If any of our enemies, from Europe or from Asia, attempt long-range raids by "suicide" squadrons of bombing planes, they will do so only in the hope of terrorizing our people and disrupting our morale. Our people are not afraid of that. We know that we may have to pay a heavy price for freedom. We will pay this price with a will. Whatever the price, it is a thousand times worth it. No matter what our enemies, in their desperation, may attempt to do to us- we will say, as the people of London have said, "We can take it." And what's more we can give it back and we will give it back--with compound interest.
- FDR
Thursday, 24 July 2008
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
McCain is corked on Iraq
LINK:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html
This is the biggest development to hit the general election so far. This is a bigger blockbuster than Batman. The primarily Shia Iraqi government has endorsed Sen Obama's proposed 16 month phased withdrawal of American combat forces. In a recent interview with German daily Der Spiegel, Prime Minister al-Maliki explicitly endorsed the position held by Sen Obama and the majority of Americans. Some choice quotes from the Prime Minister:
"Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short."
"As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
"Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."
Politically, I think the numerous statements to come out of the Iraqi govt endorsing Obama were the coups de grâce for the McCain camp when it comes to Iraq. Recent (06-08) Republican Iraq propoganda has been based on (at least) three tiers: a) we had to go into Iraq because of WMD, democratization, Saddam-alQaeda links b) the "surge is working" and c) we must stay in Iraq to insure the victory that the surge has put within reach.
McCain has quietly conceded point a), as the war is unpopular and most people realize unnecessary. Iraqi WMD programs were virtually nonexistant, democratization is a joke when the process ends up killing 1 million people, displacing 4.5 million, and provoking sectarian violence, and all Saddam - AQ links have been disproved. McCain no longer mentions the initial rationale for the war, nor does he mention any never-never land type threat that AQI or Saddam posed pre-March 2003.
This week the Iraqi government relegated point c) to the massive pile of useless and forgotten memes that warmongers in our country have endlessly repeated over the past 6 years. It is a government that the Bush administration has propped up and given matériel, and who Republicans often point to as evidence that democratization has worked, despite all the evidence to the contrary. To have our friends in the Iraqi govt refute Republican-McCain policy and demand that we leave -- sooner, rather than later, must sting. Watch for accusations that Maliki is an Iranian stooge (which he might be) and that his words do not matter to come from the farthest reaches of the right, ie Limbaugh et al.
Which leaves John "100 years in Iraq" McCain with Republican talking point b) "Obama was wrong, the surge worked." This is a pathetic plea, and I really doubt that McCain will persuade voters that staying in Iraq is "worth it" or that "victory is at hand" based on a four word phrase that resembles the many others that the marketers in Washington have lambasted the public with for the past 6 years. As Gen Zinni (ret) said some time ago to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" (I paraphrase) "We need an overarching regional security policy for the Mideast." "The surge is working" doesn't cut it. Watch McCain try to steer the election towards the economy, a subject he seems to be as versed in as Iraq.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html
This is the biggest development to hit the general election so far. This is a bigger blockbuster than Batman. The primarily Shia Iraqi government has endorsed Sen Obama's proposed 16 month phased withdrawal of American combat forces. In a recent interview with German daily Der Spiegel, Prime Minister al-Maliki explicitly endorsed the position held by Sen Obama and the majority of Americans. Some choice quotes from the Prime Minister:
"Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short."
"As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
"Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."
Politically, I think the numerous statements to come out of the Iraqi govt endorsing Obama were the coups de grâce for the McCain camp when it comes to Iraq. Recent (06-08) Republican Iraq propoganda has been based on (at least) three tiers: a) we had to go into Iraq because of WMD, democratization, Saddam-alQaeda links b) the "surge is working" and c) we must stay in Iraq to insure the victory that the surge has put within reach.
McCain has quietly conceded point a), as the war is unpopular and most people realize unnecessary. Iraqi WMD programs were virtually nonexistant, democratization is a joke when the process ends up killing 1 million people, displacing 4.5 million, and provoking sectarian violence, and all Saddam - AQ links have been disproved. McCain no longer mentions the initial rationale for the war, nor does he mention any never-never land type threat that AQI or Saddam posed pre-March 2003.
This week the Iraqi government relegated point c) to the massive pile of useless and forgotten memes that warmongers in our country have endlessly repeated over the past 6 years. It is a government that the Bush administration has propped up and given matériel, and who Republicans often point to as evidence that democratization has worked, despite all the evidence to the contrary. To have our friends in the Iraqi govt refute Republican-McCain policy and demand that we leave -- sooner, rather than later, must sting. Watch for accusations that Maliki is an Iranian stooge (which he might be) and that his words do not matter to come from the farthest reaches of the right, ie Limbaugh et al.
Which leaves John "100 years in Iraq" McCain with Republican talking point b) "Obama was wrong, the surge worked." This is a pathetic plea, and I really doubt that McCain will persuade voters that staying in Iraq is "worth it" or that "victory is at hand" based on a four word phrase that resembles the many others that the marketers in Washington have lambasted the public with for the past 6 years. As Gen Zinni (ret) said some time ago to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" (I paraphrase) "We need an overarching regional security policy for the Mideast." "The surge is working" doesn't cut it. Watch McCain try to steer the election towards the economy, a subject he seems to be as versed in as Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
