Re: OT: Obama recommits to surrender in Iraq

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:48:44 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
<a44f915@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------


Can you name these "important pieces of legislation" that the Iraqi
government has passed? or was that not included in the anti-Obama piece
that you excerpted this from?


I can provide a list of the 18 Benchmarks.

1. Perform constitutional review.
2. Enact de-Ba?athification reform.
3. Implement oil legislation.
4. Form semi-autonomous regions.
5. Hold provincial elections.
6. Address amnesty.
7. Disarm militias.
8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan.
9. Provide military support in Baghdad.
10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces.
11. Ensure impartial law enforcement.
12. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government.
13. Reduce sectarian violence.
14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad.
15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Forces.
16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature.
17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably.
18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference.
---------------------------------------------------------

There ya go.
I will leave it up to you to evaluate the success of those benchmarks.

I asked for the "important pieces of legislation" (what you wrote) that
the Iraqi government has passed, and you provide me with a list of the
benchmarks. Are you really this dense?

Mea Culpa.

I naively assumed that most of these Benchmarks required the Iraqi
legislators to take some action.

I also naively assumed that you might possibly even take the time to
review them and give me your assessment.

Silly me.

That would take way too much time off your recital of the standard
talking points Memo from the Demo Party.

That's like asking a football coach to name the team's most impressive
wins and being told "our goal before the season was to win every game."


Sheesh.
A really inane metaphor (or simile: I can't remember which.)



Just for starters, the Maliki government held a Surge of its own,
gaining control of Basrah from the militia that formerly controlled
that area.

Have fun.

Actually, I just saw where you got most of this info
from...'RightPundits.com" - nuff said.


I have not read this "RightPundits" site that you mention.

You can read the URL that I was quoting from.
Here it is again if you missed it the first time.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/


I also notice that you completely ignore the increased violence in
Afghanistan - the war against the group that actually attacked us in 2001.
American troop casualties there reached an all time high last month, and
last week the Taliban attacked an American and Afghan outpost in
Northeastern Afghanistan and killed 9 Americans - we have now abandoned
that outpost and handed the Taliban a major propoganda victory. The Joint
Chief (Admiral Mullen) has been warning us for weeks now that the
continued troop presence in Iraq is hampering our ability to win in
Afghanistan. John McCain has now joined Obama in calling for additional
troops in Afghanistan (McCain says he wants 15,000 additional troops
there) but he doesn't say where he is going to get these troops from
without gradually wtihdrawing from Iraq.


Nice move, Rudy.
The "Hey! Look over there!" defense.

We were talking about Iraq, and you now want to talk about
Afghanistan.

In fact, no one is opposed to a gradual withdrawal of troops from
Iraq.

The difference is between people like McCain who have the actual
working knowledge about the military and what is possible, vs a
bloviating newbie like Obama who has absolutely zero knowledge about
the simple logistics of how such a withdrawal could take place.
All he knows is that he still has to pander to his Moonbat Base that
wants us to GET OUT NOW!!!

For sure, all the personnel could be evacuated in a relatively short
time, but removal of all their supplies and hardware is a whole nuther
story.


There is so much false information from you that I won't be able to cover
it all.


Yeah, that isn't surprising.
You're motto is "give up".

Obama has never favored "getting out now", he has always been for a
gradual withdrawal (which would take approximately 16 months) based on the
theory that we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were
careless going in. None of the top military officials who have commented
on Obama's gradual withdrawal plan have stated that is not feasible. You
say above that "In fact, no one is opposed to a gradual withdrawal of
troops from Iraq."...if this were the case, then why is McCain disagreeing
with Obama regarding his plan for Iraq - Obama's plan is gradual
withdrawal of troops from Iraq.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/03/obama-denies-altering-iraq-withdrawal-timeline/

July 3, 2008
Obama denies altering proposed Iraq withdrawal timeline
Posted: 03:58 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Chris Welch

Obama denies any shift in his Iraq policy.
FARGO, North Dakota (CNN) ? Democrat Barack Obama denied Thursday any
suggestion he's shying away from his proposed 16-month phased
withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure
speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed" ? shortly
before telling reporters questioning his stance that he will "continue
to refine" his policies as warranted.

"We're planning to visit Iraq," the presumptive Democratic nominee
said, referring to his recently-announced trip scheduled for later
this summer. "I'm going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there."

Asked if that means he is, in fact, open to options that would not
include the removal of all combat troops within 16 months, the
Illinois senator did not respond directly, but only said he will
continue to "gather information."

"I mean we can chase this around, you know, for a long time," he
continued in a press conference in Fargo, North Dakota.

"What I've said repeatedly is that my goal is to end this conflict in
a responsible way as quickly as possible. My 16-month timeline, if you
examine everything I've said, was always premised on making sure that
our troops were safe."

According to Obama's campaign website he would remove brigades at a
pace of one to two per month and have "all [United States] combat
brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

But on April 10 he told an Indiana crowd it may take "16 months to two
years" to remove combat troops. In recent speeches, he's left out the
phrase "16 months" entirely.

------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------

Doesn't that raise a <giggle, snort>?
The 16 months is now 24 months.
Doesn't that make you wonder whether how long it takes for that to go
to 30 months after he gets some basic education that relieves his
total ignorance on military matters?

Stay tuned for further developments

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------


Pressed as to why that's been the case, the White House hopeful first
laughed, then told reporters it's because he's been "focused on the
economy."

Regardless, his economic theme in the last month has not prevented him
from occasionally talking Iraq ? and when he does, he has not brought
up specific timetables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heh.
If I were you, Rudy, I would check daily, if not hourly, to see what
the latest Plan happens to be.

It is McCain who is proving that he doesn't have a realistic plan. McCain
decided this week to endorse Obama's idea of increasing our troop level in
Afghanistan. Obama's plan is clear and coherent - the increased troops
needed in Afghanistan will come from those troops who will be withdrawing
from Iraq. McCain has NO plan on where he will get the extra 15,000
troops that he now says is needed in Afghanistan. Admiral Mullen (Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) has stated that unless we withdraw troops
from Iraq we will not be able to adequately increase the troop level in
Afghanistan - this is the direct connection between Iraq and Afghanistan
that you fail to see, as indicated by your comment above that "We were
talking about Iraq, and you now want to talk about Afghanistan."


Yeah, right.
Spin it again, Sam.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Iraq Officials to US: Dont Pull Troops is a lie from Newsmax
    ... Majority of Iraq Lawmakers Seek Timetable for U.S. Exit ... petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops, ... The withdrawal would depend on the growth and maturity of the Iraqi security ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Surge: 7 more American troops killed in Iraq
    ... 7 more American troops killed in Iraq ... The attacks killed at least two people and sickened 350 Iraqi civilians ... an al-Qaida-linked militant group that disavows Iraq's elected ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: Attn: Chicken-Hawks---Your Country Needs You! (nbc)
    ... WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army, strained by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, missed its recruiting goal for the second straight month in June, indicating a trend that some defense officials on Monday called worrying. ... disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops ... Iraqi civilians, including children, dying from ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: OT: Obama recommits to surrender in Iraq
    ... Can you name these "important pieces of legislation" that the Iraqi ... For someone who supports continuing the war in Iraq ... for an indefinite period and continuing to have US troops die and get ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Lets hear it for manliness?
    ... We were NOT attacked by Iraq. ... Afghanistan harbored the Taliban who helped Al Qaida plot 9/11. ... The first document is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. ... This document also includes an account of an amusing incident in which several Iraqi Army officers contacted the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and stated that the ambassador was their source. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading