WHO SAID THIS??

[uscitizen]

by 2010. We will be a different nation by then.

 

[Damocles]

by 2010. We will be a different nation by then.

Definitely. Much can change in two years.

 

[Jarod]

Let me put it this way.

Any time we finally begin the withdrawal Obama is set to claim it is the same as his plan. Good politics but not necessarily accurate.

Earlier, on this very board, I wondered "aloud" whether Bush would seize the opportunity that the Surge has brought. He came out with the "success equity" (or something close to that) plan soon thereafter.

I'm glad that Bush is looking at this, but the attempt to say that Bush isn't doing what he said he would is just sad partisan hackery.

I, for one, believe it is more moral to leave a strong government capable of securing thier nation after we started a war we shouldn't have (some call this the "you broke it you bought it", IMO we caused the havoc, abandoning them at its height because it is unpopular would be almost equally wrong as starting the thing to begin with). I think it would have been a mistake to end it before the surge. I think Obama's objection to the surge showed he was short-sighted and wrong. That Iraq will almost certainly be better off because of the surge that he never wanted to begin, and when we begin to take some of that "success equity" and withdraw.

Then why is Bush not holding a press conference and saying, okay, Iraq has asked us to set a schedule, I said I would do what Iraq wants and so here it is!

Instead Bush and McCain are saying... Nope, we aint leaving until we say we have won!

 

[Damocles]

Then why is Bush not holding a press conference and saying, okay, Iraq has asked us to set a schedule, I said I would do what Iraq wants and so here it is!

Instead Bush and McCain are saying... Nope, we aint leaving until we say we have won!

They are still negotiating a Treaty, I am sure that in due time we'll get there. Although he has spoken of the "success equity" (or whatever it is officially called) stuff since.

His language is definitely going this way. I think, for once, he is actually being careful. Maybe the loss of Rove was good for the guy.

And they are saying, we are leaving "conditional to the Iraqi capability to secure their nation". Which is exactly what al-Rubaie stated.

As I said, Obama is (smartly) positioning himself so that when Bush moves troops from Iraq to Afghanistan he'll say it was exactly as he said we should do it. But it appears clear to me that it is the direction things are headed regardless of what Obama has said of late.

 

[Jarod]

Let me put it this way.

Any time we finally begin the withdrawal Obama is set to claim it is the same as his plan. Good politics but not necessarily accurate.

Earlier, on this very board, I wondered "aloud" whether Bush would seize the opportunity that the Surge has brought. He came out with the "success equity" (or something close to that) plan soon thereafter.

I'm glad that Bush is looking at this, but the attempt to say that Bush isn't doing what he said he would is just sad partisan hackery.

I, for one, believe it is more moral to leave a strong government capable of securing thier nation after we started a war we shouldn't have (some call this the "you broke it you bought it", IMO we caused the havoc, abandoning them at its height because it is unpopular would be almost equally wrong as starting the thing to begin with). I think it would have been a mistake to end it before the surge. I think Obama's objection to the surge showed he was short-sighted and wrong. That Iraq will almost certainly be better off because of the surge that he never wanted to begin, and when we begin to take some of that "success equity" and withdraw.

I belive that once we lower our troop levels to pre-surge levels, the violence in Iraq will go back to where it was. That is why Bush instituted "Pause". In an election year we cant have the violence we have had, but we cant keep up the "surge" troop levels for much longer, and we cant keep up the "surge" troop levels and effectivly fight or win whats going on in Afganistan.

The "success" of the "surge" is fleeting and will not last much past the election. It is a temporary measure to get Bush and the Republicans past November. I know we all want to belive that the "surge" has afforded some lasting success/peace in Iraq. I do not belive that, otherwise what is the reason for the "Pause"?

 

[Damocles]

I belive that once we lower our troop levels to pre-surge levels, the violence in Iraq will go back to where it was. That is why Bush instituted "Pause". In an election year we cant have the violence we have had, but we cant keep up the "surge" troop levels for much longer, and we cant keep up the "surge" troop levels and effectivly fight or win whats going on in Afganistan.

The "success" of the "surge" is fleeting and will not last much past the election. It is a temporary measure to get Bush and the Republicans past November. I know we all want to belive that the "surge" has afforded some lasting success/peace in Iraq. I do not belive that, otherwise what is the reason for the "Pause"?

I don't think it will because there are new Iraqi forces to take over, and they have in several provinces. As the troops are backing off the Iraqis are regaining their own security capability (one they shouldn't have lost as we never should have disbanded their army).

I think you are wrong, and that Obama was wrong to deny that the surge would have any success.

Long before the surge had been done (very long ago indeed), I said that it would be necessary for us to get out of there. That we should send in enough forces to actually give those people security and thus give them the capability to put some security forces on the ground to take over as we began a draw down.

Shall I jump in front and say that Bush is following my plan?

 

[Jarod]

I don't think it will because there are new Iraqi forces to take over, and they have in several provinces. As the troops are backing off the Iraqis are regaining their own security.

I think you are wrong, and that Obama was wrong to deny that the surge would have any success.

I belvie I am right, I hope you are right.