Heh, no, not biased at all. Let's illustrate his points:

If McCain wins the Iraq argument, he "will add to his greatest strength -- a perceived fitness to be commander in chief and lead the global war on terror."

But,

"Mr. Obama needs to win the argument because his greatest weakness is inexperience and a perceived unreadiness to be president."


But wait, McCain has "problems":

1. He supported the popular invasion of Iraq, even if the war is no longer that popular. People may not think the war was "worth it", but according to the BBC, 60% of people in the US think removing Saddam was the right thing to do. This is a subtle twist of the facts. "Worth it" and "right thing to do" are not the same thing.

2. He supported the popular surge at the time, even if it's not so popular now.

3. Nouri al-Maliki seems to agree with McCain that timetables should not be arbitrary, and may not even be feasible.

Some problems.


Now, let's see what Mr. Rove thinks are Obama's problems:

1. Obama opposed "the policy that created the progress that makes victory in Iraq possible."

2. Obama canceled a visit to wounded troops.

3. Obama missed an opportunity to show he could correct a "mistake."


So, there you have it. Unbiased commentary on how three positive things are "problems" for McCain, but three overwhelmingly negative things are problems for Obama.

Well-reasoned, submitter? I think not. It's just the same old spin.

Can someone just post the hose dog picture and end the thread?

filth: Can someone just post the hose dog picture and end the thread?



Happy?

Although, personally, I view it as a pretty good summation of the Rove/Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly stuff I've been unfortunate-enough to view, lately.

Unless Iraq somehow jumps into the top of the news in the next 90-days I do not see this being a major story of the campaign. And unfortunately for McCain if Iraq does jump into the news it will likely be because something bad has happened there, and be seen by many as proof that the surge has failed to make Iraq stable.

No, the new Commander in Chief test is not taking place in Iraq, it is taking place in Afghanistan, and Obama has been a little ahead of the curve on that one.

Skail: filth: Can someone just post the hose dog picture and end the thread?



Happy?



Less unhappy. Thanks.

Code_Archeologist: Unless Iraq somehow jumps into the top of the news in the next 90-days I do not see this being a major story of the campaign. And unfortunately for McCain if Iraq does jump into the news it will likely be because something bad has happened there, and be seen by many as proof that the surge has failed to make Iraq stable.

No, the new Commander in Chief test is not taking place in Iraq, it is taking place in Afghanistan, and Obama has been a little ahead of the curve on that one.

You don't think the lack of foresight regarding Iraq that Obama displayed might at least make him open to attack about his opinion regarding the war in Afgan?

gustakooka: You don't think the lack of foresight regarding Iraq that Obama displayed might at least make him open to attack about his opinion regarding the war in Afgan?

What lack of foresight?

gustakooka: You don't think the lack of foresight regarding Iraq that Obama displayed might at least make him open to attack about his opinion regarding the war in Afgan?

Not really no, Obama's stand from the start was that the war in Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from fighting international terrorism and capturing bin Laden. His goal of ending the war in Iraq has always been to refocus our attentions to Afghanistan and deal with al Qaeda.

What actually matters is what the people believe, and most of them agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and his narrative has been focused on fixing the mistake.

Code_Archeologist: gustakooka: You don't think the lack of foresight regarding Iraq that Obama displayed might at least make him open to attack about his opinion regarding the war in Afgan?

Not really no, Obama's stand from the start was that the war in Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from fighting international terrorism and capturing bin Laden. His goal of ending the war in Iraq has always been to refocus our attentions to Afghanistan and deal with al Qaeda.

What actually matters is what the people believe, and most of them agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and his narrative has been focused on fixing the mistake.

So we should ignore that he was against the surge?

gustakooka: So we should ignore that he was against the surge?

Arguing about the surge is irrelevant to Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Iraq is stable and can stand on its own two feet... good, now rather than dwelling on who said what and when lets deal with the rest of the real problems. McCain's whining over the surge being his idea is not presidential.

Code_Archeologist: gustakooka: So we should ignore that he was against the surge?

Arguing about the surge is irrelevant to Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Iraq is stable and can stand on its own two feet... good, now rather than dwelling on who said what and when lets deal with the rest of the real problems. McCain's whining over the surge being his idea is not presidential.

So, we should listen to Obama about fixing Afgan when he was wrong on Iraq? Its very relevant. And what did you say about McCain? What does that have to do with Obama being wrong?

Code_Archeologist: gustakooka: So we should ignore that he was against the surge?

Arguing about the surge is irrelevant to Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Iraq is stable and can stand on its own two feet... good, now rather than dwelling on who said what and when lets deal with the rest of the real problems. McCain's whining over the surge being his idea is not presidential.

Anybody who thinks that Iraq is now stable and can stand on its own two feet is deluded. You people just don't farking understand how those folks think (hint: they are TRIBAL).

gustakooka: And what did you say about McCain? What does that have to do with Obama being wrong?

And McCain was right? McCain is claiming that the surge was the be all end all of our victory in Iraq. The facts do not bear that out... the nation was on the path to stabilization before the surge was even a glimmer in Bush's eye. It was the Sunni leaders who decided to clean their own houses before the surge arrived which has brought down violence.

The fact is that the battle for Iraq is over... and we need to go back to Afghanistan now before the Taliban and Al Qaeda are able to organize another major attack.

gustakooka:

So, we should listen to Obama about fixing Afgan when he was wrong on Iraq? Its very relevant. And what did you say about McCain? What does that have to do with Obama being wrong?

Obama wasn't wrong on Iraq. The invasion was a bad idea, the surge was a bad idea. Your wishful cheerleading will not make that otherwise.

gustakooka 2008-07-31 01:06:45 PM
Code_Archeologist: gustakooka: You don't think the lack of foresight regarding Iraq that Obama displayed might at least make him open to attack about his opinion regarding the war in Afgan?

Not really no, Obama's stand from the start was that the war in Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from fighting international terrorism and capturing bin Laden. His goal of ending the war in Iraq has always been to refocus our attentions to Afghanistan and deal with al Qaeda.

What actually matters is what the people believe, and most of them agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and his narrative has been focused on fixing the mistake.

So we should ignore that he was against the surge?

Should we ignore the fact that Obama was against the war inthe first place?

dhudd: Anybody who thinks that Iraq is now stable and can stand on its own two feet is deluded. You people just don't farking understand how those folks think (hint: they are TRIBAL).

So you are saying that they the surge failed because the Iraq's are nothing but ignorant tribesmen incapable of governing themselves? How enlightened of you.

Code_Archeologist: And McCain was right? McCain is claiming that the surge was the be all end all of our victory in Iraq. The facts do not bear that out... the nation was on the path to stabilization before the surge was even a glimmer in Bush's eye.

The violence levels in late 2006 seem to contradict your revisionist history.

Anyone else listening to Rick Davis on MSNBC right now? Jesus H Christ, the McCain campaign is coming off as nothing but bitter, jealous, and spiteful. Pathetic.

Karl Rove may have a "problem" some day, mainly that the soft, fleshy ones get used as punching bags in federal prison.

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: Anyone else listening to Rick Davis on MSNBC right now? Jesus H Christ, the McCain campaign is coming off as nothing but bitter, jealous, and spiteful. Pathetic.

Rovian politics at its finest. Yet another reason I won't vote for McCain. He's employing the people that got George W. Bush elected.

Code_Archeologist: gustakooka: And what did you say about McCain? What does that have to do with Obama being wrong?

And McCain was right? McCain is claiming that the surge was the be all end all of our victory in Iraq. The facts do not bear that out... the nation was on the path to stabilization before the surge was even a glimmer in Bush's eye. It was the Sunni leaders who decided to clean their own houses before the surge arrived which has brought down violence.

The fact is that the battle for Iraq is over... and we need to go back to Afghanistan now before the Taliban and Al Qaeda are able to organize another major attack.

Thanks to the surge that Obama was wrong about. You can slam McCain all you want, I don't mind; I was just pointing out that Obama was wrong fixing one war, so his opinion might be questioned about the other.

Shaggy_C: Code_Archeologist: And McCain was right? McCain is claiming that the surge was the be all end all of our victory in Iraq. The facts do not bear that out... the nation was on the path to stabilization before the surge was even a glimmer in Bush's eye.

The violence levels in late 2006 seem to contradict your revisionist history.

And the Sunni awakening (pre-surge) had nothing to do with lowering violence levels, right?

Are we going to keep paying (bribing) the rest until the end of time too?

gustakooka: So we should ignore that he was against the surge?

You're basing this on the idea that the surge was successful and that this "fact" is irrefutable.

Well, it's not. 3 of 18 benchmarks complete is not success. That's a big ol' failure.

Whamdangler

Did you just run a Level 1 Diagnostic on a piece of Tribble poo?

Good thing you didn't step in it.

Shaggy_C: The violence levels in late 2006 seem to contradict your revisionist history.

When I say on the path to stabilization I am referring to the Awakening Movement.

And for all of those claiming the surge failed -

``Iraqi oil production set new records this quarter, with output reaching 2.43 million barrels per day, the highest quarterly average since the invasion,' Stuart Bowen, the Defense Department's inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, wrote in his 18th quarterly report to Congress on the expenditure of $50 billion in U.S. economic aid. Production fell to 1.3 million barrels a day during 2003.

A $34 million security system of ditches, fences and concertina wire has stopped attacks since July 2007 on the pipeline from Kirkuk in the north to a major refinery in Baiji, central Iraq, according to the report, which was released today. The result has been a substantial rise in crude oil exports from the north, Bowen said

``Iraq's burgeoning oil windfall, which has yielded more than $33 billion in revenues to date in 2008,' may result in another $7 billion that could be spent on reconstruction as U.S. spending winds down, Bowen said. Analysts say Iraq has the world's third-largest reservoir of untapped crude oil.

Contributing to Iraq's improved security was the so-called surge of almost 30,000 U.S. military personnel that ended this month plus operations of the Iraq Security Forces, who cleared Muslim militias from Basra, Baghdad's Sadr City, Mosul and Amara, said Bowen, who for the third time this year reported increasing improvements in Iraq's security and economy. (new window)

Sure, unbiased.
"Obama played basketball rather than visit wounded troops in Germany"

He was asked not to go to the troop hospital because his military advisor was forbidden to go. Rove also conveniently fails to note that Obama visited wounded troops in Iraq, and didn't use it as a political stunt, unlike McGranpa.

Rove is being the usual partisan anus.

Jackpot777: Can you tell what it is. Clue: it rhymes with "badder peace choir" and happened on 8/29/2007.

Oh, cut me a farking break. Sadr had off and on cease fires since the start of the war. Look it up.

gustakooka: Code_Archeologist: gustakooka: You don't think the lack of foresight regarding Iraq that Obama displayed might at least make him open to attack about his opinion regarding the war in Afgan?

Not really no, Obama's stand from the start was that the war in Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from fighting international terrorism and capturing bin Laden. His goal of ending the war in Iraq has always been to refocus our attentions to Afghanistan and deal with al Qaeda.

What actually matters is what the people believe, and most of them agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and his narrative has been focused on fixing the mistake.

So we should ignore that he was against the surge?

The "surge" isn't an unqualified success and wasn't the only strategy that would have led to decreased levels of violence. Being against the choice of adding 20 thousand troops wasn't a bad decision on Obama's part, and demonstrates no lack of foresight.

I understand that you are in the habit of changing goals on the fly and painting nuanced and complicated situations as simply binary "GOOD or BAD", but the "surge" itself was only one factor in a large system that had many variables. Is it a good thing that there are fewer deaths and a lower level of violence in coalition-controlled areas? Of course. But that doesn't mean we've followed the optimum strategy here.

Code_Archeologist: Awakening Movement.

You mean the US-FUNDED Awakening Movement.

Can anybody admit that Obama was correct about not going into war in the first place?

RocketVat: The "surge" isn't an unqualified success and wasn't the only strategy that would have led to decreased levels of violence. Being against the choice of adding 20 thousand troops wasn't a bad decision on Obama's part, and demonstrates no lack of foresight.

If you have 150,000 troops in a country and you're maintaining no control whatsoever, why would you continue to throw that money away if you could achieve your objectives with only a 20% increase? Being against the surge showed a lack of understanding of the ability to accomplish objectives. Being against it was a political stunt, nothing more.

Shaggy_C: Code_Archeologist: Awakening Movement.

You mean the US-FUNDED Awakening Movement.

Yep... we gave them money, they stopped fighting. No need for extra troops (the surge). TA-DA!

snkliquid: Can anybody admit that Obama was correct about not going into war in the first place?

Yup, he was right. But if he was so against it, why the votes to fund it?

snkliquid: Can anybody admit that Obama was correct about not going into war in the first place?

I think almost everyone can. Or should.

RocketVat: gustakooka: Code_Archeologist: gustakooka: You don't think the lack of foresight regarding Iraq that Obama displayed might at least make him open to attack about his opinion regarding the war in Afgan?

Not really no, Obama's stand from the start was that the war in Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from fighting international terrorism and capturing bin Laden. His goal of ending the war in Iraq has always been to refocus our attentions to Afghanistan and deal with al Qaeda.

What actually matters is what the people believe, and most of them agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and his narrative has been focused on fixing the mistake.

So we should ignore that he was against the surge?

The "surge" isn't an unqualified success and wasn't the only strategy that would have led to decreased levels of violence. Being against the choice of adding 20 thousand troops wasn't a bad decision on Obama's part, and demonstrates no lack of foresight.

I understand that you are in the habit of changing goals on the fly and painting nuanced and complicated situations as simply binary "GOOD or BAD", but the "surge" itself was only one factor in a large system that had many variables. Is it a good thing that there are fewer deaths and a lower level of violence in coalition-controlled areas? Of course. But that doesn't mean we've followed the optimum strategy here.

He was wrong, let him be wrong. You are desperately trying to defend the wrong position here.

Code_Archeologist: Yep... we gave them money, they stopped fighting. No need for extra troops (the surge). TA-DA!

So the Sunnis were the only people fighting against us? What happened to this 'baby sitting a civil war'?

Shaggy_C: snkliquid: Can anybody admit that Obama was correct about not going into war in the first place?

Yup, he was right. But if he was so against it, why the votes to fund it?

What would you have had him done once we were in? Vote to not fund it? I'm sure you would have applauded that.

A little off topic, but since it's opposite day, turns out McCain planned on attacking Obama if he visited the troops in Germany.

Shaggy_C: Code_Archeologist: Awakening Movement.

You mean the US-FUNDED Awakening Movement.

So what happens when we stop bribing these militias?

Shaggy_C: Code_Archeologist: Yep... we gave them money, they stopped fighting. No need for extra troops (the surge). TA-DA!

So the Sunnis were the only people fighting against us? What happened to this 'baby sitting a civil war'?

Then we had to get the Shiites in the government agree to stop letting Sadr get away with murder... literally. Once again no real need for the extra troops to get that done, just political will.

Obama was wrong about the surge/it was political posturing to get more support of the anti-war crowd

McCain was wrong about invading Iraq

So, are these two mistakes equal?

Shaggy, you still voting for Obama?

And now an overly simplified analogy from Aaron.

Obama: "Hey George, you've had too many. Perhaps you shouldn't drive."

George: "Oh lighten up. I'll be fine."

20 minutes later... BAM! A telephone pole!

Even later... Dr. John gives his diagnosis.

Dr. John: "He needs a little brain salad surgery"

Barack: "Is that necessary? That's very expensive and unproven. Couldn't something else be done?"

Dr. John: "Barack would rather see George dead than admit he was wrong about the surgery!"

Barack: "But if he hadn't driven, this wouldn't be necessary at all"

Dr. John: "LALALALALALALALALA!"

Code_Archeologist: What actually matters is what the people believe, and most of them agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and his narrative has been focused on fixing the mistake.

I think the issue is that he was wrong about whether or not a shift in strategy and in increase in troop levels was going to be effective.

I'm not convinced most people think the invasion was a mistake - but most would probably agree that our strategy for avoiding and containing an insurgency was not effective.

Mistakes happen, and sometimes things fail wildly - especially in anything as chaotic as war. The Bush adminstration (imo) failed when they put their philosophical and political goals ahead of the data they were receiving on the insurgency.

Obama is looking very much like he's doing the same thing. In a debate, the courtroom, the senate, or in the classroom a person's ideas are judged essentially by an audience. In the physical world, ideas are "judged" by what happens when you put those ideas into action. By ignoring the turn around in Iraq, or at least by trivializing the strategy behind it, Obama is making the same mistake as the Bush administration.

And - yes - Bush's mistake cost an awful lot of lives and resources, but there are people who believe that Obama's will cost more.

