What a bunch of kissups. The are desperately hoping Obama doesn't abandon them like the dems have promised to do over and over and over again.

Huntwork,

To assume that American troops would be wanted in Iraq in perpetuity is the height of arrogance. To require that our contractors, and soldiers in Iraq should be above the law doubly so.
Do you truly not get that?
Does the leadership of Iraq need to draw us a map?
They want their country back.
This administration has said that "when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down".

Well....
The Iraqis have stood up.

It's time to go.

Rocky

David

The ever changing evolution of our reasoning behind the overthrow of Saddam and occupation of Iraq has now come full circle. In the beginning it was supposedly about wmd and eminent disaster. It then evolved to eliminating Hussein, bringing democracy to Iraq, fighting terrorism, quelling Al Qauaida (sp?), fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, and so on. How many changes of agenda have I missed? Finally the reality that I and I assume many others believed from the beginning has come to the forefront. It was all about oil and still is.

Now that the Iraqi's have made it clear that they wish us to leave it should be quite interesting to see how our current admin and Mr. McCain fudge this one in an attempt to save face. And more importantly will they find or perhaps even perpetuate a reason to remain regardless of the wishes of the Iraqi's. I would not put this administration or its less than credible lockstep republican legislature above any sort of sleazy action. It seems each passing day serves to further reaffirm just how careless and unscrupulous these folks really are. A sad, sad situation indeed.

If Iraq wants the U.S. out of Iraq, does it matter what McCain's or Obama's position on Iraq is? That is, unless McCain is willing to occupy Iraq against the Iraqis' wishes, and/or the Iraqis change their mind?

RickIL, as difficult as it is sometimes, I continue to my efforts to maintain that supposition that the Republicans intentions, in their own minds, were, in their own minds, honorable and noble.

The idea of securing oil for the America's new century, combined with the paranoia that terrorists might one day decide to halt the world's flow of oil from the Middle East via oil infrastructure attacks, was certainly considered by some, if not many aware Republicans as a justifiable idea.

The problem with their idea was their prejudice against environmental and global climate change evidence. The idea of securing oil for a century's use, and the idea of halting global warming and greenhouse gasses, were incompatible. The Republicans did that all too human thing when entertaining incompatible concepts, deny one, so they can retain the other.

They chose the wrong one to deny. But, there are reasons, not excuses, for their having made that wrong choice. They were invested in by the Oil Industry for Party and Candidate donations. Like most Americans, they are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. Hence, the choice of justifying Iraq or kissing their donors goodbye, was all too easy a choice.

The problem now is how to bring the Republicans back to the decision and help them make the appropriate one this time? Just the facts, will do it for some. But, for many others, the cognitive dissonance of having to entertain the notion that their first decision was wrong, is too much to bear.

I believe the American public is in the process of sending Republicans to the same wilderness they shunned Democrats to, back in 1994 and progressively more so through 2004. That wilderness as a minority party can have a powerful effect on future leaders of the GOP. It is a great place for reflection and contemplation of where they went wrong. And if they can in the future, absolve themselves of their poor choices of the recent past by admitting their errors and committing to a future where such errors will not be replicated, the GOP could be reborn sometime in the future as a mainstay Party, again.

At this point in time, however, I would rather put my money in this downward stock market than bet on the GOP's willingness to follow the path of redemption. Less loss that way, I figure.

d.a.n, that is a very complex issue you raise.

First, the Iraqis want us to take our troops out, but, not our dollars and financial support for rebuilding their nation's infrastructure which we caused to be destroyed.

That is, no doubt, McCain's leverage to coerce the Iraqi's into keeping our military presence there. But, that in turn, will continue to fuel violence against our soldiers. A cost McCain is willing to pay by all accounts of his campaign speeches.

Obama on the other hand, is more willing to say, we gave you your freedom from S. Hussein, and an opportunity to join the democracies of the world. That is payment enough of having destroyed your infrastructure. You oil profits can be used corruptly in S. Hussein fashion, or it can be used to rebuild your infrastructure. The choice is yours. That is what freedom is about, choices.

Again, it is a Grand Canyon between McCain and Obama on the issue of Iraq. McCain is laser focused on the reduced violence and oil flowing from Iraq, because these are the positives he can justify his position with. But, that focus preempts McCain from seeing the future of Iraq and our independent relationship with Iraq as Obama does. McCain is blinding himself in his efforts to defend his wrong choices on Iraq from the gitgo and to justify the costs and losses OTHERS had to pay for his and his cohort's decisions.

