Obama Meets With Iraqi Leaders

Iraqi Spokesman Says Country Hopes U.S. Combat Troops Will Withdraw In 2010

(CBS/AP)  Iraq's government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010.

The statement by Iraq's government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, followed talks between Obama and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki - who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq's position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team.

"We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," al-Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence kicks up again.

As he departed from talks with al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani in Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone, Obama said, "We had a very constructive discussion." Obama also plans meetings with U.S. military commanders who will outline recent progress in the war he has opposed from the start.

This was the third stop on a foreign tour designed to gather information while burnishing the Democratic contender's foreign policy credentials. National security issues are the one issue area in which Obama trails Republican John McCain in the polls.

Obama has called for withdrawing U.S. troops at the rate of one or two brigades a month, ending combat operations within 16 months of becoming president. He favors leaving behind a residual force to protect U.S. personnel, train Iraqi security forces and counter attacks by al Qaeda.

The Illinois senator, challenged at every turn on the Iraq issue by Republicans, including McCain, arrived in the country amid the controversy over the comments by al-Maliki to a German magazine that were supportive of Obama's 16-month timetable.

The Iraqi leader's aides have said his remarks were misunderstood and that he was not taking sides in the U.S. election. Earlier this month, however, al-Maliki said negotiations between his government and the United States on an agreement spelling out a continued role for U.S. forces in Iraq must include some kind of timetable for withdrawing troops from his country.

Last week, the White House said President Bush and al-Maliki had agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing home more U.S. troops, a dramatic shift from what had been the administration's steadfast refusal to talk about any kind of deadline.

At the White House on Monday, Press Secretary Dana Perino said she had not heard the latest statement from al-Dabbagh. But responding to the continuing debate over withdrawal, Perino said the U.S. shares the goal of bringing U.S. troops home based on security success.

"The key issue is that they understand it will not be arbitrary; it will not be a date that you just pluck out of thin air; it will not be something that Americans say, `We're going to do we're going to leave at this date,' which is what some have suggested," she said.

Obama, along with Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., arrived in the country early Monday. Their first stop was Basra, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give details of the trip.

Basra is the center for about 4,000 British troops involved mostly in training Iraqi forces. An Iraqi-led offensive begun in March reclaimed control of most of the city from Shiite militias believed linked to Iran.

The meetings with Iraqi officials came after Obama began his first on-the-ground inspection of Iraq since launching his bid for the White House.

It marked the second major leg of a war zone tour that opened in Afghanistan. The contrasts in tone and message were distinct.

Obama sees the battle against the resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan as America's most crucial fight and supports expanding troop strength there to counter a sharp rise in attacks.

After spending time over the weekend meeting officials in Afghanistan, Obama told CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan in an exclusive interview that the time had come to shift America's military focus - and thousands of troops - from Iraq to Afghanistan. (Watch interview on Face The Nation.)

The trip will be Obama's second to Iraq, but CBS News Baghdad bureau chief Larry Doyle says the senator will arrive to a "dramatically changed landscape" to that which he saw in January 2006.

"When he visited two and a half years ago, Iraq was on the brink of collapse militarily and politically," reports Doyle. "Now, in Baghdad in the last year the levels of violence have decreased in almost all categories by more than 90 percent, and there is a nascent mood of optimism running through the neighborhoods."

But Doyle tempers the positive assessment with a reminder of Iraq's continuing woes: "Those same areas are only receiving about eight hours of electricity a day, sewage problems persist, and unemployment can run as high as 60 percent."

Obama's first tour was treated as a footnote, while the country was caught in a growing Sunni insurgency and was moving toward a flood of sectarian violence. But the bloodshed has declined significantly since Mr. Bush sent thousands more troops last year to help quell the rising violence.

Doyle reports Obama and his fellow senators will also encounter Iraqi leaders who are increasingly "unafraid to push back against American influence." Some U.S. Embassy staff who regularly deal with the national government have told CBS News privately that the Iraqis have even become "belligerent."

"The Iraqi government seems to be finding its stride a bit," says Doyle.

