I used to think that Iraq and Vietnam were similar: wars fought thousands of miles from home, for reasons later found to be false, with thousands dead and wounded (on both sides), and our troops unable to figure out who was actually on our side.
I was wrong.
Because after reading about this, I came to the conclusion that Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. There is absolutely no way that anyone serving or fighting in Vietnam was as delusional as the Pentagon braniacs who think an entertainment complex in the heart of Baghdad is a good idea - and a solid financial investment!
Luckily for all the chickehawk pro-war cowards on the right, soon they'll have a family-friendly tourist destination in Baghdad where they can relax at the Marriott (yeah, I'll bet the Book of Mormon will be well received in Iraq...) sipping mai-tais wearing flak vests and telling the kiddies to stay clear of incoming mortar fire.
BAGHDAD - Forget rocket attacks, concrete blast walls and no sewer system and try picturing luxury hotels, a shopping center and even condos in the heart of Baghdad.
It’s all part of an ambitious five-year development “dream list” to transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone from a walled fortress into a gleaming centerpiece for Baghdad’s future.
The $5 billion plan has Pentagon backing and apparently the interest of leading hotel developers, said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan.
Of course there are a few problems to be worked out:
"There is no sewer system, no working power system. Everything here is done on generators. No road system repair work. There are no city services other than the minimal amount we provide to get by," Karnowski said.
About 50 percent of the area is now occupied by coalition forces, the U.S. State Department or private foreign companies. If all were to go according to Karnowski's plan, only 5 percent of land in the Green Zone will be in foreigners' hands in five years.
Privately, American diplomats say the plan is, at best, wishful thinking."
And the locals aren't keen on the idea:
Security is nowhere near the level needed for major development projects. Then there is the question of whether the Iraqi government even wants U.S. involvement in developing the center of their capital.
One diplomat, who asked not to be named because of no authorization to speak to the media, said they did not think Iraqis would want Washington to "turn this area into downtown Kansas City."
And it's never good when you're compared to the previous tenant, S. Hussein:
"Some Iraqi leaders even have drawn parallels to the U.S.-backed development plan and what Saddam Hussein did in the area — known by its Iraqi name of Tashri during his regime.
Hussein stocked the neighborhood with family and tribal allies, political loyalists and members of his elite Republican Guard. Karnowski called the accusation "partially true."
"Why do people build fences around their house? The intent is until such time as it's much safer around here, you want to be able to influence what goes on," he said.
No worries though... if you build it they will come, so pack your bags and get ready for the trip of a lifetime...to beautiful downtown Baghdad!!!
"If you talk to people at the State Department, they still believe a hotel isn't going up. But it is a done deal," Karnowski said of the Marriott project.
Seriously, I cannot envision a time at any point in the future when a) State Department and military families will be allowed to live in the Green Zone and b) anyone with an ounce of sanity would ever want to take their families there. Add this project to the very long list of projects that never happens - but the taxpayers end up paying for anyways.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Moran of the Week
Hmmmm. See anything wrong with that picture? I mean, besides the ugly shirt? The "moran" holding it (see sidebar for visual depiction of a moran), one Becky Smith of Texas City, spelled "official" wrong - it's got an extra "i" sister. She was holding the sign at an Immigration Reform/rights rally in Houston last week.
Poster board: $1.00
Paint: $2.00
The irony of a woman holding a sign calling for the English language to be the "offical" language of the United States and spelling English words wrong? Priceless.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Yet another 5 year anniversary?
Wow, this war sure has a lot of 5 year anniversaries. I'll bet 2013 will be a humdinger of a year, what with all the 10 year anniversaries and such.
Today, of course, is the day that George W. Bush "landed" his plane on the flight deck of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, to the delight of Americans everywhere, and announced that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended in the battle of Iraq and the United States and our allies have prevailed." And who could forget this:
The White House has gone to great lengths to hide that banner, or blame the Navy for wanting to post it. Take these comments from a Presidential Press Conference on October 28, 2003:
"Nora.
Q Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?
THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops.
