posted April 05, 2008 01:35 PM            

The bidding war to determine which leftist socialist "surrender now" candidate would pull US military force out of Iraq the soonest reminds me of the old TV game show..."Name that Tune". Bob, I can name that tune in 6 notes. I can beat that Bob, I can name that tune in 5 notes. Well Bob, I can name that tune in 4 notes.....yadda, yadda, yadda.

Now, it turns out an O'Bomber...named O'Bomber because of his position of talking to enemies and bombing friends and allies..an adviser, make that a "key adviser" in a confidential memo advises keeping 60,000 to 80,000 US military personnel in Iraq through 2010. Oh, but "conditions on the ground" in Iraq would also play an important part in any decisions made as to when to withdraw US forces.

Gee, that sounds suspiciously like what Bush has been saying..."conditions on the ground" will determine when US forces can be drawn down in Iraq.

Leftist voters just never seem to catch on. Their leftist candidates keep lying through their teeth to them...and they keep voting for them anyway.

April 04, 2008
Obama advisor says 60 to 80 thousand troops need to stay in Iraq
Thomas Lifson

An Obama adviser calls for 60-80,000 US troops to stay in Iraq, in a confidential memorandum obtained by Eli Lake of the New York Sun. Lake writes:

A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."

Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center's Web site as a policy brief.

Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign's Iraq position. Nonetheless, the paper could provide clues as to the ultimate size of the residual American force the candidate has said would remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat brigades. The campaign has not publicly discussed the size of such a force in the past.

posted April 05, 2008 01:43 PM            

SUMMARY: The Republican National Committee created an ad suggesting the two top Democrats running for president have changed positions on Iraq, but both candidates' records on the war are more consistent than the ad would have you believe.

In a radio ad, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom questions Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s positions on Iraq:

"In 2004, Senator Barack Obama said a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face to the troops.' In 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton rejected 'a rigid timetable that terrorists could exploit,' and last year said she didn't think it was a smart strategy to set a date certain for withdrawal. But now, Clinton and Obama are calling for the precipitous withdrawal of America from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground and regardless of the consequences of a defeat for the United States."

The veteran, Emory "Trip" Bellard, goes on to address them directly, asking, "What happened to your principled leadership when it comes to the War on Terror?"

The RNC is taking quotes from several years ago and comparing them to recent comments, which doesn't take into account the changing conditions in Iraq. But setting that aside, what's more significant here is the selective editing that was done for the ad on the quotations that were used.

So, have Obama and Clinton flip-flopped on the Iraq war?

Let’s look at the candidates separately.

Obama was an opponent of the Iraq War from its inception, when he was an Illinois state senator. Two years later, when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate seat for Illinois, he continued to oppose the rationale for the invasion. But he also said the U.S. now had an obligation to see the war through. "I don’t think any of us should be rooting for failure in Iraq at this point," he said. "This is no longer George Bush’s war. This is our war."

The "slap in the face" quote used in the ad appeared in a campaign story from the Associated Press. Obama said he would support sending more troops to Iraq if it would hasten the end of the war. An immediate withdrawal, he said, would create "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity" and be "a slap in the face" to the troops fighting there.

Tim Russert asked Obama if he stood by the "slap in the face" remarks on two separate episodes of "Meet the Press." Obama didn't answer it directly, but his responses answers were in line with his previous statements opposing the war. In January 2006, Obama told Russert, "It remains my position that we have a role to play in stabilizing the country as Iraqis are getting their act together. But I have to emphasize that there is a cost for our presence there. We are an irritant, and we help spur the insurgency even as we're defending a fledgling Iraqi government against that insurgency. And so, we have this difficult balance that has to take place, but the critical point is that Iraqis have to take responsibility now that the final election has taken place."

In October 2006, Obama said, "I think it was a mistake for us to go in. I felt that once we had gone in, it made sense for us to try to make the best of the situation. ... Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot -- through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have -- expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now."

In January, Obama proposed legislation that would have started pulling out troops in May 2007 with a goal of having all combat troops out by March 31, 2008. Contrary to the RNC ad, the legislation has provisions to stop the pull-out in case of national interest or if the Iraqi government met certain targets.

Now let’s look at Hillary Clinton.

Clinton voted in favor of the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush's use of force in Iraq despite reservations. "Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible," she said on the occasion of the vote.

The RNC ad gets Clinton's later statements correct, but leaves out context.

The RNC partially quotes Clinton on a "timetable that terrorists can exploit," something she said several times, from a speech she gave in Louisville, KY in December 2005. Here's the whole quote: "The time has come for the administration to stop serving up platitudes and present a plan for finishing this war with success and honor," she said. "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it. Instead, I think we need a plan for winning and concluding this war, and the president can begin by taking responsibilities for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of this war."

The 2006 statement is taken from a Senate floor speech: "I simply do not believe it is a strategy or a solution for the president to continue declaring an open-ended and unconditional commitment, nor do I believe it is a solution or a strategy to set a date certain for withdrawal without regard to the consequences."

In May 2007, Clinton as well as Obama voted in favor of procedural measures that would have set dates for troop withdrawals, but the measures failed, as expected.

posted April 05, 2008 02:41 PM            

The other thrust of what I said is that Hillary and O'Bomber got involved in a bidding war..similar to name that tune..in which each attempted to outbid the other as to how quickly they would remove US military forces from Iraq...all for consumption by the most radical leftists in America...which is the base of the democrat party as it exists today.

Not too sure of this...as to the timing of when she said it..but I seem to remember Hillary saying she would begin withdrawing US military forces from Iraq within 60 days of taking the oath of office.

