming that the United States can swallow some of the proposed Iraqi amendments. It's still possible that the entire edifice will collapse, and that the two sides will move to the fall-back position of an ad hoc accord that simply extend the mandate another six months. That would give the headache to the next president.
No matter. The real issue is what's happening on the ground in Iraq. Lots of crises are ready to boil over, and none of them depend on the success or failure of the US-Iraq accord.
First, there is the urgent issue of Kirkuk. No one has a solution for that one, although the United Nations is trying to come up with a square-the-circle plan that would neutralize the Kurds' overambitious scheme to absorb Kirkuk into Kurdistan. That problem scuttled the Iraqi parliament's efforts to come up with an election law for provincial elections, and it's no closer to being solved than it was in 2003. An eruption in Kirkuk could instantly spark a three-sided civil war.
Second, there is the ongoing Shiite assault against the Sunni bloc. Earlier this week, what was reputed to be a "rogue" Shiite security force attacked the independent, have mostly Sunni, political leadership of Diyala province northeast of Baghdad. More importantly, dozens of leaders of the so-called Awakening, or Sons of Iraq movement, are being assassinated or intimidated by Iraqi army and police units and Shiite death squads. In today's Times, under the headline "Iraq Takes Aim at Leaders of US-Tied Sunni Groups," a leader of the militantly sectarian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) -- part of Maliki's coalition and heavily supported by Shiite Iran -- is quoted saying: "The state cannot accept the Awakening. Their days are numbered." He's talking about 100,000 armed men, many former insurgents, who won't go quietly.
Third, there is the uncertain, and mysterious, silence of the Mahdi Army. Since last August, nearly a year, they've been standing down, and their strongholds (in Basra, Amarah, and Baghdad) have been nominally taken over by the Iraqi armed forces. But US military sources say that the Mahdi Army is keeping its powder dry, and that many of its fighters and commanders have retreated to Iran for training and re-supply. It isn't at all clear that Maliki and ISCI have won the battle against the Mahdi Army and Muqtada al-Sadr.
It's tempting, too, to see all the talk about a timetable for withdrawal, "aspirational" or not, as a rebuke to McCain. And maybe it is. But as long as Obama allows the debate to focus on whether or not the surge worked, McCain will win. (Recent polls already have started to show that while Obama beats McCain on most issues, he loses to McCain on the question of who is better suited to handle the war in Iraq.) The task for Obama is to hammer away at McCain's original judgment about the war, about his enthusiastic cheerleading for attacking Iraq from the late 1990s through March, 2003, and his connections to people like Randy Scheunemann, his top foreign policy adviser, who single-handedly led the charge for war as head of the neocon-inspired Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. That's a debate Obama can win.
RSS
For the Dreyfuss's of the world, progress in Iraq is just as bad as no progress.
The only acceptable announcement for people like him would be the US saying "we were wrong to go into Iraq. We have been defeated in our attempt to bring democracy to the ME and we will now come home immediately in shame and dishonor".
What a miserable human being you are Mr Dreyfuss.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 10:46am
lvliberty-No one is trying to bring democracy to the ME nor will anyone care what happens in Iraq once the oil runs out.Same goes for the rest of the ME.We are only interested in the region because they have oil and for no other reason.If they had no oil we would ignore the entire region.Wars are not fought to defeat evil or bring democracy to the world,although that sounds good.Wars are fought for materialistic considerations.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/22/2008 @ 10:54am
Our resident neo-cons in a bit of a pickle...
they want "success in Iraq" but a set timetable (even one a bit longer than Obama's) contradicts Bush and McCain and their own "Timetables are dangerous...we need open-ended committments in Iraq, else the terrorists will just wait us out!"
Watch for McCain to leap on this...he HAS to. Despite the 28% Club of HAPP/LVLIB/etc., Maverick John knows that he NEEDS to be behind a pull-out and a SIGNIFICANT one to compete in the Fall.
It's why he has gone from "100 year presence" to "most troops out by the time I finish my first term" to his "slip-up" a few weeks ago where he said he could see a 16 month timetable "working" (aka Obama's plan...which he quickly walked back).