The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way. But my statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be right, it is dangerous in Iraq. It's dangerous in Iraq because there are people who can't stand the thought of a free and peaceful Iraq. It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe that we're soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders -- and suiciders who are willing to drive up to a Red Cross center, a center of international help and aid and comfort, and just kill. "
Of course, given this administration and its allergic reaction to the truth, it was, not suprisingly, a BIG FUCKING LIE.
Then, Tony Snow took the excuse machine for a ride and claimed that President Bush meant exactly the opposite of "mission accomplished" when he stood in front of the banner. Right.
Yesterday at the White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana "Peroxide" Perino said the real problem with that banner was that it wasn't more specific:
Maybe I'm out in left field, but I have never seen or heard of any other US Navy Ship flying anything like a "Mission Accomplished" banner, let alone something that says "Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission". That is just absolutely fucking ridiculous - though completely in keeping with this administration and its predicliction for reaching 110 on the bullshit meter.
But here's the completely sad and tragic reality of "mission accomplished". From March 19, 2003 - May 1, 2003, the United States lost 140 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Figure 4 times that number wounded, so maybe around 560 or so.
But consider these statistics, also from icasualties.org/oif:
718 American casualties from May 2, 2003 - June 28, 3004 (the official handoff of soveriegnty to the Iraqi people);
580 American casualties from June 29, 2004 - January 30, 2005 (the first Iraqi elections);
715 American casualties from January 31, 2005 - December 14, 2005 (the second Iraqi elections);
933 American casualties from December 15, 2005 - January 31, 2007
977 American casualties from February 1, 2007 - May 1, 2008.
The grim total is 4,063 Americans killed in Iraq, everyone of them with family and friends who will carry their deaths with them for the rest of their lives. Upwards of 30,000 Americans wounded. Anywhere from 100,000 to 600,00 Iraqis killed and wounded. Nearly 4 million Iraqis displaced, either within Iraq or in neighboring countries like Jordan and Syria. Close to $520 billion dollars spent.
Mission most certainly not accomplished, Mr. President. Not for the Iraqi people and not for the United States of America.
Update: How sad that on the 5th anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" word comes of an Army Ranger killed in Afghanistan - it was his seventh deployment between Iraq and Afghanistan. While it's comforting to know that SFC David McDowell died doing what he loved, it's tragic and irresponsible beyond belief that a nation like ours fighting multiple wars has not instituted a draft.
Update II: Click here to relive the memories of May Day, 2003.
Today, of course, is the day that George W. Bush "landed" his plane on the flight deck of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, to the delight of Americans everywhere, and announced that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended in the battle of Iraq and the United States and our allies have prevailed." And who could forget this:
The White House has gone to great lengths to hide that banner, or blame the Navy for wanting to post it. Take these comments from a Presidential Press Conference on October 28, 2003:
"Nora.
Q Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?
THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops.
The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way. But my statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be right, it is dangerous in Iraq. It's dangerous in Iraq because there are people who can't stand the thought of a free and peaceful Iraq. It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe that we're soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders -- and suiciders who are willing to drive up to a Red Cross center, a center of international help and aid and comfort, and just kill. "
Of course, given this administration and its allergic reaction to the truth, it was, not suprisingly, a BIG FUCKING LIE.
Then, Tony Snow took the excuse machine for a ride and claimed that President Bush meant exactly the opposite of "mission accomplished" when he stood in front of the banner. Right.
Yesterday at the White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana "Peroxide" Perino said the real problem with that banner was that it wasn't more specific:
Maybe I'm out in left field, but I have never seen or heard of any other US Navy Ship flying anything like a "Mission Accomplished" banner, let alone something that says "Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission". That is just absolutely fucking ridiculous - though completely in keeping with this administration and its predicliction for reaching 110 on the bullshit meter.
But here's the completely sad and tragic reality of "mission accomplished". From March 19, 2003 - May 1, 2003, the United States lost 140 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Figure 4 times that number wounded, so maybe around 560 or so.
