“Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost,” the GOP nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator’s last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.
“He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time,” the Arizona senator added. “If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn’t had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly.” “
Look, what’s the point in Obama going over there? Who cares?
Iraq is making “fragile but reversible” progress on security, but it’s too early to set dates to pull out all U.S. troops, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq told Congress on Tuesday. “
There has been “significant but uneven progress,” Petraeus said, but recent violence shows the progress is “fragile but reversible.” “
Is it just me, or does ol’ Dave sound like:
What the hell is Petraeus saying? Someone please enlighten me here. (I bet Bro Taguchi will.) Does Dave mean “inconstant” by “uneven”? I don’t know.
If it’s so fragile, how in the hell is it significant? I’d think that a significant improvement would imply stability.
To digress, I think this whole security problem rests on Paul Bremer. (Beyond the rest of Bushco.) He should not have dismissed Saddam’s forces after Baghdad was toppled. We should have paid off those dudes and made them cops. But noooooooooo. We sent em’ packing. Stupid.
Ok, back to Dave:
“This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable,” he said. “However, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve.” “
John McCain loves this type of shit. (So does W) He’s going to put this quote in his pocket, and use it against Obama and Clinton. DUH. I still don’t know what the General is saying.
Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians â€œtaking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.â€ Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: â€œWell, itâ€™s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. Thatâ€™s well known. And itâ€™s unfortunate.â€
It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself.
â€œIâ€™m sorry,â€ Mr. McCain said, â€œthe Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.â€
This exchangeÂ doesn’t give one any confidence that Mr. McCain, running for the highest office in the land, has any grasp ofÂ the basic factsÂ regarding the U.S. military presence in the Middle East (I refuse to call it a “war”).Â Â
Perhaps McCain should bone up on all of the previously-givenÂ false reasons for risking the lives of U.S. soldiersÂ in Iraq and Iran before giving any more press conferences.Â Â The Bush Administration has excelled at giving false reasons–there’s no reason to invent new ones:
1. WMD in Iraq (and now, allegedly, in Iran)
2. Saddam Hussein behind 9/11
3. Saddam Hussein connected with al Qaeda
4. Fighting terrorists there so we donâ€™t have to fight them here
5. Spread democracy
6. Saddam Hussein (and now, the President of Iran)Â was (is) a bad man.
7. Iraqi violations of UN Resolutions
8. The 1993 assassination attempt against GHW Bush
9. Defend Israel
10. Bad intel
[Thanks to Hughâ€™s Comprehensive Bush Scandal List for the above false reasons, the tip of the iceberg regarding Bush Administration scandals].
McCain said his potential Democratic rivals have distorted his January comment that U.S. forces may need to remain in Iraq for up to 100 years. Speaking at a campaign event in suburban Cleveland, Ohio, he said that referred to a long-term American presence similar to those in South Korea or Kuwait.
‘My friends, the war will be over soon … for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years,’ the Arizona senator said. ‘But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us.’
Ok, McCain, I see what you’re doing. You’re distancing yourself from the 100-years comment NOW, so that way you have plausible deniability later, when you debate your Democratic opponent–whoever that will be.
The part that gets me, though, is that McCain claims that his 100-years comment has been distorted, so what he opts for is the far-more intelligible modifier, “soon.” What does that mean? He might as well have said, “We’re kinda leaving.”