If elected, he will FULLY embrace the "Obama/al-Maliki" timetable...claim "victory"...and relieved that the "Marxist appeaser 'magic' guy" didn't win...the Right will support what they once called "cutting and running" to try to win 2010/2012.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 10:58am
lvliberty-No one is trying to bring democracy to the ME nor will anyone care what happens in Iraq once the oil runs out.Same goes for the rest of the ME.We are only interested in the region because they have oil and for no other reason.If they had no oil we would ignore the entire region.Wars are not fought to defeat evil or bring democracy to the world,although that sounds good.Wars are fought for materialistic considerations.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/22/2008 @ 10:54am
I'll give you credit for one thing, on this issue you are consistent, consistently wrong, but consistent.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 11:14am
well Liver, lets look at results:
Saddam dead
No wmd's secured.
Billions of dollars missing
Billions more borrowed
Neighborhoods ethnically cleansed
Middle class/"intellectual elites" have fled the country, leaving thugs and the impoverished.
Fallujah flattened, operating under 24 hr security blanket requiring passes, checkpoints.
Corruption is rampant in and out of government
Terrorism world wide has seen no sustainable decrease in the number of attacks and dead.
The Iraqi "government" controls virtually no territory. They cannot pass legislation in a timely manner, nor can they enforce many of the laws they do mange to pass.
Shia/guvt death squads operate with near impunity
The Awakening Councils will go back to sleep when your tax dollars dry up.
Elections are due soon, signs point to chaos during these elections, and who knows if the insurgents will even recognize the results.
If you still wonder why so many "dead enders and ex Ba-athists" still won't accept US occupation, look no further than your own words last night:
"So Georgia is not allowed to defend themselves? Perhaps you would be happier if they just accepted Russian control and domination over them? You think they were just too uppity for wanting their freedom from Russia and reclaiming their historic sovereign status?"
Let us change some words;
So, Iraqis are not allowed to defend themselves? Perhaps you would just be happier if they accepted US control and domination over them? You think they are just too uppity for wanting their freedom from the US and reclaiming their historic Islamic culture and a status free from US intervention?
So, yes, it was a mistake from Day one in March 2003. You and yours had zero idea what you were doing.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2008 @ 11:20am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 11:14am
Your contention is that if Iraq had no oil you would still have invaded?
How does that play with the following threats/humanitarian disasters:
Darfur
N.Korea
Cuba
Why did the US military secure the Iraqi Oil Ministry before they secured hospitals, neighborhoods etc?
--
You can talk about the success of The Surge, I am sure it is rattling around your BB cage, but one truth I never hear mentioned is that another reason for a decrease in violence, among many, is that the death squads have been effective. They have killed hundreds of thousands of people, destroyed thousands of buildings. This leaves fewer targets, less need to kill more.
Sad measure of success.
The fact is, the US attacked a country that was no threat to us or it's neighbors, the admin had bad planning for the aftermath and Chimpy MCFlighsuit has not managed to defeat a third world country in less time than it took to defeat Japan, Germany, Italy and their allies in a war spread across most of the world. Primp and fluff all you want, the Islamic militant world sees how they can hold off the vaunted US military in two countries. Regardless of what the ultimate outcome is, the Bush Doctrine will never be a part of US policy again.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2008 @ 11:31am
lvliberty-I could make the same lame response to you,but I prefer facts and facts are that the ME has oil and that's why we care about what happens there and don't care about what happens in other places and aren't attacking those other places.Actions are what one goes by and not words.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/22/2008 @ 11:33am
Bush allies:
Tony Blair, defeated
Vladimir Putin, dictator is sheeps clothes, invaded another sovereign nation.
Mushareff, dictator, impeached, signed a peace treaty with the Taliban
Allawi, fled Iraq with bags of money
Chalibi, well, you really don't want me to go there.
You shall be known by the company you keep.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2008 @ 11:40am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 11:14am
LVLIB, speaking of consistancy...
you talk of "bringing democracy to the ME"...
yet have said upto FIFTY PERCENT of all Muslims could be terrorists?!?!?!?!
Or do you expect them to become "democrats" (small d) and convert to Christianity???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 12:22pm
Your article smacks of politics because you know that Mccain is right and Obama is, of course, wrong on when to pull the troops out.----Posted by frankgrits at 08/22/2008 @ 11:57am
Oh the irony. FRANK chastizing Mr Dreyfuss for "politics" when the ONLY reason he wants McCain elected (and praises him) is to get another politician he likes the Presidency four years from now!
BTW, remember THIS guy who wanted to pull the troops out???
