So, if you're taking notes everybody...you rail on the opponents message while agreeing that it makes sense. You destroy his foreign policy experience, but take his stance in regards to timetables and talking to Iran.

That way, you get the best of both worlds. You get the better plan PLUS you can create attack ads to tell your base that your opponent was actually wrong (even though you agree that he was right).

I mean, hell...all Bush has to do is continue making changes to American foreign policy which reflect what Obama has been saying and we don't even have to worry about voting for Barack. It gives McCain the ability to continue railing on Obama while supporting the administration's current stance.

Vote for McCain, all the Obama stances but none of the blackness!

RON PAUL would kick all of their asses then come home and make dinner!

submitter: McCain rejects "audacity of hopelessness" for Iraq, still waiting for rose petal-throwing crowds of joyful Iraqis to welcome American liberators tapioca pudding.

McCain went on to say, "It's PUDDING DAY, you coont! Where's my damn pudding?!?!"

bulldg4life: Vote for McCain, all the Obama stances but none of the blackness!

that is incredibly cynical and angry.


and true.

SilentStrider: bulldg4life: Vote for McCain, all the Obama stances but none of the blackness!

that is incredibly cynical and angry.


and true.

He's....black? Why am I just finding this out?!

NeverDrunk23: He's....black? Why am I just finding this out?!

much like Stephen Colbert, you don't see race.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, ridiculing Barack Obama for "the audacity of hopelessness" in his policies on Iraq, said Friday that the entire Middle East could have plunged into war had U.S. troops been withdrawn as his rival advocated.


Oh yes, fear will keep the locals in line. Fear of this BATTLESTATION!

madmann: McCain went on to say, "It's PUDDING DAY, you coont! Where's my damn pudding?!?!"



/Quick and dirty

Weaver95: Oh yes, fear will keep the locals in line. Fear of this BATTLESTATION!

unfortunately this is about all the republican party can muster this year:

SilentStrider: Weaver95: Oh yes, fear will keep the locals in line. Fear of this BATTLESTATION!

unfortunately this is about all the republican party can muster this year:

I'm surprised they haven't upped the terror alert rainbow to orange yet.

/What a stupid idea.
//Its like a mood ring for terror.

Maliki likes Obama's timeline.

McCain likes Maliki's timeline.

McCain thinks Obama's timeline will cause the destruction of America as we know it.

-atrios

McCain is not really doing himself any favors here. The Iraq issue is not where he should focus his efforts. Whoever his advisor is should be fired. And his speechwriters too.

Q: How many McCain staffers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Change? You've got the wrong campaign, friend.

Mortgage our country's future to bribe insurgent leaders while siphoning resources from Afghanistan isn't something to be proud of being a part of. The fact that he is proud of it shows that he is unfit to be president. The fact that so many Republican voters are buying into it shows that they are unfit to be voters.

This is because shortening "liberators" gives ya' "libs", which they don't want to be associated with

Tenebreux: Q: How many McCain staffers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Change? You've got the wrong campaign, friend.

That's not change we can believe in!

mcwebe0: Tenebreux: Q: How many McCain staffers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Change? You've got the wrong campaign, friend.

That's not change PANCAKES we can believe in!

FTFY

mcwebe0: That's not change we can believe in!

"Heeeeeeeeehhhhhhh. HHHHHEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHH."


/That's the best part.

mcwebe0: Tenebreux: Q: How many McCain staffers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Change? You've got the wrong campaign, friend.

That's not change we can believe in!

/creepy smile

Iraq, the week in review...

Friday 25 July: 5 dead
Baghdad: 1 body
Ninewa
Mosul: 3 shot dead, 1 woman shot dead in her home

Thursday 24 July: 18 dead
Diyala
Baquba: 8 by female suicide bomber, Awakening Council leader among those killed
Baghdad: 3 Awakening members in drive-by shootings, 1 body found
Babylon
Yusufiya: 2 bodies, a civilian and a policeman
Ninewa
Mosul: policeman shot dead in front of his home, 3 bodies

Wednesday 23 July: 7 dead
Baghdad: 2 bodies.
Diyala
Abu Saida: roadside bomb kills woman.
Ninewa
Mosul: gunmen kill 1; 2 die in clashes.
Tameem
Kirkuk: gunmen kill journalist's son.

Tuesday 22 July: 8 dead
Baghdad: 3 bodies.
Tameem
Dibis: 1 body found.
Ninewa
Mosul: gunmen kill 2.
Wassit
Suwayra: 2 bodies.

Monday 21 July: 23 dead
Baghdad: 1 body found.
Diyala
Al-Bowashi: gunmen kill 1 Sahwa member.
Abu Saida: gunmen kill sheikh on his way to reconciliation meeting.
Sadiya: tractor bomb kills 7.
Tameem
Kirkuk: gunmen kill journalist; roadside bomb kills police chief.
Ninewa
Mosul: gunmen kill 2; 2 security contractors killed by suicide bomber; 1 body found.
Tal Afar: 3 policemen killed during clashes.
Wassit
Kut: gunemn kill 1.
Suwayra: 2 bodies found dismembered.

Sunday 20 July: 23 dead
Baghdad: bomb stuck on car kills 1, Adhamiya; roadside bomb kills 1, Karrada; car bomb kills 1, Damascus intersection; 3 bodies.
Diyala
Wajihiya: roadside bomb kills 2 policemen.
Bani Saad: roadside bomb kills 3 policemen.
Ninewa
Mosul: 4 killed in drive-by shootings; sniper kills policeman; 2 killed by suicide car bomber.
Salahuddin
Baiji: US forces kill son and nephew of Salahuddin governor in early morning raid.
Basra
Basra: body of young woman found.
Wassit
Suwayra: 2 bodies found floating in river.

bulldg4life: So, if you're taking notes everybody...you rail on the opponents message while agreeing that it makes sense. You destroy his foreign policy experience, but take his stance in regards to timetables and talking to Iran.

That way, you get the best of both worlds. You get the better plan PLUS you can create attack ads to tell your base that your opponent was actually wrong (even though you agree that he was right).

I mean, hell...all Bush has to do is continue making changes to American foreign policy which reflect what Obama has been saying and we don't even have to worry about voting for Barack. It gives McCain the ability to continue railing on Obama while supporting the administration's current stance.

Vote for McCain, all the Obama stances but none of the blackness!

Perfect THIS

The surge¹ is working²!

¹Undefined
²Undefined

The Bruce Dickinson: Iraq, the week in review...

Yeah, but it's not Americans dying so who cares?

Donald_McRonald: The surge1 is working2!

1Undefined
2Undefined

Obama being interviewed by Katie Couric :

Couric: "But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?"

Obama: "No, no ... of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence. ... So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do."

Couric: "But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000....

...additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?"

Obama: "You've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt."

The Bruce Dickinson: Iraq, the week in review...

That's like a global warming denier saying "It was cold today, thus, global warming is false."

It's better to look at the overall picture. (Note, the surge was fully in place June of 07).

"I don't know how you respond to something that is as - such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed."

-John McCain (July 22, 2008)




Col. Sean MacFarland, left, in Ramadi,

"With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda - actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda.

This is a different phenomena that's going on right now. I think that it's not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it's the - well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they're finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other."

-Colonel Sean MacFarland, Commander 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division. (September 2006)



John McCain has no clue WTF he is talking about, as usual.

F---ing TRAITOR!

The fact that this guy is still pushing the idea that Obama would rather "lose a war to win an election" completely destroys any shred of credibility and decency he had. I guess I was a fool to believe that the repubs wouldn't stoop to this type of bullshiat this time around because McCain claimed he would run a clean campaign.

I really didn't mind it when he got the nomination. The other guys they put up there were really awful. And up until recently I wouldn't have been all that upset if he somehow won the election. I thought he would be above all of this. But now I feel the same repugnance for him as I do for the smirking, arrogant fratboy that we currently have as POTUS. He will do and say anything his handlers tell him to so the republican brand can continue.

And he has the gall to present himself as some kind of war hero who served with such honor and courage. Where is all of that honor now? Where is the courage to tell your advisors that no, I won't call my opponent a traitor and murderer just because it will get me a bump in the polls and some face time with Wolf Blitzer?

What a putz.

Tor_Eckman: The fact that this guy is still pushing the idea that Obama would rather "lose a war to win an election"

Yea, that line bothers me as well. Some asshat on his campaign team prob. told him how catchy and witty it was, and he ran with it. I expected better judgement than that.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Obama being interviewed by Katie Couric :

Couric: "But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?"

Obama: "No, no ... of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence. ... So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do."

Couric: "But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000....

...additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?"

Obama: "You've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt."

Here's where you having a point would come in handy.

Donald_McRonald: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Obama being interviewed by Katie Couric :

Couric: "But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?"

Obama: "No, no ... of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence. ... So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do."

Couric: "But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000....

...additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?"

Obama: "You've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt."

Here's where you having a point would come in handy.

The point is even Obama feels the surge is working/has worked. You seemed to say that the surge did not work. I was pointing out both candidates disagree.

Oooh, do I get to play the quote game as well?

Obama: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." - January 20, 2007.

Obama: "I had no doubt, and I said at the time when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence." January 2008

helix400: That's like a global warming denier saying "It was cold today, thus, global warming is false."

It's better to look at the overall picture. (Note, the surge was fully in place June of 07).

