The surge was successful

[evince]

That was for the list.

I finnaly found it elsewhere so I could post it here.

Now do you trust the white house to tell us the truth?

 

[Damocles]

That was for the list.

I finnaly found it elsewhere so I could post it here.

Now do you trust the white house to tell us the truth?

I trust a more current list to one that is over a year old.

 

[evince]

Damo the bench marks were set down before the surge was implimented

 

[cawacko]

That was for the list.

I finnaly found it elsewhere so I could post it here.

Now do you trust the white house to tell us the truth?

Go read any number of articles written on the success of the surge by people not in the White House.

You don't have to support Bush and you can believe we were wrong to go into Iraq but it is sort of funny how you are trying to deny the surge has been successful.

Here's an article from today's WSJ from two people who just got back from Iraq.

""All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617045543756423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

 

[Damocles]

Damo the bench marks were set down before the surge was implimented

True. But that doesn't change that current reports are better than year-old reports. As I said, when even Mark Udall admits that positive change did occur as a result of the surge there is something to pay attention to.

 

[Bonestorm]

It can't. Shoot, even Mark Udall (D - Congressman from Boulder), talked about the relative success of the surge in his debate with Bob Schaffer (R - Republican Candidate for Senate my former Congressman). He's been there recently even and now speaks of "conditional on circumstances on the ground" when talking about withdrawal. When Mark Udall starts saying the same things as the WH and McCain there is something to pay attention to.

Damo - They're not saying the same things. At all.

The WH and McCain are saying things are great so now we can permanently occupy the country (mostly) without our troops being killed. Udall, Obama and the Democrats are saying things are getting better so how about we start thinking about getting the fuck out of there.

They are two vastly different perspectives on the long-term presence of the troops in the country and my strong sense, not necessarily knowing Udall's position over time, is that he (like Obama) has been saying the same thing for a while now. Namely, that we should get out of there as soon as we can, not that we should stay forever.

 

[Epicurus]

Damo - They're not saying the same things. At all.

The WH and McCain are saying things are great so now we can permanently occupy the country (mostly) without our troops being killed. Udall, Obama and the Democrats are saying things are getting better so how about we start thinking about getting the fuck out of there.

They are two vastly different perspectives on the long-term presence of the troops in the country and my strong sense, not necessarily knowing Udall's position over time, is that he (like Obama) has been saying the same thing for a while now. Namely, that we should get out of there as soon as we can, not that we should stay forever.

That is the difference, but the similarity is that both sides are now basing their positions on the assumption that the surge has been a success.

 

[Damocles]

Damo - They're not saying the same things. At all.

The WH and McCain are saying things are great so now we can permanently occupy the country (mostly) without our troops being killed. Udall, Obama and the Democrats are saying things are getting better so how about we start thinking about getting the fuck out of there.

They are two vastly different perspectives on the long-term presence of the troops in the country and my strong sense, not necessarily knowing Udall's position over time, is that he (like Obama) has been saying the same thing for a while now. Namely, that we should get out of there as soon as we can, not that we should stay forever.

Mark Udall, just yesterday on the radio spoke of how he would withdrawal troops subject to the "circumstances on the ground".

This was a stark contrast to previous statements by both he and Obama before the Surge began that immediate withdrawal regardless of circumstances should begin.

When Mark is changing his position this much, there is something to what is being said. Even if Desh wants to insist otherwise.

 

[Damocles]

That is the difference, but the similarity is that both sides are now basing their positions on the assumption that the surge has been a success.

That and the phrase "subject to circumstances on the ground". There is more common ground in the statements than there ever has been.

 

[Bonestorm]

Go read any number of articles written on the success of the surge by people not in the White House.

You don't have to support Bush and you can believe we were wrong to go into Iraq but it is sort of funny how you are trying to deny the surge has been successful.

Here's an article from today's WSJ from two people who just got back from Iraq.

""All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617045543756423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Cawacko -You're a smart guy, why do you even bother with the Wall Street Journal Op-ed Page? It's total trash. And the Kagans (the entire fucking family it seems) and Keane have been saying pretty much the same thing since 2003.

Moreover, the two actual successes mentioned in that little snippet have little to nothing to do with the surge and the third success is nonsense. As for the first two, the sectarian conflict is winding down largely because the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other urban areas is complete and the ethnic groups are walled off from one another. Not really surge related. AQI has been dealt a devastating blow largely because we paid off their friendlies (the Sunni Awakening Councils) with lots of cash to ally with us and turn against AQI. It has worked. For now.

 

[evince]

I dont trust anything this admin tells us.

I want a GAO report on wether its working or not.

