1. CowboysZone Upgrade Coming Soon! For more information, click here.

Don't believe the hype...

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by vta, Apr 8, 2008.

  1. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Since we know where the Republican nominees stands, the relevant point is that no Democrat with a cape is coming to save the day. They all lie, and this issue is no different. The excuses may be different, when the time comes, but the end process will remain: an American presence in Iraq for some time.

    Iraqi envoy: This is wrong time for U.S. to leave

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq's ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that his country still needs the U.S. military to survive and predicted that the next U.S. president, whoever it is, will agree that the troops will have to stay for at least a while longer. Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie predicts that Iraq will be "a work in progress" in five years.

    "Now it is all about getting votes," Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie said of the presidential hopefuls and their views on Iraq. "When the candidate is successful and is in the White House, that candidate is going to have a different mind frame. At that point, most of the choices will converge."

    Sumaidaie, who made the comments after a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, added that he has been in contact with the U.S. presidential campaigns. Earlier, he told the Washington think tank that American forces "have to leave in a responsible manner."

    "We want them to leave. Let's be clear," he said.

    Looking ahead to that time frame, he predicted that Iraq will still be "a work in progress," comparing the current situation in the nation to "a recovery from a terminal illness."

    "I am willing to predict there will be gradual reduction over the next few years of American involvement, commitment in Iraq, but I am not willing to get into numbers and dates," he said.

    After his speech, he said he understands the frustration of members of Congress and many Americans seeking to end U.S. involvement in Iraq.

    "I say to them, yes, I understand your pain, but it is not something you can get out of so easily. This is the wrong time unless you want to hand the country on a plate to Iran," he said.

    Future Iraqi governments will decide whether non-combat U.S. military forces will stay in Iraq, he adde
  2. Jon88

    Jon88 Benched

    7,665 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    That's an interesting last quote. I'm glad they see Iran the same way the American Government does.
  3. Jordan55

    Jordan55 Active Member

    1,176 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Were not leaving anytime soon!

    It's not just the Shi'ite militias, they are encountering

    Smoking turbans: Evidence of Iran in Basra
    By TigerHawk at 4/06/2008 03:01:00 PM

    Via Glenn Reynolds, the Times of London is reporting that Iranians on the ground in Basra directed operations against the Maliki government and the United States in the recent fighting there, and that General David Petraeus is going to cite it in his forthcoming Congressional testimony. Glenn suggests that this is "[a]nother thing that Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to hear about, I suspect," which is manifestly true. However, she did predict it last week in her preparation of the media battlespace, no doubt as part of her broader effort to destroy the interest of the media in the substance of the general's testimony:

    Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”

    It is not risky to speculate that Pelosi had some advance notice of the general's most persuasive arguments for staying the course. In any case, she seems to have missed the point: If the Iranians have put this much skin in the Basra game, surely they would not have "dictated" a ceasefire if they were not worried about the outcome.

    The real question is how the surrender branch of the Democratic party (is it really only a branch?) will persuade American voters that they can both retreat in the face of a direct military confrontation with Iran -- of all countries -- and nevertheless be relied upon to defend and assert the national interest of the United States.
  4. Jon88

    Jon88 Benched

    7,665 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I don't think he said anything about it.
  5. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg That gum you like. Zone Supporter

    9,556 Messages
    843 Likes Received

    Obama at the Hearing

    Mike, I didn't see Hillary this morning, but from in the room here, I thought Obama's questioning (save his final statement, which was a little stump-speech-y) was quite successful. It nicely sharpened the question a lot of the other senators had been orbiting around, namely, is there a specific end we can envision now to our work in Iraq?

    Instead of throwing up his hands in frustration a la Joe Biden or Barbara Boxer (who was rather funny), Obama tried to give Petraeus and Crocker metrics to riff off of: Let's not pretend we can get nearly everything we want, so what can we be satisfied with? Could we be comfortable -- not overjoyed, but comfortable -- with a certain kind of relationship between Iraq and Iran? Could we feel our work is done if the status quo is sustained with vastly fewer American troops, but no better than the status quo? And so forth. It was a manifestation of the grounded, pragmatic, non-ideological Obama we sometimes read about.

    --Eve Fairbanks
  6. Jon88

    Jon88 Benched

    7,665 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I think Iran needs to be attacked just the way Al Qaeda or Al Sadr's militia has been. They're doing the same thing by undermining our progress.
  7. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg That gum you like. Zone Supporter

    9,556 Messages
    843 Likes Received
    I say let Israel mess with them. They'd enjoy it.

Share This Page