Iraq appears to share Obama's pullout hope

[Spytheweb]

MSNBC News Services
updated 9:45 a.m. PT, Mon., July. 21, 2008

BAGHDAD - Iraq?s government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010.

The statement by Iraq?s government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, followed talks between Obama and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki ? who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq?s position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team.

 

[Keeko]

MSNBC News Services
updated 9:45 a.m. PT, Mon., July. 21, 2008

BAGHDAD - Iraq?s government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010.

The statement by Iraq?s government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, followed talks between Obama and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki ? who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq?s position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team.

The surge worked. No thanks to BHO. He was against the Surge and against victory in Iraq. He actually was hoping for us to lose, as was the whole democratic party. Too Bad. We are victorious.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

What part of retraction didn't you understand?

They said "NO" timetables.

quite amusing -Obama wouldn't even be there had we followed his advice--and wonder if they would like to take back the surge he said wouldn't work.?

truth of matter is O been wrong entire time and now wants to suck the tit of those that were right and say withdrawal is now possible in 16 months only because his ignorance was disregarded previously.
No shit O -believe GW and military hoped that was the results of their efforts to win--despite you and your parties white flag/retreat efforts.

Truthfully--is there anyone that hasn'tfigured this little grifter out yet.

--and please--msnbc if I here this is his 2nd trip to war zone I'll puke. Tell your viewers the truth extent of his 1st---was 10 day group trip to iraq and afgan--he arrives with group cuts out after 1st day in Iraq and never goes to afgan--but proceeded to act like he;s athority on war and dare give advice- What a pathetic little man.

 

[djv]

Spytheweb they didn't say sometime in 2010. They said 1/1/10. That would be a time table. and for those that think if you travel to a country and become a expert. Just look at old John getting borders wrong that are next to country he thinks he is a expert on. And calling out a country that was changed 13 years ago that is not there any more. Some people are just are smart. And some like John are just getting old. And looking like he's got old guy I forgot chit.

 

[Spytheweb]

The surge worked. No thanks to BHO. He was against the Surge and against victory in Iraq. He actually was hoping for us to lose, as was the whole democratic party. Too Bad. We are victorious.

Maybe we should have used "the surge" in Vietnam? Hey, we did. At one time we have over 500,000+ soldiers there, what happened? I know, we didn't put them all in one city, and claim victory.

For all of you who don't understand republican doubletalk the surge is what was once called escalation in Vietnam. Republicans change the word and present it as something new.

The first US Gen. in Iraq who said that we needed more soldiers, was fired for saying it.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Maybe we should have used "the surge" in Vietnam? Hey, we did. At one time we have over 500,000+ soldiers there, what happened? I know, we didn't put them all in one city, and claim victory.

For all of you who don't understand republican doubletalk the surge is what was once called escalation in Vietnam. Republicans change the word and present it as something new.

The first US Gen. in Iraq who said that we needed more soldiers, was fired for saying it.

What Happened
--We had reduced casualities to almost nil--
-South Viets were taking over fighting in the few hots spots left.
The NVA (North Viet Army)were non factor

Then the white flag waivers-snatched defeat from victory--which resulted to the largest massacre in history--to which they made no comment after whining about civilian casualties entire war

--and they continue to brag about to this day--don't you.

 

[StevieD]

What Happened
--We had reduced casualities to almost nil--
-South Viets were taking over fighting in the few hots spots left.
The NVA (North Viet Army)were non factor

Then the white flag waivers-snatched defeat from victory--which resulted to the largest massacre in history--to which they made no comment after whining about civilian casualties entire war

--and they continue to brag about to this day--don't you.

We didn't lose we just ran out of time!:0corn

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"we" didn't run out of time "you" and the others that thought you might have to serve--ran out of time.

Look at troop deployment in VN and "maybe" you can figure it out.

Can you see any evidence of how you snatch defeat from jaws of victory.

Probably not as your crew is doing same shit this war with their we lost -can't win rhetoric.

Theres is not a war you people could win-with your troops packing protest signs.

Troop deployment in VN
1968 537,377
1969 510,054
1970 390,278
1971 212,925
1972 35,292 > Enter Stevie and the white flag waivers--RETREAT!!!!!!

 

[RAYMOND]

The shadow of the Iraq War still hovers over the 2008 presidential race. In deed, though it?s the issue that made Barack Obama (giving him his running room to Hillary Clinton?s left), it may now become his chief vulnerability.

Weak on national-security issues, untried, inexperienced and (perhaps) naive, Obama can find the Iraq issue hard to handle - if John McCain plays it right.

Obama has long since won the issue of Iraq-past - opposing the war before anyone and voting continuously and solidly against it when others waffled.


Yet McCain is winning Iraq-present: A majority of Americans believe that the surge is working. Casualties are down so far that the pessimistic left has shifted its doom-and-gloom to Afghanistan.

But McCain?s key opportunity is to exploit the issue of Iraq-future.

To start, he must ask Obama: ?Why won?t your troop withdrawal allow al Qaeda and Iran to move into the vacuum, taking over Iraq to use it as a base for terror against us and Israel??

Obama will hem and haw, but McCain must keep at him - and force his opponent to confront the consequences.

How will Obama answer?

He can?t shift his position on his signature issue much more - or he?d get an even worse rap for flip-flopping. So he?ll start by stressing the ongoing troop presence that he?ll allow in Iraq.

He has said (vaguely) that he?ll permit sufficient troops to cover our pullout, protect our embassy and pursue al Qaeda terrorists. Now he?ll try to sell the idea that his gradual withdrawal over 16 months and his ongoing troop commitment will hold al Qaeda and Iran at bay.

But who?ll believe that? Experience has taught Americans to expect the worst about Iraq. They?re inclined to agree that, if we pull out, al Qaeda will move in. It?s also self-evident that Iranian influence will grow as ours? declines. (To the extent that we do believe it, Obama will alienate the left and drive voters to Ralph Nader.)

His next dodge will be to talk up diplomacy - that a dialogue with the mullahs can hold Iran at bay. But no negotiations are possible with al Qaeda - and Americans realize that talks with Iran will go nowhere unless we have the leverage of force. His reliance on diplomacy will come off as naive, reinforcing the impression that he?s not ready for the job.

Eventually, he?ll have to say he?s prepared to go back into Iraq if the situation deteriorates. Voters will realize that a nominal troop presence and diplomacy won?t do the job.

That?s when McCain moves in for the kill: ?So, isn?t your rigid adherence to withdrawal inviting a third Iraq War??

He can claim the mantle of the true peace candidate - saying that he?ll stay in Iraq, keep control, build up the Iraqi army and keep US casualties down. Obama?s pullout, he can warn, would mean an inevitable third Iraq war. Obama is stuck seeming either naive - or just as likely to get us into a war as President Bush was.

The success of the surge has created an ideal situation for McCain. What had been the chief Democratic argument against the Republicans can now be their best tool to destroy Obama.

 

[smurphy]

Wow - Raymond all of sudden can write.:shrug:

 

[RAYMOND]

Wow - Raymond all of sudden can write.:shrug:

well you want better topic:00hour

 

[djv]

Wow back to Nam? We had a surge. We had many just think how many guys went in and out of there. I'm not sure if we could do that again with out a draft as we had then.
And we didn't lose. We just didn't win. It was a draw. If we had stayed another 3, 5 maybe 6 years. Out come would have been same. A line drawen in the dirt. One side the North the other the South. Why would we want to have killed more men to have a another Korea. The South had to want there freedom a lttle stronger. It is funny how the world did not end and Nam is doing well. But the some chit we were given back then was not all up and up.