"What is the reason for our being in Iraq again? I say we pull out starting right now.
Any comments, wingnuts?"----Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/04/2006 @ 4:19pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 12:30pm
Dreyfuss, are you hoping that Iraq blows up again? Because it sure sounds like it. Nowhere in your article (unless I missed it) do you give our troops credit for calming the violence via the surge. Nor do you credit McCain for pushing that policy...Posted by frankgrits at 08/22/2008 @ 11:57am
Frank, First of all, our troops have nothing to do with the lame government in control of Iraq nor the lack of governing by said lame government. Also, all the militia, AQ or whatever have to do is out wait the U.S. to take over when we're gone. Remember, they live there, we don't. Ever pondered that Sadre's guys might be doing that?
Our economy is in trouble and spending money on Iraq sure is hell isn't helping the problem.
Jumping all over Dreyfuss for asking legitimate questions is damned foolish on your part Mr Republican. If W and company had thought out what would have happened in Iraq before steamrolling in there like it was some John Wayne war movie, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
Simply put, U.S. soldiers are in another country. That particular country doesn't want them there....in some cases that country doesn't want them there to the point where they will continue to kill our soldiers.
Finally, you of all people shouldn't be accusing people of doing things that "smack of politics". All you give a crap about is Hillary Clinton even to the degree that you will sell your own country down the drain and vote for a guy you thought was a bad leader yourself.
We all need to look at what is really gong on in the world versus the rosy B.S. the media has been feeding us. What did McCain graduate out of the naval academny.... 894th out of a class of 899? The guys intellect is hardly the caliber we need to run this country
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/22/2008 @ 12:41pm
"Dreyfuss, are you hoping that Iraq blows up again? Because it sure sounds like it."-----Posted by frankgrits at 08/22/2008 @ 11:57am
"Everytime he talks about unpatriotic liberals and democrats and how they're invested in the defeat of America, he knowingly is including all those soldiers who are democrats and their families."----Posted by frankgrits at 10/05/2007 @ 1:42pm
Old FRANK here was talking about...
Limbaugh!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 1:01pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/22/2008 @ 11:57am
I'm sorry someone is trying to actually ask questions about Iraq instead of just blow their load about our troops in EVERY article. This seems to be Franks only argument when it comes to writing an article about whether or not things in Iraq are going well.
"Why do you hate the troops." Is his constant chide. Jesus you would think he has something better to do other than just repeat himself over and over.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/22/2008 @ 1:06pm
Ccc-I sent frank to his room without dessert(ignore feature) until he is done having his tantrum which will be in about 4 and a half more years.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/22/2008 @ 1:27pm
Watch for McCain to leap on this...he HAS to. Despite the 28% Club of HAPP/LVLIB/etc., Maverick John knows that he NEEDS to be behind a pull-out and a SIGNIFICANT one to compete in the Fall.
It's why he has gone from "100 year presence" to "most troops out by the time I finish my first term" to his "slip-up" a few weeks ago where he said he could see a 16 month timetable "working" (aka Obama's plan...which he quickly walked back).
If elected, he will FULLY embrace the "Obama/al-Maliki" timetable...claim "victory"...and relieved that the "Marxist appeaser 'magic' guy" didn't win...the Right will support what they once called "cutting and running" to try to win 2010/2012.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 10:58am
1st of all, neither Bush, McCain or conservatives like myself have ever opposed a withdrawal when conditions permit. From the beginning Bush has stated that we will stand down when the Iraqis are able to stand up.
2nd, the agreement contains the necessary caveats regarding situational changes and provides the ability for the US to go back in to Iraq as needed and requested.
3rd, McCain remains correct that we will most likely have a troop presence for a 100 years. That is simply a fact if history is any judge. That doesn't mean that the world could not change dramatically down the road. But you don't assume those kinds of paradigm shifts.
What we really have in the comments of Dems and the leftists is an expected criticism no matter whether an agreement was reached or not. Bush and McCain were damned if they did this and damned if they didn't with you folks; therefore, it is not relevant what you opine on their actions.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 1:40pm
LVLIB, speaking of consistancy...
you talk of "bringing democracy to the ME"...
yet have said upto FIFTY PERCENT of all Muslims could be terrorists?!?!?!?!