If America can put McCain aside this November, America can put the Iraq debacle aside as well. If America can't let go of the militarist McCain, they will not be able to let go of the Iraq debacle nor the perpetual drain of American resources by the Iraqis who will exact a price for our continued occupation.

David, I don't think the Iraqi government will really want the U.S. out of Iraq for a long, long time.

That's why McCain for president is bad idea.

McCain's is far too focused on Iraq, and seems oblivious and/or indifferent to the many deteriorating economic conditions at home, and the abuses causing the deteriorating conditions.

There is no way McCain is getting my vote.

But I have not yet decided if Obama will get my vote either, because Obama seems to be trying to be on both sides of several issues (including Iraq).
That is, I'm not sure Obama is trustworthy.
It worries me when Obama says the U.S. will be out of Iraq in 16 months, but then Obama says we'll be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.
Which is it?
How does anyone reconcile those two statements?

But we've heard lies and promises before, which were broken:

• Nixon promised to leave Vietnam, and then escalated the war.


• George H. W. Bush (41) said "Read my lips, no new taxes" and then did just that.


• And George W. Bush (43) took the U.S. to war in Iraq for reasons that proved to be baseless.


• John F. Kennedy said "I have previously stated and I repeat now that the United States intends no military intervention in Cuba.", but not only was the Bay of Pigs invasion organized and funded by the CIA, but Americans flew combat missions as well. One day after Kennedy made the above statement, an American pilot was shot down on a bombing mission over Cuba. Castro recovered the pilot's bodies and kept it; frozen; for the next 18 years as proof. (He returned the body when he heard that the pilot's daughter was looking for her father who, she had been told, disappeared on a training flight.) Over 100 Cuban exiles, 14 Americans, and an unreported number of Cubans died in the invasion.


• Lyndon Johnson said "As President and Commander in Chief it is my duty to the American people to report that renewed hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply.", but there was no unprovoked Vietnamese attack on a U.S. warship. President Johnson ran with the untrue story to gain support for American involvement in Vietnam.


• Ronald Reagan said: "We did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages -- nor will we.", but Reagan approved the sale of over 2,000 anti-tank weapons to Iran in return for promises to release the American hostages there. Money from the sale of those weapons went to support the Contras' war in Nicaragua. (The White House needed this backdoor method to fund the Contras because Congress had banned military aid to them).


• Bill Clinton told the nation, "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.", but he did. He also, of course, may have told the same lie under oath.

But if Obama is truly determined to leave Iraq, and will fulfill the promise to leave in 16 months, and since McCain's position appears to be a long-term occupation of Iraq, then I may have to vote for Obama.

That's because:

• I do not think U.S. troops in Iraq is making the U.S. safer


• nor is it the best way to make the U.S. safer while helping Iraq;


• no one can provide a convincing argument that U.S. troops in Iraq is making the U.S. safer;


• and unless U.S. troops in Iraq is making the U.S. safer, then voters should stop this terrible disservice to our troops, and stop putting them in harm's way;

Also, where are most of the terrorists?
In Iraq or Afghanistan?
Some estimates place the total number of Al Qaida in Iraq at about 1,300. Shouldn't 27.5 Million Iraqis finally be able to deal with that?

Even the humanitarian argument is losing steam, because the U.S. can't afford to be the world police.

Iraq is not the United States only concern.
With $53.2 Trillion of nation-wide debt, we'd better start focusing more on our own problems at home; otherwise the U.S. may not be in much of a position to do much of anything anywhere, and we could be leaving ourselves vulnerable due to such huge operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

David

I have to be honest and say that I have never felt that the republicans ever somehow believed in their own minds that their actions were honorable or noble. I think they were a party so full of themselves that they actually believed they could successfully perpetuate any agenda regardless of intent without having to pay a price. They considered themselves as a party so immune to penalty that they could pursue any avenue without impunity. I am not implying that all republican legislators are bad people or always have bad intentions. But as an entity it is well known that the GOP expected 100% support of all things republican among its members. It was that or pay the price. This implies that as a group they were flawed and one might even say amoral.

