EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bush to Hasten Iraq Troop Withdrawal in Bid to Help McCain Win White House
WASHINGTON - President George Bush wants to speed up the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq, a move that could help to quell the anti-war anxieties of voters before November's presidential election.
Drawing down large numbers of troops would enable the Republican candidate, John McCain, to say that his forceful military strategy for Iraq was correct. Alone among Republican and Democratic politicians, he consistently urged Mr Bush to take on the insurgents with extra forces. He is now attacking his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, for preaching policies of defeat by calling for a withdrawal in 16 months.
American commanders want to reduce their deployment in Iraq to ease the strain on the military and free up troops for Afghanistan where they are taking a beating from the Taliban and other militants.
Nine American soldiers were killed and 15 wounded yesterday in the bloodiest day in three years for US forces in Afghanistan. In a multi-pronged attack, revealing sophistication and daring, militants overran a remote US base near the Pakistan border on the front lines of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. It was the deadliest on US forces in the country since 16 combat troops were killed when their helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade in the same area in 2005.
Concerns are also growing that Mr Bush wants to release fighting forces before he leaves office in January, in the event of conflict with Iran.
By the times of Mr Bush's departure, three of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could have left the country, say government and military officials. That would still leave up to 130,000 frontline troops in the field - a reduction from the 170,000 deployed in the "surge" last year.
A rapid US withdrawal would mark a sharp turnaround in the fortunes of the Bush administration from only two years ago, amid the bloody slaughter of growing numbers of Iraqis and American soldiers. Anti-war feeling is at fever pitch in the US and the military is said to be near breaking point from its extended combat deployments.
This was the climate in which Mr Obama, a fierce opponent of the war, shot to prominence to seek and eventually win the Democratic presidential nomination. The Illinois Senator will head to Baghdad in a few weeks to take soundings from Iraqi leaders and US military commanders about a withdrawal. He is taking with him the Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a fierce critic of Mr Bush's policies in Iraq with him as he seeks to arrange the orderly removal of all US combat troops if he is elected president in November.
Mr Obama's plan is to remove one or two brigades every month, but he says that he will be guided by military commanders on the ground. Mr Hagel has sometimes been suggested as a possible vice-presidential running mate for Mr Obama, who needs to reach out to Republican voters if he is to expand the Democratic vote and win the White House. As the conditions in Iraq improve, the government and armed forces have shown an ability to combat insurgents that would have been unthinkable a short time ago. The number of attacks on American and other forces has dropped sharply and is now down to the levels of 2004 when the insurgency was gathering steam.
The faster pullout being considered by President Bush would free US troops for duties in Afghanistan where the Taliban and other insurgents are growing in confidence and strength. In the past three months more American soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq as violence has declined.
"As the Iraqi security forces get stronger and get better, then we will be able to continue drawing down our troops in the future," the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, said last week.
General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is reviewing troop levels and officials say that he is expected to take a more cautions approach and recommend smaller reductions in forces.
© 2008 The Independent
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
52 Comments so far
Show AllBeat the elites or the elites will beat you. Simple choice.
More like "Eat the elites, before they finish chewing off you leg!"
It's funny, I seem to recall the US playing the troop numbers up and down before the last election. It's funny how the memory plays tricks on you.
Do you think Iraqis, or the world for that matter, care whether America occupies Iraq with one, two or three hundred thousand troops? They are under foreign military rule either way, and your taxes are paying for it, either way.
"General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is reviewing troop levels and officials say that he is expected to take a more cautions approach and recommend smaller reductions in forces."
Petraeus knows deep down what a bloody and humiliating disaster Iraq has been for all concerned. He knows. But he's professional military and they make their bones in war, not in peacetime. Right now, this is the only war around (Afghanistan is a strategic nightmare more than a "war") and he will come down on the side of death in order to keep "The Show" going. For professional soldiers, peacetime is like a baseball player playing in single A. War is the Major Leagues. Want to be a future 4 or 5 star general? War is where you demonstrate that you have what it takes. What a bummer for the Iraqis.
The "surge" was a red herring that turned the debate from stay/leave to how-many will stay.
The administration is adroit at this type of maneuver. Note how they've diverted the debate from alternative energy and conservation to where to and not to drill.
The media and the people fall for their tricks over and over.
"Fresh Iraq troop cuts hinge on security: Petraeus"
Security? The 'security' of the GOP plunder of America, Iraqis and Evangelical farmboys count for nada.
It's not going to cost $700b a year now, only $699b a year. What would you do with a billion dollars? Buy 3 batteries and give the remaining $100m to Halliburton.
With the Iraqis saying FU to a long-term SOFA, drawing down the forces now is the only way Bush will ever have anything "nice" said of him.
News Alert;
There is distortion and manipulation of the news, which we can see, manipulating events to affect the news (as suggested here), which we can deduce, and withholding of the news which we don't see - unless sites such as CD pick them up and we know to go there. Here's another major story, the kind which people need to see if they are to understand what is going on in the world, that was seriously underreported.
The New York Times (7/2/08) and Cleveland Plain Dealer (7/4) carried the story "Steelworkers form global union", which began
"The United Steelworkers signed a merger agreement with the largest
labor organization in Britain and Ireland to create what union leaders
said would be the world's first global union. The new union, to be
called Workers Uniting, will represent more than 2.8 million workers
in the steel, paper, oil, health care and transportation industries.
Officials said the union plans to hold trans-Atlantic negotiations
with companies, including the oil conglomerate BP and ArcelorMittal,
the giant steel maker."
The story was also covered by the BBC, Time Magazine, the Huffington
Post, Yahoo and FOX Business, and rated two sentences in the Christian Science Monitor.
It was apparently not carried by AP or UPI, or reported by ABC, CBS, BBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Detroit Free Press or Chicago Tribune. Or much of anyone else. It is a fair guess that most news-watchers - myself included - did not see this story.
We can all help break the power of the media barons to block the news by passing this and other "silenced stories" along. Copy this news alert and post it on websites and blogs, send it to your friends and the lists you are on, with an appeal to pass it on again.
Could there be anything more disingenuous than cutting forces in Iraq just to help the Grey Stiff get elected? But then, we've known for years the Bush Administration considers military personnel in Iraq as just pawns on a real-life chessboard.
News Alert;
There is manipulation of the news, which we can see, and withholding of the news which we don't - unless sites such as CD pick them up and we know to go there. Here's another major story, the kind which people need to see if they are to understand what is going on in the world, that was seriously underreported.
The New York Times (7/2/08) and Cleveland Plain Dealer (7/4) carried the story "Steelworkers form global union", which began
"The United Steelworkers signed a merger agreement with the largest labor organization in Britain and Ireland to create what union leaders said would be the world's first global union. The new union, to be called Workers Uniting, will represent more than 2.8 million workers in the steel, paper, oil, health care and transportation industries. Officials said the union plans to hold trans-Atlantic negotiations with companies, including the oil conglomerate BP and ArcelorMittal, the giant steel maker."
The story was also covered by the BBC, Time Magazine, the Huffington
Post, Yahoo and FOX Business, and rated two sentences in the Christian Science Monitor.
It was apparently not carried by AP or UPI, or reported by ABC, CBS, BBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Detroit Free Press or Chicago Tribune. Or much of anyone else. It is a fair guess that most news-watchers - myself included - did not see this story.
We can all help break the power of the media barons to block the news by passing this and other "silenced stories" along. Copy this news alert and post it on websites and blogs, send it to your friends and the lists you are on, with an appeal to pass it on again.
News Alert;
There is distortion and manipulation of the news, which we can see, manipulating events to affect the news (as suggested here), which we can deduce, and withholding of the news which we don't see - unless sites such as CD pick them up and we know to go there. Here's another major story, the kind which people need to see if they are to understand what is going on in the world, that was seriously underreported.
The New York Times (7/2/08) and Cleveland Plain Dealer (7/4) carried the story "Steelworkers form global union", which began
"The United Steelworkers signed a merger agreement with the largest
labor organization in Britain and Ireland to create what union leaders
said would be the world's first global union. The new union, to be
called Workers Uniting, will represent more than 2.8 million workers
in the steel, paper, oil, health care and transportation industries.