Or do you expect them to become "democrats" (small d) and convert to Christianity???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 12:22pm
I did not say that the number was either 10% or 50%; I was pointing out that whether the number is small or large, terrorism will continue to be a major issue for civilization no matter whether we are engaged in the ME or not.
Also
1. That number would be not indicative of every Muslim nation. That is an assumption you are making, not me.
2. Israelis aren't Christian. Japan is not primarily a Christian nation. India isn't Christian nation. These have adopted democracy without some conversion to Christianity, you suggest is necessary for a democratic nation
3. I see Jordan as a likely nation to become fairly democratic in the next 10-20 years. I think it also likely in Kuwait, Qatar, Lebanon (if they can get rid of Hezbollah), Iran if they can get rid of the Mullahs and Imams control, Pakistan has that potential. And I'm sure there are others that would follow that same path.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 1:40pm
1. No, Bush, McCain, guys like you have left the conditions upon our withdraw AMBIGIOUS (aka "victory" and various vagueries on what that means). When "16 months" or any time-frame was mentioned you and they balked at it. Now, with a 70% disapproval and want us out in less than 2 years poll numbers AND an election....suddenly time-tables aren't so bad.
2. Those same caveats of how we can "go back in" were MOCKED when Obama called for them by McCain...now he will embrace them.
3. McCain has noticeably ABANDONED "100 year presence"...or hadn't you noticed?
oh and 4. Bush and McCain were praised if they do, praised if they don't by guys like you in the 28% Club as well.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 2:31pm
I did not say that the number was either 10% or 50%; I was pointing out that whether the number is small or large, terrorism will continue to be a major issue for civilization no matter whether we are engaged in the ME or not.
Also
1. That number would be not indicative of every Muslim nation. That is an assumption you are making, not me. ----Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 2:03pm
Well is it or isn't it 50%, LL? And where is the proponderance of the "bad Muslims" versus the "good Muslims"?
Iran?...is it 90% "likely terrorists" and Jordan is "10%" "likely terrorists" (averaging 50%) and therefore, you'd feel safe in bombing the crap out of Iran, while good ol' Jordan will become Switzerland in a year or so?
And doesn't 50% "likely terrorist Muslims" STILL mean (given YOUR prescription for "winning the War on Terror") that ...
we have to kill 500,000,000 people???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 2:35pm
LL
"1st of all, neither Bush, McCain or conservatives like myself have ever opposed a withdrawal when conditions permit. From the beginning Bush has stated that we will stand down when the Iraqis are able to stand up."
Actually, it's about dumping this on the next administration so when it pulls out you can do another of your McCarthyite rants about how the liberals lost a won war.
"2nd, the agreement contains the necessary caveats regarding situational changes and provides the ability for the US to go back in to Iraq as needed and requested."
No, it provides an excuse for neo-cons to keep troops there as long as they like. Even when combat troops are withdrawn, it still permits us to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
" That is simply a fact "
It is nothing of the kind. It is an aspiration of neo-con strategists who would like to use Iraq as a permanent military platform and a venue for sweetheart oil deals. Comparisons to NATO or South Korea don't hold up since Iraq doesn't face any credible threats of a foreign invasion.
FG "Dreyfuss, are you hoping that Iraq blows up again? Because it sure sounds like it. Nowhere in your article (unless I missed it) do you give our troops credit for calming the violence via the surge. Nor do you credit McCain for pushing that policy."
Because the Sunnis went after al-Qaida before the surge started. The completion of the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad wasn't a product of the surge. Likewise, the failure of Maliki to include Sunnis in the security forces, his starting things up with said Sunnis and the failure to pass provincial elections/Kirkuk legislature indicate the failure of the political reconciliation that the surge was supposed to facilitate.
Posted by brunowe at 08/22/2008 @ 2:39pm
If they don't integrate the Sunni and al-Sadr into the political process, all hell will break loose. Our people need to get out of there yesterday. Whoever becomes President will serve only one term, if they stay in Iraq, and or, won' t bring jobs back to America. No Jobs! No American market! Fighting two wars with a volunteer army is a disaster in progress. These people are really stupid!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 08/22/2008 @ 2:45pm
Again, McCain elected?
Before the Inaugural, he'll be fully onboard for something IDENTICAL to the "Obama Plan" that he excoriated during the campaign.
He'll claim "conditions on the ground have changed since my original assessment"...and his neo-con base will claim "that's true" and suddenly flush down the memory hole all their talk of "cutting and running" and "Give them a time-table and the terrorists will simply wait us out!"