I think comparing their current situation to the pre republican dems is a fair assertion. The time for reflection within their party has definitely come. There is nothing like a little humble pie to bring one back to reality.

The realities are rapidly taking on new directions. Ford's decision to focus on small cars, and GM's decision to seriously pursue electric vehicles is clear indication that our country is tracking away from the direction the GOP advocates for. If the dems are smart they will pursue the rapid advancement of alternatives as if there will be no tomorrow without them. The party that can take credit for steering us away from fossils will gain valuable credibility that will serve them well for many years.

RickIL said: "The party that can take credit for steering us away from fossils will gain valuable credibility that will serve them well for many years."

That road will be very expensive and require a fair amount of sacrifice. That Party that can sell that expense and sacrifice as worthwhile, is the Party or politicians that will be credited for saving America's economic future.

T. Boone Pickens is running a series of TV ads at his own expense to convince Americans that we no longer have any choice on taking this road. This, from a man who made billions on oil. I don't know whether to laugh in his face or heartily congratulate him on his effort.

I am very pleased to see Rocky Marks agreeing that the surge has worked beyond our wildest dreams. I wonder if he supported it at the time? And to McCains credit he was calling for it two years ago. This war would have been long over if McCain had been Commander in Chief instead of Bush.

Huntwork,

Had the war in Iraq been executed correctly the "surge" would have been unnecessary.
I am not in favor of war, I am against it unless all other avenues have been exhausted. This was not the case in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.
That said, when the war was inevitable I was calling for more troops in Iraq from from the time we invaded in 2003.
Desert Storm featured a coalition of over half a million troops. Bush Jr's invasion force was less than half that.

If McCain had been president then, he wouldn't be able to run now. I was for McCain when he ran in 2000. This isn't the same McCain.

Rocky

David

I don't know whether to laugh in his face or heartily congratulate him on his effort

I know the feeling. I have seen his commercials and heard him speak on a show of some sort. Can't remember which one. Hearing this from an old oil man just does not seem right. But my take is that he realizes the future is in renewables and genuinely wants to help. Or maybe he just sees the potential to capitalize and make ultra huge profits on an industry that is sure to succeed at some point. At his age I would think he is gambling on sooner rather than later.

Huntwork,

I am glad you are pleased. If we had done this Iraq thing correctly there would have been no need for a surge at all.

I was for having more troops from the get go, but we chose to go in light.
I have been posting at Watchblog for several years and have maintained that any child that has ever played "Risk" could have done a better job in Iraq than this administration, not to mention McCain.

McCain was late by two years in his assessment of the surge, and if he was the CIC I doubt much would be different now.
I was for McCain in 2000, however this isn't the same McCain that I supported then.
This McCain seems to need a geography lesson, and an economics lesson etc....

Rocky

Rocky, pretty pathetic isn't it how Republican leaders can so dramatically fail in their use of the mightiest military and economy in all the world.

A little podunk country like Iraq takes longer for Republicans to mess up, that it took to FDR and Truman to be victorious over Germany, Japan, and Italy in WWII.

Absolutely defies credulity in Republican leadership and their supporters for supporting them, still.

David,

The right still can't decide if McCain is "conservative" enough for their liking. He continues to twist in the wind, changing his positions to see if anything sticks, all the while making gaffes that would make a child blush.
So much for the "stick to your guns" maverick.
I am still not a "dyed in the wool" Obamaite, but I think McCain is done.

Rocky

Lots of Republican bashing these days.
But, it is well deserved.
The only problem is that too many voters are likely to believe incumbent Democrat politicians are better to any significant degree, when the fact is, incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are so ridiculously irresponsible, incompetent, corrupt, and FOR-SALE (as evidenced by the nation's problems and these problems going ignored for decades, while growing dangerously in number and severity).

d.a.n, quite right. One only needs to look at Democrat's unwillingness to pursue impeachment in accordance with the Constitution to recognize this. The open borders harming our border agents, economies, and illegal immigrants is another.

Where is the resolve to halt the rapes and border crossing for sex against illegal immigrant girls and women? Where is the resolve to make it very difficult for al-Queda and Hezbollah to enter our country? Where is the resolve fight the rapidly growing underground and black markets in America in order to generate greater legal income taxes and spare the law abiders by the same amount?

Democrats have much to atone for, and much to do to stem the long term trend of ever greater numbers of voters leaving their Party to become independent voters.