To sum it up - the fact that we elected one arrogant jackass with no foreign policy experience from one party, does not imply that the antidote is to elect another arrogant jackass with no foreign policy experience from the other.

voting to fund the war is not the same as voting for it. it isn't the ideal position, but if I were him I would have done the same thing. The question you must ask is this:

Would voting to not fund the war have stopped the war? Simply put: Is George Bush a big enough asshole to continue a war without funding?

Judging from his actions over the past 7 years, my guess would be yes. On this one, you have to go with the lesser of two evils: Fund the war and attempt to bring about the political climate to end it.

gustakooka: snkliquid: Can anybody admit that Obama was correct about not going into war in the first place?

I think almost everyone can. Or should.

RocketVat: gustakooka: Code_Archeologist: gustakooka: You don't think the lack of foresight regarding Iraq that Obama displayed might at least make him open to attack about his opinion regarding the war in Afgan?

Not really no, Obama's stand from the start was that the war in Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from fighting international terrorism and capturing bin Laden. His goal of ending the war in Iraq has always been to refocus our attentions to Afghanistan and deal with al Qaeda.

What actually matters is what the people believe, and most of them agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and his narrative has been focused on fixing the mistake.

So we should ignore that he was against the surge?

The "surge" isn't an unqualified success and wasn't the only strategy that would have led to decreased levels of violence. Being against the choice of adding 20 thousand troops wasn't a bad decision on Obama's part, and demonstrates no lack of foresight.

I understand that you are in the habit of changing goals on the fly and painting nuanced and complicated situations as simply binary "GOOD or BAD", but the "surge" itself was only one factor in a large system that had many variables. Is it a good thing that there are fewer deaths and a lower level of violence in coalition-controlled areas? Of course. But that doesn't mean we've followed the optimum strategy here.

He was wrong, let him be wrong. You are desperately trying to defend the wrong position here.

He wasn't wrong. The surge is being sold to you dolts as some big success so you can gotcha Obama, but there is no proof that the surge by itself resulted in lower violence. As if that was the primary goal of the thing in the first place.

Jebus you guys will swallow anything Rove & Co. feed you, won't you?

Code_Archeologist: Shaggy_C: The violence levels in late 2006 seem to contradict your revisionist history.

When I say on the path to stabilization I am referring to the Awakening Movement.

When people suggest the surge helped reduce violence, they often point out details such as the surge being in place in June of 07. The exact month where the dramatic turnaround began.



/Yes, it wasn't just the surge. It was the overall change of strategy, but those responsible for this new strategy still needed extra troops to make it work.

Tor_Eckman: What would you have had him done once we were in? Vote to not fund it? I'm sure you would have applauded that.

Yes, I would have. One must stand up for their convictions. He's trying to claim to be the anti-war candidate while stilling enabling the war to continue. Politically savvy, I suppose. And not too much different from the Democrat strategy for the last 5 years.



Rather than use the vast power they had to end the war, Democrats devoted their energy to making sure that "anti-war activism" became synonymous with "electing Democrats." Capitalizing on America's desire to end the war, they hijacked the anti-war movement itself, filling the ranks of peace groups with loyal party hacks. Anti-war organizations essentially became a political tool for the Democrats - one operated from inside the Beltway and devoted primarily to targeting Republicans.

This supposedly grass-roots "anti-war coalition" met regularly on K Street, the very capital of top-down Beltway politics. At the forefront of the groups are Thomas Matzzie and Brad Woodhouse of Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq, the leader of the anti-war lobby. Along with other K Street crusaders, the two have received iconic treatment from The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which depicted the anti-war warriors as young idealist-progressives in shirtsleeves, riding a mirthful spirit into political combat - changing the world is fun! (new window)

Most attribute the drop in attacks on US troops as to be purely the result of the Surge.

In the words of greater men than I "You do not put a few more thousand US troops anywhere and not get a change...". That means the Surge DID hhave an impact. But we have too many other things taking place. Awakening Councils. Sadr Cease Fire. Pay off of Sunni Insurgents. Too many variables to say that just one thing did it all.

alybaba: Shaggy, you still voting for Obama?

Yep.

snkliquid: Would voting to not fund the war have stopped the war? Simply put: Is George Bush a big enough asshole to continue a war without funding?

So political expedience trumps ideals. Gotcha. So are you officially a war supporter now, cuz you have 'no other choice'? Chickenhawk.