Of course, giving an enemy your timetable for anything which involves them is exactly the wrong recipe for success and both Hillary and O'Bomber have been in favor of exactly that dumb ass political policy...because it IS a political move by both of them.

posted April 07, 2008 02:49 PM            

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003364.html

Iraqis do not want foreigners in their land.
Just get the hell out.

The war proved not worth it after all. Al qaida was better controlled by Saddam before he was ousted. And theres no economic benefit to America. Most of the 19 percent of petroleum products that comes from the gulf region comes from Saudi Arabia. Iraq and Kuwait are minor exporters to US.

The democrats can take this in the general election. Obama or Clinton or whoever.

posted April 07, 2008 03:33 PM            

I'm not too surprised Mannu. You couldn't even get your drivel on the right forum.

"the car went out of control and hit a tree"

posted April 07, 2008 03:37 PM            

And I do not mean the photogenic memory that you find in devices like cameras or computers. Your memory better be organic

posted April 07, 2008 03:54 PM            

quote:

---

the whole point of Coulter's attacks on leftists is that she is answering them in the only language they understand..which is sharp tongued, pointed, inflammatory and personal...which is exactly their own style. - Jwhop

---

"Something about small brain primates, inability to focus, think rationally, logically......." - also Jwhop

posted April 07, 2008 05:03 PM            

For someone who can't define "most", who doesn't know the difference between a lie and mistake, someone with minimal analytical ability, someone who is in constant duck and cover mode, someone who is profoundly clueless about the Constitution, the Bible and a host of other subjects..someone like you acoustic; my advice would be to remain silent on the subject of small brain primates.

"sharp tongued, pointed, inflammatory and personal". Just the way leftists like it...until the torch gets turned on their a$ses then, the whining, screeching and shrieking begins.

posted April 07, 2008 05:57 PM            

Oh brother!

You haven't adopted it. You started with it, and that is what I damn well know. People had issues with your style since long before my time, and I've shown that to you on more than one occasion. Not only so, but if you were the bigger person you may think yourself to be, you'd take the high road. Never seen that happen, though. You always revert to bogus authoritarian, mud-slinging, and bullying. Those aren't the Left's tactics, they're yours...and some of your shepherds like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

posted April 07, 2008 06:16 PM            

The rest of your drivel is clearly nonsense about my style of posting before you graced us with your presence. A comment made with no facts and which if you had bothered to check, you would know is false.

Long before you showed up here, I mostly posted in FFA on a variety of topics having nothing whatsoever to do with politics or religion.

When I popped in here one day, there were lying comments, personal comments about Bush who was being called everything from Hitler to the Anti-Christ....with pictures. Now, they didn't want to hear any suggestions to keep the person Bush, his character, intelligence and spiritual state separate from Bush the president and his policies. So, I made a decision and I've stuck to it.

Leftists...like you acoustic have been wheezing, whining and shrieking ever since. For some reason, you think Inflammatory Road is a one way street. You couldn't be more wrong.

There's another lesson in there acoustic. Don't start something you can't finish.

posted April 07, 2008 07:07 PM            

So, you've forgotten the post I linked you to from a few years back (long before my time) when 26T commented on your posting style? Is your memory really that short? I don't think it is. I can find the post again if you like.

quote:

---

So, I made a decision and I've stuck to it.

---

You consciously decided that you'd take the lower road from now on? Well, I guess you help the Democrat's cause by doing so, so cool. Keep up the good work!

quote:

---

Leftists...like you acoustic have been wheezing, whining and shrieking ever since.

---

posted April 07, 2008 07:26 PM            

Your time sense is warped. Whole sections are missing from your dictionary and your analytical ability is seriously impaired.

This Congress IS referred to as a democrat controlled Congress. ...because democrats are in control of both Houses of Congress...and screwing up royally. Yes, talking down the economy is an old play from the democrat playbook...and especially near an election.

Gee, I remember the lying Commander Corruption..before he became Commander Corruption and his lying sycophants talking down the economy in 1991 and 1992 as the "worst economy in 50 years". Absolute lying bullshiit, of course.

You're whining right now acoustic...about my posting style Connecting the dots sure isn't your strong suit.

posted April 07, 2008 08:19 PM            

quote:

---

You're whining right now acoustic...about my posting style Connecting the dots sure isn't your strong suit.

---

So I guess that 60+ percentage of people who think Bush is doing a poor job are just whining, too? Yeah, I don't buy it. I'm making legitimate commentary about you and your assertion. You claim that Coulter speaks in the language of the Left, and I'm ensuring everyone sees that Coulter speaks the language of the Right: your language. It wasn't me who made the comment about primates earlier, was it?

quote:

---

26T came in..with someone else in the middle of the play acoustic....after I started turning the blowtorch on inflammatory leftist rear ends.

---

26T came in and said what countless people have also said in the four years since then. She also made mention of your history in that post, which suggests she didn't just step in on something. It's a shame that most experienced amongst us isn't the example, but instead is the most-often-contested.

posted April 07, 2008 08:36 PM            

You are whining acoustic. You're the one who broached this subject of my posting style. You've been whining about it for most or all of at least 2 years.

I never denied my inflammatory style acoustic. I admitted it, gave the reason for it and intend to continue as long as one bomb thrower..foreign or domestic..continues to hurl insults at the United States, Bush or American citizens.

If you don't like that acoustic, then whine, screech, howl and shriek on.

There are some members here acoustic who would remember that I used to post on FFA with an entirely different style.