But consider these statistics, also from icasualties.org/oif:
718 American casualties from May 2, 2003 - June 28, 3004 (the official handoff of soveriegnty to the Iraqi people);
580 American casualties from June 29, 2004 - January 30, 2005 (the first Iraqi elections);
715 American casualties from January 31, 2005 - December 14, 2005 (the second Iraqi elections);
933 American casualties from December 15, 2005 - January 31, 2007
977 American casualties from February 1, 2007 - May 1, 2008.
The grim total is 4,063 Americans killed in Iraq, everyone of them with family and friends who will carry their deaths with them for the rest of their lives. Upwards of 30,000 Americans wounded. Anywhere from 100,000 to 600,00 Iraqis killed and wounded. Nearly 4 million Iraqis displaced, either within Iraq or in neighboring countries like Jordan and Syria. Close to $520 billion dollars spent.
Mission most certainly not accomplished, Mr. President. Not for the Iraqi people and not for the United States of America.
Update: How sad that on the 5th anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" word comes of an Army Ranger killed in Afghanistan - it was his seventh deployment between Iraq and Afghanistan. While it's comforting to know that SFC David McDowell died doing what he loved, it's tragic and irresponsible beyond belief that a nation like ours fighting multiple wars has not instituted a draft.
Update II: Click here to relive the memories of May Day, 2003.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Webb to McCain: "He's so full of it..."
I've been pushing Jim Webb as the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee because of his ability to connect with the average voter and describe in thoughtful terms why diplomacy in the world matters, why the growing gap in wages matters, and why Iraq has been a colossal mistake. You can watch his 2007 State of the Union rebuttal here.
I've also written about the first bill Sen. Webb sponsored in the US Senate: The Post 9/11 G.I. Bill which will update the current GI Bill with better educational benefits. Sen. McCain couldn't be bothered in the past to become one of the 50+ co-sponsors - or even read the bill - but that hasn't stopped him from introducing his own GI Bill.
Apparently the two Naval Academy grads are at odds with who is supporting what bill and to what extent. From today's Politico:
"From Annapolis to Vietnam and back to the Pentagon, John McCain and Jim Webb trod the same paths before coming to the Senate. Iraq divides them today, but there’s also the new kinship of being anxious fathers watching their sons come and go with Marine units in the war.
So what does it say about Washington that two such men, with so much in common, are locked in an increasingly intense debate over a shared value: education benefits for veterans?
“It’s very odd,” said former Nebraska Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, a mutual friend. And that oddness gets greater by the day as the two headstrong senators barrel down colliding tracks.
An Arizona Republican, McCain has all but locked up the Republican presidential nomination and is preparing for a fall campaign in which his support of the Iraq war is sure to be a major issue. Yet the former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW makes himself a target by refusing to endorse Webb’s new GI education bill and instead signing on to a Republican alternative that focuses more on career soldiers than on the great majority who leave after their first four years.
Undaunted, Webb, who was a Marine infantry officer in Vietnam, is closing in on the bipartisan support needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate, where the cost of his package — estimated now at about $52 billion over 10 years — is sure to be an issue. But McCain’s support would seal the deal like nothing else, and the new Republican bill, together with a letter of opposition Tuesday from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, threatens to peel off support before the Democrat gets to the crucial threshold of 60 votes.
“There are fundamental differences,” McCain told Politico. “He creates a new bureaucracy and new rules. His bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer. We want to have a sliding scale to increase retention. I haven’t been in Washington, but my staff there said that his has not been eager to negotiate.”
“He’s so full of it,” Webb said in response. “I have personally talked to John three times. I made a personal call to [McCain aide] Mark Salter months ago asking that they look at this.”
“Hell, no,” Webb bristled when asked if there had been an implicit message that he would attack McCain if he didn’t come on board.
"John McCain has been a longtime friend of mine, and I think if John sat down and examined what was in this bill, he would co-sponsor it,” Webb said. “I don’t want this to become a political issue. I want to get a bill done.”
But McCain’s camp has its back up and complains of being bullied by what it says are Webb’s demands to “sign on” to the bill without being given the needed time — and, some would say, due deference — to make changes.