 

[Bonestorm]

Mark Udall, just yesterday on the radio spoke of how he would withdrawal troops subject to the "circumstances on the ground".

This was a stark contrast to previous statements by both he and Obama before the Surge began that immediate withdrawal regardless of circumstances should begin.

When Mark is changing his position this much, there is something to what is being said. Even if Desh wants to insist otherwise.

Totally false on the Obama front. Obama has repeatedly, since early 2007, made the withdrawal conditional and over a 16 month period. His position hasn;t changed since early 2007 at the latest.

Given your deception on Obama, I'm not likely to take your statement about Udall at face value. Perhaps you could provide some quotations or proof for your assertion that he advocated an immediate withdraw regardless of the circumstances (I'd like the same for Obama but I know you don't got it so I won't bother).

 

[Epicurus]

I remember Obama being pretty consistent on that, Damo.

 

[Bonestorm]

For the record, here is Udall in December 2005:

Udall concluded by saying: “We need a plan that is designed to bring our troops home and make clear to the Islamic world that we harbor no ambitions for permanent bases, Iraqi oil revenues or any military occupation. But how we withdraw is as important as when we withdraw. This means giving the Iraqis time to form a permanent government and establish the means for international support. We must exercise care in the way our country withdraws because leaving a failed state in Iraq will deeply endanger our country.”

And then in April of 2006:

I support a responsible end to the war in Iraq, based on a strategy of phased withdrawal of troops, accelerated diplomacy and redeployment that is based on Iraqi stability and not arbitrary deadlines. It is true that the House bill includes a date certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. My personal view is that it would have been wiser not to include a date certain for troop withdrawal. As a matter of national security policy, we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines and focus instead on realistic goals. Our military needs flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation on the ground. But the August 2008 deadline in this bill is far enough away that we may be able to revisit it if need be, and on balance, while it is not a perfect bill, I supported it.

Seems consistent with his position now. Just like Obama.

 

[Damocles]

Totally false on the Obama front. Obama has repeatedly, since early 2007, made the withdrawal conditional and over a 16 month period. His position hasn;t changed since early 2007 at the latest.

Given your deception on Obama, I'm not likely to take your statement about Udall at face value. Perhaps you could provide some quotations or proof for your assertion that he advocated an immediate withdraw regardless of the circumstances (I'd like the same for Obama but I know you don't got it so I won't bother).

Obama spoke against the surge and had a "plan" to have them out of there by April, and it was not conditional on circumstances on the ground, "we must be careful" is entirely different than actually using the same phraseology of "conditional on the circumstances on the ground". Revisionist history, it is often a bug that hits the partisan. Difference now? He too speaks of "circumstances on the ground", not quite as strongly as Udall did who directly stated he would not withdrawal unconditionally, contrary to a previous position of his.

Given your ability to twist what I say without regard to the plan offered and its very real effect it would have had leads me to question everything that Obama says and compare it to what his "plan" was. Ignoring action and using words leads people to believe things that people say over their action. Like Bush supporters saying he is a conservative.

I respect people who change positions due to circumstances. I don't respect people who leave themselves "give room" in a statement that is contrary to the plan they promote.

There is nothing wrong with saying "conditional on the circumstances on the ground", it shows a maturity in the idea. And that Bush is too moving in that direction as well as Iraqi government officials is a very good thing regardless of what they promoted in the past. There is, again, far more in statements now from both sides than there ever has been in the past.


The only thing I have stated about it in this thread, is that this is something that Udall stated directly, that things have improved enormously in Iraq. This is something even Desh should be able to hear.

Basically I am giving another source that has the same partisanship that she can look up and read. Udall is no war supporter.

 

[Jarod]

How do you call it successfull? We are on "pause" right now. So far all the surge has done was increase our troop level, and given the president political cover to keep them there.

I agree violence is down in Iraq, (that is some success I guess) but I wont call it a success until the "Pause" is over, and the "extra" troops come home, and the violence does not go back to where it was.

 

[evince]

I want to see FACTS and I want to see them verified by some other entity besides the WH. They have Lied too many times.

 

[Bonestorm]

Obama spoke against the surge and had a "plan" to have them out of there by April, and it was not conditional on circumstances on the ground, "we must be careful" is entirely different than actually using the same phraseology of "conditional on the circumstances on the ground". Revisionist history, it is often a bug that hits the partisan. Difference now? He too speaks of "circumstances on the ground", not quite as strongly as Udall did who directly stated he would not withdrawal unconditionally, contrary to a previous position of his.

Given your ability to twist what I say without regard to the plan offered and its very real effect it would have had leads me to question everything that Obama says and compare it to what his "plan" was. Ignoring action and using words leads people to believe things that people say over their action. Like Bush supporters saying he is a conservative.

I respect people who change positions due to circumstances. I don't respect people who leave themselves "give room" in a statement that is contrary to the plan they promote.

There is nothing wrong with saying "conditional on the circumstances on the ground", it shows a maturity in the idea. And that Bush is too moving in that direction as well as Iraqi government officials is a very good thing regardless of what they promoted in the past. There is, again, far more in statements now from both sides than there ever has been in the past.


The only thing I have stated about it in this thread, is that this is something that Udall stated directly, that things have improved enormously in Iraq. This is something even Desh should be able to hear.

Basically I am giving another source that has the same partisanship that she can look up and read. Udall is no war supporter.

Dude, you said this about Udall and Obama:

his was a stark contrast to previous statements by both he and Obama before the Surge began that immediate withdrawal regardless of circumstances should begin.

I called bullshit and provided Udall's actual statements on his position on withdraw. Maybe you can show me pervious statements by both Udall and Obama stating that they support immediate withdrawal regardless of circumstances. My bet is that you can't and I'm again calling bullshit.

And quit with the fucking backtracking and calling me a "revisionist" while at the same time pretending you didn't write what you wrote just a few minutes ago.

As for Obama's prior position, he sponsored a bill in 2007 that calling for a gradual redeployment of troops conditioned on the recommendations on the military and subject to suspension of the redeployment under certain circumstances, perfectly consistent with his current position.

Fucking liar.

 

[Damocles]

Dude, you said this about Udall and Obama:



I called bullshit and provided Udall's actual statements on his position on withdraw. Maybe you can show me pervious statements by both Udall and Obama stating that they support immediate withdrawal regardless of circumstances. My bet is that you can't and I'm again calling bullshit.

And quit with the fucking backtracking and calling me a "revisionist" while at the same time pretending you didn't write what you wrote just a few minutes ago.

As for Obama's prior position, he sponsored a bill in 2007 that calling for a gradual redeployment of troops conditioned on the recommendations on the military and subject to suspension of the redeployment under certain circumstances, perfectly consistent with his current position.

Fucking liar.

This story here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/obama.iraq/index.html

Has nothing to say about the conditions on the ground.

Cussing at me is not helping your case, nor making you look like a "big man".

The reality is his language has changed on the war, and IMO, it has changed for the better.

During the time of the story, you can look back if you wish, posters on here were talking about how Iraq would just stop being violent as soon as we left and that conditions on the ground were not important as they would change for the better because of our absence.

Again, I am glad that the language is changing, and that I can now see common ground between the two sides. I like that, it shows me that something will be going the right way finally.

My original posts on this were about people who were clearly against the war recognizing that circumstances have improved immensely. I named, specifically, one very Democrat Congressman as an example.

What you are doing is purposefully missing the point of the post so you can attack a detail you disagree with.

Does it change the reality, this Congressman who was against it from the beginning, realizes that now there are improvements in Iraq?

 

[Bonestorm]

Read the fucking bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110FcQrY6:e682:


And I'm cursing not because I am a big man, but because you are fucking dense and obtuse.

Please show me where Obama supported an immediate withdrawal regardless of circumstances. You still have nothing on that front and instead want to change the subject.

You're still lying, this time with some backtracking bullshit about how "his language changed." Either he supported "immediate withdrawal regardless of circumstances" or he didn't. Show me where he did. I've already shown you where he didn't.

Oh, and below is a link to the actual speech that Obama gave that is referenced in the article with the relevant excerpts below:

The first part of this strategy begins by exerting the greatest leverage we have on the Iraqi government – a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months.

When I first advocated steps along these lines over a year ago, I had hoped that this phased redeployment could begin by the end of 2006. Such a timetable may now need to begin in 2007, but begin it must. For only through this phased redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the U.S. is not going to hold together this country indefinitely – that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq.

Let me be more specific. The President should announce to the Iraqi people that our policy will include a gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces. He should then work with our military commanders to map out the best plan for such a redeployment and determine precise levels and dates. When possible, this should be done in consultation with the Iraqi government – but it should not depend on Iraqi approval.

I am not suggesting that this timetable be overly-rigid. We cannot compromise the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground. The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and they offer us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining certain troop levels. Moreover, it could be suspended if at any point U.S. commanders believe that a further reduction would put American troops in danger.

Drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional troops to Northern Iraq and elsewhere in the region as an over-the-horizon force. This force could help prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, consolidate gains in Northern Iraq, reassure allies in the Gulf, allow our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda wherever it may exist, and demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.

Liar.



http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061120-a_way_forward_i/