You can see that happening now...here...with our local neo-cons.
If McCain looks like "the last hold-out" (well after al-Maliki and the Iraqis have said "You need to leave by June 2010")....he'll look like a fool. And I suppose looking like a flip-flopper and/or hypocrite is a little better.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 2:58pm
repugnicants of mcsame's party fail to see their hypocrisy, that being there is no democracy here at home, that should be preeminent before preaching to and attacking sovereign nations; then they need to realize our complicity and duplicit involvement in the georgia crisis; even Russia calls us correctly hypocrites, they at least didn't travel halfway around the world, but were actually invited by south ossetians and abkhazians and georgia president aggressive posture modeling after cowboy bush backfired; the second largest contingent (of 2000) in Iraq in bush's false "coalition of willing" to be f &(*%^ by bush if you don't help....were sent back to be mollified by russia....apparently all our so called intelligence is centered only on iraq.....duuhhhhhhhhbya git r dun
nazi mcsame will ensure more of the same pig headedness, bloviating, and ignorance, which is unfortunately what some backwards neanderthals and exxon investors want!!!! yee haw
at least dems won't have to clean up repugnant's messes for once...it will be hilarious to see mcbush try!!!!!and fail!!!!!we are all in this together EXCEPT for those like mcpain have a dozen homes, deny it, then forget how many, then fail to admit they are worth 100 million dollars, then call their self-made opponent "elitist"...what a f*()^()* waste of flesh.......mcsame is....we DON'T DESERVE an Obama presidency, smart growth, diversified energy, relations with all countries, smart trade, increased jobs, increased educational opportunities, security...that an Obama administration would promise......GOP is all crooked, vote for more of the same, and you are an ignorant sheep....
Posted by jrs112 at 08/22/2008 @ 3:29pm
Mask and Brunowe's responses show the same tired leftist distortions and spin.
As I said, no matter which way Bush and/or McCain go in response to improvements in Iraq or a future escalation, people like yourselves will call it flip flopping.
At this point, I no longer even find your responses rising to the level of amusing.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 4:29pm
First of all, I'm a democrat, not a republican and Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with it. Her policy wasn't much different than Obama's except to say that she'd be more cautious.....Posted by frankgrits at 08/22/2008 @ 4:15pm
Frank,
You are a card to say the least. Read what you just posted and then please tell me again why you are voting for McIdiot. You are correct, there weren't that many differences between Hillary and Barrack, but the same can not be said of McIdiot. There are plenty of differences which is why, if you are a democrat, I'm shocked to see you vote for McCain.
You want to talk about qualified. Exactly what credentials (aside from being a senator of a state riddled with defense contractors) does John McCain have? Is he a law professor like Obama? Not. Can he answer questions by himself without having to get back to people after talking to his "staff"? No. Does he know that Iran is mostly Shiite, and Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni....Sunni as in AQ?! NO. And you think this dipshit is qualified to be the president of the United States? Why? Because he's older than dust, or because the Vietnamese army used him as a punching bag?
Frank, turn from the dark side. There's still time. Don't be seduced by the dark side of the force man.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/22/2008 @ 4:34pm
Frank, I have a question I am sure that enquiring minds here would like to know. If, by some minute chance Obama chooses Hillary Clinton as his running mate for vice president, and she accepts, will you still vote for the McCain / Condi Rice ticket?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/22/2008 @ 4:43pm
I would vote for Ralph Nader before I'd vote for Barry.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/22/2008 @ 7:47pm
Both Obama and McCain have lied to the people during these campaigns. I don't think McCain could possibly be as conservative as he's been acting trying to pull that 28% of the nutcase vote. Meanwhile, Obama has backtracked on what he's said and is trying to appeal to the middle ground voter. The one thing I do see that really pisses me off, is that McCain shifts his rhetoric to appease the far right and Obama shifts his rhetoric to appease the middle right.
I think both parties need to get a friggin compass to see where the majority of Americans sit, instead of the lobbyists, bankers, speculators and tycoons from other countries.
I saw an article at the CNN website that was showing how Jefferson and Adams smeared each other during their campaigns. What that tells me is that this country has been corrupt from day one. I guess that's the situation of the world. They play the game to act like the ordinary Joe, but in fact they only "shake hands" with the ordinary Joe for the vote only. Once the voting is over, they shift their loyalties back to the royals. In this case, the filthy rich...and that is both parties, not just the rethugs.