What constitutes incidents? Death, accidents and injuries?

/just curious
//wish graph was a little clearer

3_Butt_Cheeks: Obama: "You've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt."

So, the increased troop level has reduced violence.

He's been saying that all along. But, he has also said that the simple surging of troops won't solve any problems that will plague Iraq for many years.

No where does it say that the "surge is working" in regards to the benchmarks that the administration put forth a few years ago.

In the 18 months or whatever since the start of the surge, violence has been reduced slightly. Suddenly, that is information enough to say that the surge is working completely.

That is not the case.

The GAO report stated that many of the benchmarks put up by the Bush Administration are still not met. And, there are many that have not even gotten satisfactory work towards completion.

Saying that the surge is working is wholly different from increased troop levels have curtailed some of the violence.

People like to parrot the fact that violence has been reduced slightly and completely ignore the 18 benchmarks that were clearly defined as to a successful surge.

The surge has not worked. None of the goals were completed and some of them haven't even been attempted to be completed.

helix400: Obama: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." - January 20, 2007.

You show me where sectarian violence is solved.

helix400: Oooh, do I get to play the quote game as well?

Obama: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." - January 20, 2007.

Obama: "I had no doubt, and I said at the time when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence." January 2008

Again, what is the point? The fact that the surge was a factor in the reduction of violence is clear, and Obama has agreed. But using this singular result as complete proof that the surge was a success and that Obama was wrong and McCain was right is lying, and quite childish.

Ultimately, blaming each other with hindsight says nothing of the future:

Obama: "McCain helped start the war. If we never went to war, this wouldn't have been an issue."
McCain: "Obama would have pulled troops out and let us lose and let Iraq be a failed state"

Ya, both statements are true. The problem is, where in Iraq now. We can't undo the past. So we need to pick the guy whose got the best plan for the future.

bulldg4life: You show me where sectarian violence is solved.

He said the surge would do the reverse, i.e. make things much worse. Things did not get much worse, they got much better.

And yet, he insists that he's ALWAYS said more troops would make things better. But he's lying.

helix400: Ya, both statements are true. The problem is, where in Iraq now. We can't undo the past. So we need to pick the guy whose got the best plan for the future.

Well, apparently, McCain likes Obama's plan for a troop withdraw. So do some people in the Iraqi government.

I guess that answers everybody's problems.

Guys, we can all go home and not worry about voting this fall!

helix400: Ultimately, blaming each other with hindsight says nothing of the future:

Obama: "McCain helped start the war. If we never went to war, this wouldn't have been an issue."
McCain: "Obama would have pulled troops out and let us lose and let Iraq be a failed state"

Ya, both statements are true. The problem is, where in Iraq now. We can't undo the past. So we need to pick the guy whose got the best plan for the future.

QFT. And since the Iraqi president agrees that the Obama's plan fits quite nicely with what they desire, the choice is clear.

bulldg4life: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Obama: "You've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt."

So, the increased troop level has reduced violence.

He's been saying that all along. But, he has also said that the simple surging of troops won't solve any problems that will plague Iraq for many years.

No where does it say that the "surge is working" in regards to the benchmarks that the administration put forth a few years ago.

In the 18 months or whatever since the start of the surge, violence has been reduced slightly. Suddenly, that is information enough to say that the surge is working completely.

That is not the case.

The GAO report stated that many of the benchmarks put up by the Bush Administration are still not met. And, there are many that have not even gotten satisfactory work towards completion.

Saying that the surge is working is wholly different from increased troop levels have curtailed some of the violence.

People like to parrot the fact that violence has been reduced slightly and completely ignore the 18 benchmarks that were clearly defined as to a successful surge.

The surge has not worked. None of the goals were completed and some of them haven't even been attempted to be completed.

As far as the benchmarks go:

Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" - almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks - enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues - are unsatisfactory.

The surge was a concerted effort my US forces and compensation paid to former militants to serve in a sentry type capacity in neighborhoods to reduce violence. In the effect that it has reduced violence, it has worked.

helix400: Oooh, do I get to play the quote game as well?

Obama: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." - January 20, 2007.

Obama: "I had no doubt, and I said at the time when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence." January 2008

While I believe there is some backtracking, do you think there is a difference between solving sectarian violence and reducing it? If we had solved the violence, there wouldn't have been increases when troop levels returned to normal.

Look, the man's not an idiot... if you put more men in a war zone, it makes it harder for the enemy to attack. That's common sense. If you actually think that Obama thought that putting more troops on the ground in '07 would not reduce violence, then you're saying he has the intelligence of a child. You can argue he was incorrect in making the solution harder, but the additional troops did not solve the problem, because you can't solve a sectarian problem militarily... something even General Patreaus said

3_Butt_Cheeks: The point is even Obama feels the surge is working/has worked. You seemed to say that the surge did not work. I was pointing out both candidates disagree.

