comment #1

dre says ...

and boom goes the dynamite

comment #2

AH says ...

If Iraq gets more violent then Maliki will change his tune and things will be reversed. My point is that there is too much time between now and the election for this to mean anything substantial.

comment #3

Geoff says ...

AH is right in saying there's still alot of time left.

Right now it will be kind of fun to watch the Republicans tap dance.

comment #4

Coltrane says ...

People need to think beyond the first level. If violence returns then the military aspect of the surge would have accomplished what? The surge was intended to provide a window of opportunity for political reconciliation. This really hasn't happened. Proponents of the surge got lucky because the Sunni Awakening occurred at the same time. This, more than anything is responsible for the downturn in violence. But again, that leaves us where? Iraq is more secure, so we need to stay? If we leave, Iraq will become less secure?? Good luck with those Republican talking points.

John McCain's Iraq position is untenable when the leader of a sovereign nation asks you to leave.

comment #5

le corbeau says ...

"Right now it will be kind of fun to watch the Republicans tap dance."

Then later it will be fun to watch President Obama dance when there's a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, and the nearest military unit he has to do something about it is based in Ramstein, Germany.

comment #6

Coltrane says ...

Mgmax,
Are you that clueless? What part of "redeployment" do you not understand. He's been advocating for an additional 2 brigades in Afghanistan since last year. I really love low information voters that post on film blogs.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...

comment #7

Coltrane says ...

Mgmax,
Are you that clueless? What part of "redeployment" do you not understand. He's been advocating for an additional 2 brigades in Afghanistan since last year. I really love low information voters that post on film blogs.

Who's the Real Foreign Policy Expert?

comment #8

Movie Watcher says ...

It looks bad for McCain, but hey, with the Dems you never know. It should be a blow out election. I still will not vote.

comment #9

gruver1 says ...

Wells to MovieWatcher: You "won't vote"? In times like these, in any times, there is nothing lower than those committed to sitting on their hands. I respect McCain voters more than you. I respect PUMAs, for God's sake, more than you. I respect Nader voters more than you.

comment #10

le corbeau says ...

"I really love low information voters that post on film blogs."

I love pompous dickwads who insult people they know nothing about, personally.

comment #11

j_bonies says ...

Uh oh!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/

comment #12

Coltrane says ...

Mgmax,
I don't need to know you to know you have little to no information about what you speak when you say "...and the nearest military unit he has to do something about it is based in Ramstein."

What do you think "redeployment to Afghanistan" means? You do know that Afghanistan is a NATO operation?

Stick to movies or be prepared to be peppered with the truth.

comment #13

BurmaShave says ...

Mgmax, I will ask you to kindly point me to where Obama said he would withdraw from Afghanistan.

comment #14

le corbeau says ...

Okay, first off you all realize you're splitting hairs about a hypothetical. If it helps your comprehension of what I'm getting at, change Afghanistan to Derkaderkastan, and Germany to Fredonia. The point is, you're all celebrating that we'll probably lose a major base in the world's most-screwed-up region, and eventually that might prove to be a bit of a problem-- if, y'know, your party actually has some responsibility for American security and no longer gets to just vote for wars when they're popular and act like they didn't have anything to do with them when they're not.

Secondly, gee fucking whiz, wherever might one get the idea that a guy who is determined to back out of Iraq might also bug out of Afghanistan at the first opportunity. I mean, the only reason most of your crowd acts so tough on Afghanistan is because it's one more cynical way to bash Bush. If we do leave Iraq you'll be beating the leave-Afghanistan drum a nanosecond later.

Third, as long as we're playing the stupid internet game of insulting each other like 12-year-olds, I don't need to know you have little to no information to speak when you imply that deployed troops in Afghanistan and a well-established base in Iraq or Germany are identical and interchangeable in force strength, equipment and training.

We need bases in the middle east. If we lose our bases in Iraq, the next president will regret it and have to find substitutes. It is that simple. And it is time, if your party plans to govern, to start thinking tactically about such things, not just talking in bumperstickers.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Then later it will be fun to watch President Obama dance when there's a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan,"

Wasn't Bush supposed to do something about that? Oh, wait, he has done something: Ignore it completely.

"and the nearest military unit he has to do something about it is based in Ramstein, Germany."

Speaking of which, why are we asking NATO to take up the burden, when they're not based there?

comment #16

MovieBob says ...

"He's been basing his candidacy on toughing it out and staying the course in Iraq, and now what does he say?"

Um... he says "Hey, look! That Surge I supported before and harder-than anyone else worked and now we can leave that much sooner." Is this your first election?

comment #17

Coltrane says ...

Mgmax,

Installing bases as nothing to do with military tactics. Tactics occur on the battlefield within the theatre of war.

There will be no permanent bases in Iraq. The Iraqi government is opposed to it. They just balked at an agreement that would have ensured a long term US troop presence. If you want to sleep better there are bases in Kuwait...This isn't Command & Conquer...American foreign policy is not about establishing bases in the Middle East just so that you can feel better about "American Security". What the hell do you think spawned Bin Laden and his following....bases in FREAKING SAUDI ARABIA!!

Iraq was never an imminent threat. It was a war of choice that GWB decided to wage. Afghanistan is a completely different situation. It is a NATO operation being undertaken by coalition forces. And there are bases in Afghanistan.

comment #18

le corbeau says ...

If you're going to be a pedant, try to be pedantic about what I'm actually saying.

"Iraq was never an imminent threat. It was a war of choice that GWB decided to wage. "

That tells me all I need to know.

comment #19

K. Bowen says ...

Their military is dependent on American logistical support. It's domestic politics. What he says and what he ulitmiately negotiates won't be one and the same.

comment #20

fielding says ...

Big deal. Nothing changes the fact that the idiot Obama opposed the surge, which has been an unqualified success.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

fielding: If it's so successful, why are we still there?

comment #22

le corbeau says ...

Oops, never mind. CNN says:

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

comment #23

le corbeau says ...

If D.Z. was the chief of police, he'd retire after catching his first burglar.

comment #24

swordandpen says ...

"Nothing changes the fact that the idiot Obama opposed the surge, which has been an unqualified success."

If you believe that, you'd believe anything.

comment #25

SpinDozer says ...

Oops, never mind. CNN says:

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Yeah, right. Here's the correctly understood, translate and accurately conveyed transcript (corrections in bold/italic)

SPIEGEL: Immunity for the US troops is apparently the central issue.

Maliki: It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population. But other issues are no less important: How much longer will these soldiers remain in our country? How much authority do they have? Who controls how many, soldiers enter and leave the country and where they do so?

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as weire concerned (not!). U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal (not!), with the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic (not!). Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems (not!). Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

This was posted on the Bush Sychophant blog site, I'm pretty sure it's gold.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "If D.Z. was the chief of police, he'd retire after catching his first burglar."

It seems Bush retired before he even caught Osama.

comment #27

BurmaShave says ...

Maybe we actually wanted to win the war against the people who attacked us rather than let them escape through the back door and then go invade somebody who had nothing to do with it. Maybe 150,000 troops in Iraq would be more useful in Afghanistan and eventually Pakistan actually fighting Al Qaeda. Maybe if you did your homework you'd know Obama is actually to the right of McCain on Bush on actual terrorists rather than bogeyman in Mesopotamia.