Officials said the union plans to hold trans-Atlantic negotiations
with companies, including the oil conglomerate BP and ArcelorMittal,
the giant steel maker."
The story was also covered by the BBC, Time Magazine, the Huffington
Post, Yahoo and FOX Business, and rated two sentences in the Christian Science Monitor.
It was apparently not carried by AP or UPI, or reported by ABC, CBS, BBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Detroit Free Press or Chicago Tribune. Or much of anyone else. It is a fair guess that most news-watchers - myself included - did not see this story.
We can all help break the power of the media barons to block the news by passing this and other "silenced stories" along. Copy this news alert and post it on websites and blogs, send it to your friends and the lists you are on, with an appeal to pass it on again.
oops...
This is proof positive that it's all about politics and "winning"--A GAME! Fuck the Iraqis...Fuck the soldiers (I'm SICK of the word "troops!")...and FUCK everyone NOT of our elite-ness.
"...help to quell the anti-war anxieties of voters..."
-pull some troops out for the saps, send them back in after the election
attacking his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, for preaching policies of defeat by calling for a withdrawal in 16 months.
-pure bull
Recently The Post reported rather ominously:
Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be "responsible" in handling Iraq — rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out — to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance.
"...military and free up troops for Afghanistan.."
-Obama has been saying this for awhile, withdraw them from Iraq, redeploy them to Afghanistan.
Obama: "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there."
"...Nine American soldiers were killed and 15 wounded yesterday..."
-Democrats, including Obama, have blood on their hands for not stopping the war when 41 Senators could halt it by filibustering as Republicans routinely do to stop Democrats.
"A rapid US withdrawal would mark a sharp turnaround in the fortunes of the Bush administration..."
-smoke and mirrors, leaving 130,000 plus over 100,000 mercenaries
"...a fierce opponent of the war, shot to prominence..."
-a crock of shit, he was against it when he wasn't a Senator. He has always, and just recently voted to continue funding it. Only a DPA (Democratic Party apologist) can explain how it is an opponent of the war votes to fund it. You have to hand it to them, this is not an easy feat.
"...remove one or two brigades every month, but he says that he will be guided by military commanders..."
-pure bullshit, read the fine print weasel:
From Obama's website:
"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
-how many he conveniently doesn't say, but it will be a bunch for sure
"...he will be guided by military commanders on the ground..."
-why? I thought the president is the Commander in Chief. Are the Republicans and DPAs really going to argue that it is more dangerous to board an airplane and leave Iraq than stay there?
"...expected to take a more cautions approach..."
-Now why doesn't this come as a surprise?
"As the Iraqi security forces get stronger and get better, then we will be able to continue drawing down our troops in the future,"
-spin, sure. We'll leave when we get what we came for, lucrative oil contracts and enriching the MIC
YES! JLocke..YES!
Income Tax people..YOU pay the tab...YOU pick up the fuggin CHECK!..They EAT and ET and consume EVERYTHING with VORACIOUS appetite..and yo say..'Don't worry...Your money aint no good here..Lemme pick up the check...AND i'll leave the TIP too.."
Yeah..all you who pay..OUT OF FEAR!...you are COLLABORATORS..shall we shave your head if this goes that far?
All we would have to do is..LOOK AT WHO PAID THEIR INCOME TAX FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS..TO SUPPORT AND FINANCE THE BUSH DOCTRINE OF GLOBAL DOMINATION AND DEATH...SIMPLE AS THAT..WHO PAID..
if you PAY..you are COMPLICIT..YOU paid for the TORTURE...you paid for the BULLETS that killed so many civilians in Falujah..YOU pay the OUTRAGEOUS salleries of the Mercenary THUGS of Blackwater, Aegis..et al..YOU!
And you RATIONALIZE..you are AFRAID!..you PRETEND that it isn't being done JUST LIKE THAT!...you pretend that you are supporting Social Security..or some other bizarre rational...when the REALITY is that more than 60% of EVERY tax dollar is spent for WAR..and that does not..NOT include the "Black Budgets"..YOU are paying for all of it..WHY?
The SPIES..the WATCH LIST..now at 1,000,000 by the way..and GROWING by 20,000 names a MONTH....a MONTH! And YOU are paying for that..PAYING to have Fedeal Loyalist Clerks out there...ADDING NAMES..INDESCRIMINATELY..to a "watch list"....
This is the FACT folks: YOU ARE PAYING..KNOWINGLY..FOR THERE IS NO EXCUSE..FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR FREEDOM, FOR THE DEATH AND TORTURE OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS...YOU KNOW YO ARE FINANCING THIS..AND YET..YOU CONINUE TO DO IT...WHY?
HOW can you do this? HOW?
How can you KNOWINGLY provide the ECONOMIC SUPPORT...that is VITAL to this ILLEGAL WAR? Without YOUR suuport..the war COULD NOT GO ON! period!
And yet..you all TALK...and TALK...march..write letters...TELECOM IMMUNITY should...SHOULD be enough proof that they DO NOT care about your "opinon" at all..AT ALL!
They ONLY care about MONEY..Congress is supposed to provide the "CHECKS AND BLANCES" in the form of ECONOMIC VIGILANCE...in one form or another...
CONGRESS has ABDICATED that responsibility..it is now up to WE THE PEOPLE to take ACTION..to IMPOSE OUR OWN ECONOMIC SANCTIONS..OUR OWN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY...TAKE CONTROL OF OUR OWN FINANCIAL DESTINY..AND THE FINANCIAL DESTINY OF OUR NATION..IT IS OUR MONEY...IT IS OUR CHOICE HOW IT GET'S SPENT...JOIN IN TAX STRIKE...OR SEE YOUR FREEDOM PERISH..IT IS REALLY..THAT SIMPLE...
glad to see ONE person finally GET IT!
Thanks JLOCKE123..THANK you..made my DAY..that make TWO of us who..aint gonna live in fear..and are NOT financially responsible for the deaths and torture of THOUSANDS..hundreds of thousands..NOT IN MY NAME...oops..NOT IN OUR NAMES...
LIVE FREE...DO NOT LIVE IN FEAR!
Good for Bush.
Since the democrats were more interested in winning reelection than doing the right thing, let them lose. Its not like they are doing many favors when it comes to left leaning issues anyway.
Fisa etc.
Obama is pro-war, he voted to funded it. He's a Democrat, which means 'watch what they do, not what they say.'
Anything the Green Party nominates, even a carnivorous plant from South America, is a far better choice than the two we have now, McSame and Obaminable. Of course, I keep saying that Obaminable is McSame with a tan, a younger, more powerful liar.
kelmer July 14th, 2008 3:34 pm
I second that. Even a complete moron like Bush can out-smart the Democrats.
Stop referring to these creatures as 'elites'. They are little more than parasitic lice. Lice with a lot more money than they deserve.
DDT
jcrumb is right. We don't have the balls to risk going to jail, especially if you have children. There may be another way that is less risky. We pay only the portion that isn't going to war and agree to pay the difference when they stop the war.
Playing with troop levels to improve his chances of being elected, yet having no real plan for ending the war, also sounds like Obama's plan.
We must do whatever it takes to keep McCain out of the White House---anything. Vote Obama
That's right. Worry about McCain being elected. Forget about the people dying over there in Bush's ill-begotten war. What a miserable disgrace!
Nietzsche July 14th, 2008 5:25 pm
We must do whatever it takes to keep McCain out of the White House—anything. Vote Obama.
-Why?
Who says voting for Obama will end the war?
From Obama's website:
He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
That means if al Qaeda doesn't quit, which it won't, Obama keeps troops in Iraq.
Your choice: War or War-lite That's what a vote for a Democrat or a Republican brings. If Democrats were against the war why don't they stop it? They have the votes.
Just 5% for Greens will get us federal matching funds! Vote for Cynthia McKinney! Go Greens!
"Mr Obama, who needs to reach out to Republican voters"
The media is following a familiar pattern asserting the relevancy of matters that have long proven red herring diversions of public attention away from what is important - the public will. Witness your fellow readers dumping their own personal needs to attend to the the needs of these monstrous self-perpetuating politcal, economic and military machines that oppress, enslave and murder/maim people and the biosphere. God Bless the Lesser Evil of America!
Sorry, folks. You all just wore me out today.