Obama was agreeing that more troops on the ground helped lessen violence. The idea isn't too shocking. However...

While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.

The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" - almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks - enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues - are unsatisfactory.

The surge was a concerted effort my US forces and compensation paid to former militants to serve in a sentry type capacity in neighborhoods to reduce violence. In the effect that it has reduced violence, it has worked.

Yes, changing the goal posts.

Hell, it's quite easy to say that the surge has worked when you just say "yeah, things are moving along" instead of how they were supposed to be completed.

Tor_Eckman: QFT. And since the Iraqi president agrees that the Obama's plan fits quite nicely with what they desire, the choice is clear.

No, the Iraqi president doesn't agree. Malaki's plan is somewhere in the middle. McCain wants to listen fully to generals and pull out when sustainable security is in place. Malaki wants a goal of 16, but conditioned on stability on the ground. (This quotation was in the original transcript, but Der Spiegel actually removed it and didn't tell anyone). Obama actively refuses to define his position, but it seems to be that he wants to do everything possible of getting out in 16 months, but he leaves open the possibility that he may have to keep troops in longer.

Personally, I'm happy that at least we're talking about how to best leave Iraq now that we're clearly winning. This is a massive change from last summer.

Of course, it probably surprises nobody that I think Mccain's got the best plan. I'd rather a president listen to generals who want to make sure we've won the war. Obama doesn't want to follow the generals' advice, and instead just wants to end the war.

Glass parking lot.

3_Butt_Cheeks: bulldg4life: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Obama: "You've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt."

So, the increased troop level has reduced violence.

He's been saying that all along. But, he has also said that the simple surging of troops won't solve any problems that will plague Iraq for many years.

No where does it say that the "surge is working" in regards to the benchmarks that the administration put forth a few years ago.

In the 18 months or whatever since the start of the surge, violence has been reduced slightly. Suddenly, that is information enough to say that the surge is working completely.

That is not the case.

The GAO report stated that many of the benchmarks put up by the Bush Administration are still not met. And, there are many that have not even gotten satisfactory work towards completion.

Saying that the surge is working is wholly different from increased troop levels have curtailed some of the violence.

People like to parrot the fact that violence has been reduced slightly and completely ignore the 18 benchmarks that were clearly defined as to a successful surge.

The surge has not worked. None of the goals were completed and some of them haven't even been attempted to be completed.

As far as the benchmarks go:

Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" - almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks - enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues - are unsatisfactory.

The surge was a concerted effort my US forces and compensation paid to former militants to serve in a sentry type capacity in neighborhoods to reduce violence. In the effect that it has reduced violence, it has worked.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual term they use is "satisfactory progress towards the goal" and this is a far cry from achieved. If 15 of 18 of these goals had actually been met, I would agree that the surge had been a success. But that is not the case at all.

bulldg4life: Hell, it's quite easy to say that the surge has worked when you just say "yeah, things are moving along" instead of how they were supposed to be completed.

Well, I think the primary goal of the surge was to reduce violence and kill insurgents. The benchmarks haven't been completed as quickly as the Bush admin had figured, but I don't think that would qualify the overall surge as a failure.

Tor_Eckman: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual term they use is "satisfactory progress towards the goal" and this is a far cry from achieved. If 15 of 18 of these goals had actually been met, I would agree that the surge had been a success. But that is not the case at all

No. you're right. It is demonstrating progress, but I believe as far as fully completed benchmarks, you are correct.

helix400: Tor_Eckman: QFT. And since the Iraqi president agrees that the Obama's plan fits quite nicely with what they desire, the choice is clear.

No, the Iraqi president doesn't agree. Malaki's plan is somewhere in the middle. McCain wants to listen fully to generals and pull out when sustainable security is in place. Malaki wants a goal of 16, but conditioned on stability on the ground. (This quotation was in the original transcript, but Der Spiegel actually removed it and didn't tell anyone). Obama actively refuses to define his position, but it seems to be that he wants to do everything possible of getting out in 16 months, but he leaves open the possibility that he may have to keep troops in longer.

Personally, I'm happy that at least we're talking about how to best leave Iraq now that we're clearly winning. This is a massive change from last summer.

Of course, it probably surprises nobody that I think Mccain's got the best plan. I'd rather a president listen to generals who want to make sure we've won the war. Obama doesn't want to follow the generals' advice, and instead just wants to end the war.

Ok, I forgot you are a liar. Obama never said he would not listen to his generals and adjust his plan as needed.

If you want to be a troll, then stop pussy footing around and commit yourself. If you don't, stop saying stupid shiat.