The Gates letter, sent to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), echoes many of McCain’s arguments, and beyond politics, the fight underscores a real policy divide over how the nation views its professional military. Iraq has been the most prolonged conflict for that military since the all-volunteer force was created after Vietnam. And while Gates, like McCain, focuses first on those willing to re-enlist for longer service, Webb believes the nation owes a debt to those who rotate out after one enlistment, which can often include multiple tours in Iraq.
“I’ve been doing veterans law for 30 years. The GI bill is designed as a readjustment benefit for people who leave the military,” Webb said. For the Marines and the Army — which account for the brunt of the fighting — he estimates as many as 70 percent to 75 percent rotate out after a single four-year enlistment.
Webb’s new GI education benefits would apply, then, to anyone who has served up to 36 months of qualified active duty beginning at the same time as or after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “These are the people who answered the call,” Webb said at the rally Tuesday. “These are the people who moved willingly forward toward the sound of the guns.”
In private life, Webb is known as an officer who kept in touch with the enlisted Marines who served under him in Vietnam. And his rhetoric is a throwback to another era, when military service was seen less as an ongoing career than something undertaken for a shorter period, whether defined by the draft or enlistment during a war.
By contrast, Gates wrote in his letter that “our first objective is to strengthen the All-Volunteer Force” and “re-enlistments (and longer service) are critical to the success of the All-Volunteer Force.” From this vantage point, a too-generous GI Bill is counterproductive, and the defense secretary warns that “serious retention issues could arise” if the benefit were extended above the average costs for a public four-year college.
The Webb bill shoots higher, promising payments up to the cost of more expensive state schools plus a monthly housing stipend equivalent to costs in the same area. The government could even match, dollar for dollar, any contribution a private college might make, if its tuition is more than that of the state schools. This creates a new, more complex, multi-tiered system, which critics contend would be an administrative nightmare.
By contrast, the Republican alternative backed by McCain seeks to build on the current benefits system dating back to 1985. All levels would be increased but not to the degree of Webb’s bill; the greatest benefits — including the ability of career noncommissioned officers to transfer their benefits to their children — would be extended to those who remained at least six years.
Warner, for one, is skeptical of the retention argument against the Webb bill. “I think this argument that it’s going to hurt retention is very thin and tenuous, very thin and tenuous,” said the former chairman. “The flip side of that is, putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this. It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment.”
“This happens in Washington. You have competing proposals side by side,” said McCain. “We need to increase benefits. We share that same goal completely.”
Jim Webb is not the kind of guy to fuck with. Seriously. A combat Marine awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts. Why the McCain people are lying about contacts with him is beyond me. Repeat after me: honesty is the best policy. Do not lie about talking to Jim Webb. He will take you out behind the woodshed and kick your ass (metaphorically speaking of course).
McCain knows that he's going to be badly hurt appearing to be against college benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan vets so he proposed his own bill, which requires that people serve 6 years in order to qualify for any benefits. His argument is that Jim Webb's bill will hurt retention rather than help it. The least we can do to thank those who volunteered for active duty service after September 11th is to give them the opportunity to better themselves. Is that really too much to ask?
I've also written about the first bill Sen. Webb sponsored in the US Senate: The Post 9/11 G.I. Bill which will update the current GI Bill with better educational benefits. Sen. McCain couldn't be bothered in the past to become one of the 50+ co-sponsors - or even read the bill - but that hasn't stopped him from introducing his own GI Bill.
Apparently the two Naval Academy grads are at odds with who is supporting what bill and to what extent. From today's Politico:
"From Annapolis to Vietnam and back to the Pentagon, John McCain and Jim Webb trod the same paths before coming to the Senate. Iraq divides them today, but there’s also the new kinship of being anxious fathers watching their sons come and go with Marine units in the war.
So what does it say about Washington that two such men, with so much in common, are locked in an increasingly intense debate over a shared value: education benefits for veterans?
“It’s very odd,” said former Nebraska Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, a mutual friend. And that oddness gets greater by the day as the two headstrong senators barrel down colliding tracks.