AS if reducing our troops in Iraq would enable McCAin to win the white house. What?, for a few months before more troops are sent in. And what does Bush plan to do with Iran and Israel. These reports sound schizo and what we have here are some candidates and officials who seem dubious regarding their stance. What a crock.
jcrumb is right. Sooner or later 300 million US citizens will have to warm up to the idea of voting their self-interests (i.e. the public interests) in all of their exchange/association, realizing that every individual shares a civic responsibility, and that the participation of every individual matters. Lacking such a movement these diabolical machines that US citizens are mindlessly fueling today are going to crash into something and the people are going to be burned badly. They're already on the skids, with lost souls and enslaved to the tune of thousands of dollars each year - each!
Bush and his dasdardly Republican party have already ensured that the United States will not recover economically for 30 years. Together they have destroyed our way of life. What we do in Iraq now is irrelevant. Show trials for all these bastards!
Cut troops in Iraq cause of election game playing? I don't think so! Iraq wants a deadline for troop withdrawal.......They aren't playing "the game" anymore by our rules.....and Afghanistan is largely under Taliban rule. OPPPS! We didn't destroy them before we invaded Iraq and now we should be surprised they are powerful once again? Supposedly, troop withdrawal from Iraq is only a shift to troop buildup in Afghanistan. A year after we pulled most troops from Afghanistan and our invasion of Iraq, news was, the Taliban was regrouping & restrengthening their power amongst Afghanistan people. I am not sure of the timing, but I think it was a year or so ago the lead NATO dude in Afghanistan said that we had maybe six MONTHS to win over the Afghan people or we had little hope of winning them over cause of the Taliban influence.
Really! What is the purpose/point of this article we are responsing to? Cutting troops in Iraq to help McCain win an election? Cutting troops so we can use them in Afghanistan? Cutting troops cause we might need them in Iran? Cutting troops cause IRAQ wants us to set a deadline for our troop withdrawal? All of the above? Whatever! I kinda think any troop withdrawal that might happen, will not happen for the sole purpose to bring them home and keep them home.....IF they come home at all.
tailcap: "pull some troops out for the saps, send them back in after the election"
They're dropping the price of gasoline for the election too. Such a practice should be prosecuted but won't be since the Demoks hunched over and fell into the extreme right gutter.
I would love it if troops were truly and completely withdrawn; but it's just another lie to get McCain elected. At most, some troops will be temporarily withdrawn, only to be called back to active duty as soon as McCain is sworn in.
How stupid do they think we are?
The troops could be replaced by more mercenaries therefore allowing Republican contributors to get rich on the taxpayers dime without using soldiers they will send to help the special ops already in Iran.
If Iran catches any American special ops in their country they should release them to Sweden or Switzerland with the understanding that they have to stay until the US agrees to settle the dispute with Iran in the General Assembly of the UN not the Security Council.
For more than one year I have argued that Senator Obama is a dangerous imperialist who may get us into new or more wars if he becomes our next President. Now the cat is out of the bag. Obama will take ALL troops, not just combat units out of Iraq to feed an "Obama-surge" in Afghanistan. He recommends that 7000 are sent pronto.
"Mr Obama, a fierce opponent of the war"
-we are supposed to accept it as good coin that he is
I love gymnastics, especially mental gymnastics. I would like a DPA (Democratic Party apologist) to explain to us how Obama can be an antiwar candidate if he votes to fund wars and wants to move troops from one front to another rather than fund a one-way ticket home for all of them-NOW?
Why hasn't the "antiwar candidate" tried to lead a drive to filibuster funding to actually end it? DPAs must think we are really stupid. Any DPAs out there up to the task?
Seems to me they are getting kicked out of Iraq by the Iraqis and the Repugs are going to find a way to capitalize on it and take credit for it. Isn't the current deal that they can get their no-bid oil contracts if they agree to a withdrawl timetable? And, of course, how convenient to let the troops rest up before they attack Iran, right after they steal the election.
That sounds so cynical - but isn't that the way it has been?
I'm convinced. Repetition works! I'm voting for Nader or McKinney so McCain will win, start WWIII, blow up the world and rapture us into heaven.
ezeflyer July 14th, 2008 10:32 pm (I copied this from another thread: Pentagon Fighting Off...)
Just curious, ezeflyer, what have the Democrats done in the last 8 years, or even the last two since they took over the Congress?
This is what they've done:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_______________________
Take (1) ezeflyer, do you realize how easy to stop the war? All that is needed is to find 41 resolute and principled Demcratic Senators (which apparently is not that easy to do) to stand against it and it's dead.
ezeflyer, I notice you are regularly offering weak arguments in favor of the Democratic candidate. Can you give any reasons to vote for Democrats that aren't lesser-evilisms? Do you have anything stronger than voting against Republicans?
Your logic is weak because if followed to its logical conclusion you would be arguing in favor of McCain if he ran against Joseph Stalin.
ezeflyer, are you capable of making a strong argument that isn't based on not voting for Republicans?
Lesser-evilist are not bad people. Lesser-evilism can work for the short term in some cases, but should never be used as a long-term philosophy for the obvious reason it leads to a nerver-ending downward spiral that now culminates in a politician that supports war (it is irrefutable that has voted to fund war) being the lesser-evil. He is not an antiwar candidate in the traditional sense. If someone is against something the last thing they do is put money into it.
If someone showed you two crappy, worthless, houses would you buy the less worse one? No you wouldn't, especially if the person showing the houses had listings on both of them and insisted you choose only between those two and wouldn't even let you see any others.
"Bush to Hasten Iraq Troop Withdrawal in Bid to Help McCain Win White House"
You won't see that headline on OUR Corporate Media.
"ezeflyer, are you capable of making a strong argument that isn't based on not voting for Republicans?"
Are you capable of making a strong argument that you're not a Republican shill?
So you can't and that's okay. When presented with this challenge DPAs (Democratic Party apologists) will usually side-side and weasel precisely like you did. It is predictable. RSJ makes bad arguments, but at least they are arguments.
ezeflyer, I worked for a defense contractor for years and was the one and only "openly liberal" and outspoken person there. I received a whole lot of abuse from Republicans. To put it mildly I hate Republicans but never backed down from any of them. I eventually quit.
To accuse me of being a Republican shill exposes your inability to defend the Indefensible Democrats and their complete capitulation and prostration before Republicans with anything resembling a logical argument.
Let's pretend I am lying and in real life I am a Republican shill. That would in no way negate my argument. Everything I said the Democrats did- THEY DID! The very weakest argument of all is the non-argument of ezeflyer who buries her head in the sand and clucks: "Republican shill, Republican shill..." That is not a logical argument.
If you can't make logical arguments ezeflyer, I recommend you go to the local community college and take an introductory course on logic. At least that way you could learn that your comments and responses are not arguments.
Don't feel bad, you cannot logically defend the Democrats because what they have done is indefensible, and that's the truth!
Disgusting. Theyve waged war for years. McCain wants to wage war for Israel for a hundred years,when, god willing, he will be baking in the lower regions before too long. And now, just to woo the public,they are trying a new strategy: bringing the troop robots home'...so they cn be sent elsewhere/back after the elections.
Disgusting.
I don't deny that what you said is about the dems is true tailcap.
Do you deny that if we vote for somebody besides the Dem Presidential, candidate McCain will be Pres.?
I've read your arguments, so you needn't bother repeating yourself.
The question that is probably not asked by those that really haven't let go of Iraqi oil ownership ambition, is what is the minimum long term deployment size that can sustain US hegemony over the former nation of Iraq. The current level of inadequate deployment is bleeding money, lives and health of the US soldiers. As time goes by capability is reducing anyway. Sudden reductions in suppression ability would put a greater strain on those that remain.
Any reduction of occupation forces in this terrible war against most of the Iraqi population, and what else could the ongoing indiscriminate bombing, shooting , incarceration and torture of a nation be called, will have to be followed quickly by full pull out. The more that troops are pulled out, the sooner the rest will have to follow. The best that might be hoped from the former US employed Iraqi security forces will be that they do not turn on the fleeing forces as the last battalions leave.