Even if Obama wins, I don't think any drastic changes will take place. Bills will be stalled no matter who's president, the endless filibuster game will go on, and the only legislation passed will help the welathy and screw us working people over like always.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/22/2008 @ 11:25pm
Did McCain name Condi Rice already? I must have missed that one.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/22/2008 @ 7:47pm
No, McCain hasn't selected anyone, but I was trying to think the way the rethugs do. If Obama is getting the lions share of the black voters and women voters as well, then a black woman vice president would be perfect.
Selecting Rice would of course also appease that 28% that McCain has to have voting and Rice basically worships the ground W walks on.
I think Rice ought to be sunk along with the tanker that was named after her, but it seems like a pretty logical step for the McCain folks to do. That is, if Condi is even interested in continuing to meddle in the affairs on behalf the oil industry. Her shameless performance in every position she's held in the Bush administrations are proof of what she stands for.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/22/2008 @ 11:33pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 10:58am
U NAILED IT!
RESIDENT DEADZONE CORPORATE ABUSE NEOCONS:
Your guy (4 More years McCain) has been caught Clintonizing: LYING and COVERING UP.
Pull that lever!
$
Posted by winyahn at 08/22/2008 @ 11:46pm
WHAT THE HELL ARE COMBAT FORCES??????????????????
ARE THERE NON-COMBAT FORCES, TOO?????????????
WOULD IT BE WISE FOR NON-COMBAT FORCES TO SAY WITHOUT HAVING COMBAT FORCES NEARBY????????
AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE NON-COMBAT COMBAT MERCENARIES????????
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 02:30am
We have been defeated in our attempt to bring democracy to the ME
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 10:46am
what the fuck? you actually believe that tripe?
the iranians had democracy in 1954 but some greedy people took it away.
for oil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 02:36am
3rd, McCain remains correct that we will most likely have a troop presence for a 100 years. That is simply a fact if history is any judge.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 1:40pm
not a chance. the oil will be long gone by then.
what, you want more sand? in 100 years, the arizona desert will extend to montana.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 02:38am
So, yes, it was a mistake from Day one in March 2003. You and yours had zero idea what you were doing.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2008 @ 11:20am
you love america.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 02:40am
2nd, the agreement contains the necessary caveats regarding situational changes and provides the ability for the US to go back in to Iraq as needed and requested.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 1:40pm
all with god's blessing, right?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 02:43am
I was pointing out that whether the number is small or large, terrorism will continue to be a major issue for civilization no matter whether we are engaged in the ME or not.
posted by the manufacturer of children's toys.
so why bother being in the middle east?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 02:46am
Iran if they can get rid of the Mullahs and Imams control,
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/22/2008 @ 2:03pm
damn it! they already had a democracy and kermit roosevelt et al. took it away.
for oil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 02:54am
Thanks to American servicemen everywhere around the world for always doing the impossible in impossible situations much to the chagrin of all their detractors!
Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/23/2008 @ 12:23am
you mean like these detractors:
"Thousands demonstrated against the US military on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa on Sunday, following a string of incidents involving US personnel, including alleged rapes. Despite pouring rain and harsh wind, demonstrators took to the streets, raising their fists and shouting slogans in protest over the heavy US military presence on the island."?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/23/2008 @ 03:00am
No matter who is president, the U.S. empire will continue.
Posted by philbq at 08/23/2008 @ 09:38am
Posted by frankgrits at 08/22/2008 @ 4:21pm
Quite simple, FRANK. You attacked Mr Dreyfuss for "hoping that Iraq blows up again? Because it sure sounds like it."
Which is EXACTLY what Limbaugh was doing when you criticized him (rightfully) for him talking "about unpatriotic liberals and democrats and how they're invested in the defeat of America".
"hoping Iraq blows up"..."invested in the defeat of America".
You have become Rush.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 10:17am
You have become Rush.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/23/2008 @ 10:17am
Yep. I give up. I thought maybe, just maybe Frank would snap out of it, but if he truly buys into the false rhetoric of McIdiot, there's no conversing with him. No matter what, he's going to find reason to find fault with Obama and use slight of hand to support our neocon military industrial complex. So, I guess if you successfully invade other countries to take their oil under the cover of outing a bad guy, that's OK.
What the hell gives the United States of America the right to decide for other countries what kind of goverment they'll have, who runs their countries, and what they'll do with their resources? That's what all of this is about. The neocons are all about global domination along with global control of resources and nothing more. There is no end to their greed.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/23/2008 @ 10:37am
I know that John McCain will honor our fallen and see this thing to the final conclusion.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/23/2008 @ 12:38am ================================= Oh man, you really are drinking the kool-aid, aren't you? What about the 600,000 to ONE MILLION Iraqi dead? They don't matter do they? "final conclusion"? What, 2 million dead Iraqis? The "surge" is "working" only to the extent Petraeus is bribing and arming the "insurgents" (read Iraqi citizens) - and he is. It's only a matter of time before the screw turns again - on US!
With respect to McCain, he has said that he doesn't mind staying in Iraq for "one-hundred years" or "10,000 years" - both direct quotes from him. Hyperbole, you say? 10,000 years, 100 years, 10 years, 3 more years - all are too, too much and too long. It's not our country, it's not our oil, and it's not our business. We need to get out, and get out NOW! Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other 150+ nations that we have SOFAs with, along with our 1000 overseas military bases is all about EMPIRE. We are bankrupting the nation financially (NINE
Posted by Mossad at 08/23/2008 @ 11:06am
I know that John McCain will honor our fallen and see this thing to the final conclusion.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/23/2008 @ 12:38am ================================= Oh man, you really are drinking the kool-aid, aren't you? What about the 600,000 to ONE MILLION Iraqi dead? They don't matter do they? "final conclusion"? What, 2 million dead Iraqis? The "surge" is "working" only to the extent Petraeus is bribing and arming the "insurgents" (read Iraqi citizens) - and he is. It's only a matter of time before the screw turns again - on US!
With respect to McCain, he has said that he doesn't mind staying in Iraq for "one-hundred years" or "10,000 years" - both direct quotes from him. Hyperbole, you say? 10,000 years, 100 years, 10 years, 3 more years - all are too, too much and too long. It's not our country, it's not our oil, and it's not our business. We need to get out, and get out NOW! Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other 150+ nations that we have SOFAs with, along with our 1000 overseas military bases is all about EMPIRE. We are bankrupting the nation financially (NINE TRILLION dollar national debt!), and we are already a nation bankrupt morally. McCain, along with his neocon advisers, and their idolatry of endless war (and wars) are dangerous to the very survival of the United States. No exaggeration whatsoever!
Posted by Mossad at 08/23/2008 @ 11:11am
I know that John McCain will honor our fallen and see this thing to the final conclusion.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/23/2008 @ 12:38am ================================= Oh man, you really are drinking the kool-aid, aren't you? What about the 600,000 to ONE MILLION Iraqi dead? They don't matter do they? "final conclusion"? What, 2 million dead Iraqis? The "surge" is "working" only to the extent Petraeus is bribing and arming the "insurgents" (read Iraqi citizens) - and he is. It's only a matter of time before the screw turns again - on US!
With respect to McCain, he has said that he doesn't mind staying in Iraq for "one-hundred years" or "10,000 years" - both direct quotes from him. Hyperbole, you say? 10,000 years, 100 years, 10 years, 3 more years - all are too, too much and too long. It's not our country, it's not our oil, and it's not our business. We need to get out, and get out NOW! Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other 150+ nations that we have SOFAs with, along with our 1000 overseas military bases is all about EMPIRE. We are bankrupting the nation financially (NINE TRILLION dollar national debt!), and we are already a nation bankrupt morally. McCain, along with his neocon advisers, and their idolatry of endless war (and wars) are dangerous to the very survival of the United States. No exaggeration whatsoever!
Posted by Mossad at 08/23/2008 @ 11:12am
Iraq. No matter how you look at it or which side of the fence you're on, It's pretty hard to justify this type of bloodletting if you have any sense towards being Christian, or spirituality at all. The final judgment will come from much higher than any of us.
Posted by snod3400 at 08/24/2008 @ 10:16am
Iraq. No matter how you look at it or which side of the fence you're on, It's pretty hard to justify this type of bloodletting if you have any sense towards being Christian, or spirituality at all. The final judgment will come from much higher than any of us.
Posted by snod3400 at 08/24/2008 @ 10:16am
amen!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2008 @ 11:33am