An Arizona Republican, McCain has all but locked up the Republican presidential nomination and is preparing for a fall campaign in which his support of the Iraq war is sure to be a major issue. Yet the former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW makes himself a target by refusing to endorse Webb’s new GI education bill and instead signing on to a Republican alternative that focuses more on career soldiers than on the great majority who leave after their first four years.
Undaunted, Webb, who was a Marine infantry officer in Vietnam, is closing in on the bipartisan support needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate, where the cost of his package — estimated now at about $52 billion over 10 years — is sure to be an issue. But McCain’s support would seal the deal like nothing else, and the new Republican bill, together with a letter of opposition Tuesday from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, threatens to peel off support before the Democrat gets to the crucial threshold of 60 votes.
“There are fundamental differences,” McCain told Politico. “He creates a new bureaucracy and new rules. His bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer. We want to have a sliding scale to increase retention. I haven’t been in Washington, but my staff there said that his has not been eager to negotiate.”
“He’s so full of it,” Webb said in response. “I have personally talked to John three times. I made a personal call to [McCain aide] Mark Salter months ago asking that they look at this.”
“Hell, no,” Webb bristled when asked if there had been an implicit message that he would attack McCain if he didn’t come on board.
"John McCain has been a longtime friend of mine, and I think if John sat down and examined what was in this bill, he would co-sponsor it,” Webb said. “I don’t want this to become a political issue. I want to get a bill done.”
But McCain’s camp has its back up and complains of being bullied by what it says are Webb’s demands to “sign on” to the bill without being given the needed time — and, some would say, due deference — to make changes.
The Gates letter, sent to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), echoes many of McCain’s arguments, and beyond politics, the fight underscores a real policy divide over how the nation views its professional military. Iraq has been the most prolonged conflict for that military since the all-volunteer force was created after Vietnam. And while Gates, like McCain, focuses first on those willing to re-enlist for longer service, Webb believes the nation owes a debt to those who rotate out after one enlistment, which can often include multiple tours in Iraq.
“I’ve been doing veterans law for 30 years. The GI bill is designed as a readjustment benefit for people who leave the military,” Webb said. For the Marines and the Army — which account for the brunt of the fighting — he estimates as many as 70 percent to 75 percent rotate out after a single four-year enlistment.
Webb’s new GI education benefits would apply, then, to anyone who has served up to 36 months of qualified active duty beginning at the same time as or after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “These are the people who answered the call,” Webb said at the rally Tuesday. “These are the people who moved willingly forward toward the sound of the guns.”
In private life, Webb is known as an officer who kept in touch with the enlisted Marines who served under him in Vietnam. And his rhetoric is a throwback to another era, when military service was seen less as an ongoing career than something undertaken for a shorter period, whether defined by the draft or enlistment during a war.
By contrast, Gates wrote in his letter that “our first objective is to strengthen the All-Volunteer Force” and “re-enlistments (and longer service) are critical to the success of the All-Volunteer Force.” From this vantage point, a too-generous GI Bill is counterproductive, and the defense secretary warns that “serious retention issues could arise” if the benefit were extended above the average costs for a public four-year college.
The Webb bill shoots higher, promising payments up to the cost of more expensive state schools plus a monthly housing stipend equivalent to costs in the same area. The government could even match, dollar for dollar, any contribution a private college might make, if its tuition is more than that of the state schools. This creates a new, more complex, multi-tiered system, which critics contend would be an administrative nightmare.
By contrast, the Republican alternative backed by McCain seeks to build on the current benefits system dating back to 1985. All levels would be increased but not to the degree of Webb’s bill; the greatest benefits — including the ability of career noncommissioned officers to transfer their benefits to their children — would be extended to those who remained at least six years.
Warner, for one, is skeptical of the retention argument against the Webb bill. “I think this argument that it’s going to hurt retention is very thin and tenuous, very thin and tenuous,” said the former chairman. “The flip side of that is, putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this. It should be a tremendous incentive for recruitment.”