A political agreement to leave by a certain time might have the ideal benefits of an orderly and agreed withdrawal , with far fewer reprisals, as Iraqis will be only too glad to assist. Then the Iraqi rejoicing will begin, and no doubt civil strife, and true rebuilding may start. But what could be worse than now? At least Iraqis will not be able to bomb each others weddings from the air. As time goes by the chances of orderly US withdrawal will reduce, and the US army will be more worn out, and the US weakened further politically, with much reduced chance of the force deployment elsewhere.
So the message to the US forces must be , get out, or gradually lose everything. Leave and learn from your destructive folly now. You will have had your eight years of imperial fun. Not to leave now is true weakness. So any Bush withdrawals are likely to be token, temporary or really final. Nothing much in between.
Of course I might personally wish that the US stayed in Iraq for several years yet and weakened itself further, and continue to take even more punishment in Afghanistan, alongside its well deserving allies, in yet another example of ongoing imperial military date rape for oil and power. But only if the next administration proves itself to be as despotically stupid as this one. History and ill used power is against us all, and apparently the same crowd of backers and money is advising the Barack Obama goon show. They never seem to learn, down to their last penny and last US media brainwashed goon.
As for the other half of the occupation, the private armies, corporations and mercenaries, see if they are really prepared to stick it, will the price be right? And if the US withdraw s and is not at officially at war with the Iraqi population, and is not willing to continue to pay the corporate rates, will the naked ambition of money still pave its winning ways in the blood uncontrolled slaughter? Will the US government be able to restrain a pure private enterprise takeover of the former Iraqi nation?
The same ideology that has plagued the Bush White House is still present in McCain views! A vote for McCain will mean a third term for Bush's failed policies. When are people in this country going to get that fact through their heads??????? When are they going to wake up and realize Republican's know nothing about finances and governing a country. They know even less about protecting this country from terrorism! It always winds up a mess when they get into office. It's why a lot of us stopped voting Republican. We are on the verge of financial collapse now from this Administrations squandering. Another Republican in office will only complete the collapse.
ezeflyer July 15th, 2008 2:09 am
Yes I deny voting for anyone other than Obama places McCain in the White House. I live in a "blue state" and the small percentage of votes 3rd parties will get will not be enough to give California to McCain.
The goal is to get 5% for the Greens to qualify for matching funds. Why are you against democracy and insist on only two parties (duopoly). Most democracies have more than two parties. Don't be so narrow minded.
You say you've read my arguments and not to bother repeating them so I won't. I'll nutshell it to this: I could argue that there isn't a world of difference between the two. The more time that goes by, the Republican Obama becomes. So crying wolf about McCain doesn't make a pro-war candidate like Obama more acceptable.
That's lesser-evilism, and lesser-evilism won't convince me to buy a crappy house just because it's better than some other crappy house. Why do I need to limit myself to two crappy houses? If we do, we'll be condemned to continue living in crappy houses.
The answer is to begin building 3rd parties like the Greens, knowing they aren't going to win this time, but could grow to challenge the two-party duopoly you so staunchly defend.
it's gonna take a hell of alot more than that for mccain to win the white house............the majority of americans have been calling for this for years.....PEOPLE ARE SEEING THRU THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS
First of all, how does taking troops out of Iraq help McCain when Obama all along has said he would start taking troops out, so many, at a time, if he is elected. McCain criticized him by saying he was cutting and running. AS "funeorous" said, "The Iraqis want the troops to leave." They won't sign that agreement with the US to make a pact because it sounds like the US wants to be able to tell the Iraqis what to do. That is the reason Bush will pull them out and he will use it to his advantage because he doesn't have much time left. Thank God! The troops are being used as pawns.
"Tumbleweed" is right. Why the hell would you want McSame in the damn White House? His economic advisor is Phil Ghram, the one that said we were winers. He is the one that deregulated the banks, oil, electricity, etc. and McSame said he would make him his financial advisor if he is President. God help us. He is one that caused the problems and why we are in the shape we are in.
I'm disgusted with the Democrats too. They were voted in to change but they are a BIG disappointment. Nancy Pelosi is disgusting. She has sold herself out.
I still rather see Obama in the White House then McCain. He scares me and his adjenda. I don't believe Obama will select Chuck Hagel as a VP. Hagal has disagreed with Bush on the war but other than that, he votes Republican.