“This happens in Washington. You have competing proposals side by side,” said McCain. “We need to increase benefits. We share that same goal completely.”
Jim Webb is not the kind of guy to fuck with. Seriously. A combat Marine awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts. Why the McCain people are lying about contacts with him is beyond me. Repeat after me: honesty is the best policy. Do not lie about talking to Jim Webb. He will take you out behind the woodshed and kick your ass (metaphorically speaking of course).
McCain knows that he's going to be badly hurt appearing to be against college benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan vets so he proposed his own bill, which requires that people serve 6 years in order to qualify for any benefits. His argument is that Jim Webb's bill will hurt retention rather than help it. The least we can do to thank those who volunteered for active duty service after September 11th is to give them the opportunity to better themselves. Is that really too much to ask?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
It's a hard knock life for Hillary
Apparently HRC thinks she's had a tough life. I don't doubt that being beaten up in the VRWC (Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) since 1992 has been hard. But, come on, she went to Harvard, got a plum job at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, lived on the government dole since the early '80s, including swanky digs at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - and to top it all of, she and her lesser half are worth more than $100 mill. Sweeeeeeeet.
I think Dr. Evil and mini-me nail it with this video:
I think Dr. Evil and mini-me nail it with this video:
Who said it?
Another guessing game - how fun!! Try and figure out who said these things in January, 2005:
"When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, [this person] was for the idea before he was against it.
Three years before [this person] argued... that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, [this person] decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.
In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan -- something [this person] has repeatedly advocated during the campaign -- [this person] offered nothing short of a categorical "no."
"I would hope that we could bring them all home," he said on MSNBC. "I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."
Host Chris Matthews pressed [this person] on the issue. "You've heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I've heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?"
[This person] held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. "I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence," he responded. "And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."
The January 2005 comments, which have not surfaced previously during the presidential campaign, represent a stunning contrast to [this person's] current rhetoric.
They also run squarely against his image as having a steadfast, unwavering idea for U.S. policy in Iraq -- and provide further evidence to those, including some prominent GOP foreign policy figures in the "realist" camp, who believe [this person] is increasingly adopting policies shared by neoconservatives.
Finally, the comments undercut much of the criticism [this person] has launched at his Democratic and even Republican opponents.
When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was for the idea before he was against it."
"When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, [this person] was for the idea before he was against it.
Three years before [this person] argued... that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, [this person] decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.
In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan -- something [this person] has repeatedly advocated during the campaign -- [this person] offered nothing short of a categorical "no."
"I would hope that we could bring them all home," he said on MSNBC. "I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."
Host Chris Matthews pressed [this person] on the issue. "You've heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I've heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?"
[This person] held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. "I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence," he responded. "And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."
The January 2005 comments, which have not surfaced previously during the presidential campaign, represent a stunning contrast to [this person's] current rhetoric.
They also run squarely against his image as having a steadfast, unwavering idea for U.S. policy in Iraq -- and provide further evidence to those, including some prominent GOP foreign policy figures in the "realist" camp, who believe [this person] is increasingly adopting policies shared by neoconservatives.
Finally, the comments undercut much of the criticism [this person] has launched at his Democratic and even Republican opponents.
When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was for the idea before he was against it."
Monday, April 28, 2008
I do not think that means what you think it means
Headline from today's blogs:
"McCain calls Obama insensitive to poor people "
Right. Because the child of a single parent, raised by his grandparents, who took out student loans for college (just recently paid off) wouldn't know anything about being poor or lower middle class (or nice to people who are)- as opposed to the son and grandson of Navy Admirals who married the daughter of a beer distributor worth, say, $100 million or so.
Ahhhh....the fabulous life of John McCain:
"McCain calls Obama insensitive to poor people "
Right. Because the child of a single parent, raised by his grandparents, who took out student loans for college (just recently paid off) wouldn't know anything about being poor or lower middle class (or nice to people who are)- as opposed to the son and grandson of Navy Admirals who married the daughter of a beer distributor worth, say, $100 million or so.
Ahhhh....the fabulous life of John McCain:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)