One leading parliamentarian was critical of the flying visits to his country often made by American lawmakers. Mahmoud Othman, who has seen hundreds of senators and congressmen come and go, told Doyle recently the visitors see all the wrong people.

"They come only to the Green Zone, the American Embassy, they see a few generals. I don't think this is a useful trip," said Othman, a prominent member of the Iraqi parliament's Kurdish bloc. "They should go to Basra, Mosul; they are safe now. They should talk to Iraqi lawyers, engineers, doctors, all sorts of people. Twenty hours on a plane, twenty hours going back - 10, 12 hours here - I don't think it's worth it."

McCain, seen at left, has been critical of Obama's position on Iraq, saying the decision to pull out should be determined by progress, not a timetable.

Speaking Monday morning to CBS Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith, McCain said he hoped Obama would learn the error of his ways during his visit to Iraq. (Watch video of the McCain interview)

"Sen. Obama was wrong. He railed against it (the war), he voted against the surge," McCain said. "It is my hope that he will see for himself that he made a gross misjudgment and he will correct that."

"If Sen. Obama would have had his way, they (U.S. troops) would have been out last March, before the surge, and we would have failed," the Republican candidate told Smith.

McCain supports the war, and has been critical of some aspects of its handling. But he was a vocal supporter of the decision to send in more troops.

McCain's foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, said Obama "is stubbornly adhering to an unconditional withdrawal that places politics above the advice of our military commanders, the success of our troops, and the security of the American people."

U.S. commanders have begun withdrawing some of those additional troops and Obama argues they should be sent to Afghanistan, which he says is the "central front" in the fight against terrorism, to reinforce efforts there against a resurgent Taliban and to control spiraling violence.

"There's starting to be a growing consensus that it's time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan, and I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now is the time for us to do it," Obama told Logan after a two-hour meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. (Read the transcript of the exclusive interview.)

"I think it's important for us to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan, and I think that would be a mistake," Obama said in the interview. "I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we have got to start doing something now."

Obama has made Afghanistan a centerpiece of his proposed strategy for dealing with terrorism threats to the United States. He has said the war in Afghanistan, where Taliban- and al Qaeda-linked militants are resurgent, deserves more troops and attention than the conflict in Iraq.

Earlier Sunday, Obama met and praised U.S. troops as he ate breakfast at a heavily fortified base in Kabul.

"To see young people like this who are doing such excellent work, with so much dedication ... it makes you feel good about the country," Obama said in video footage filmed by the military and obtained by The Associated Press.

McCain also supports sending troop reinforcements to Afghanistan.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "Sens. Obama, Hagel And Reed Arrive In Iraq"

3 fascist sympathizers with no ideas, no balls, no integrity, and no respect for our Constitution.

May they soon join George before a war crimes tribunal.

[might15]

I want to know why no one is talking about how McCain spilled the beans on Obama''s trip. Obama showed up exactly when McKill said he would. What''s going on with this? That''s not cool.

[feelfree4u]

fenner,

Nobody here believes your Zionist nonsense, and nobody cares.

Try the Jeruselem Post dot com.

Barack Obama may be on a world tour surrounded by a fawning media, but Sunday an expert in electronic document forensics released a detailed report on the purported birth certificate -- actually a "Certificate of Live Birth" or COLB -- claimed as genuine by his campaign. The expert concludes with 100% certainty that it is a crudely forged fake: "a horribly forgery."

Posted by fenner
-------------------------
I look forward to what McAddled has to say about this shocking revelation.

[grahampoor]

Obama has been consistent and saying we should focus on Afghanistan instead of Iraq for 6 years. History has unfolded to show he has the judgment to be Commander and Chief.
Judge for yourselves if we would have had a better chance of getting Bin Laden with Obama as President in 2002:
Here is what Obama said in 2002 before the war about Iraq:
" After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration''s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don''t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
...
You want a fight, President Bush? Let''s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. "
The one who was right in 2002 should be President in 2008.
God bless you, and God Bless the United States of America!

[grahampoor]

Obama has been consistent and saying we should focus on Afghanistan instead of Iraq for 6 years. History has unfolded to show he has the judgment to be Commander and Chief.
Judge for yourselves if we would have had a better chance of getting Bin Laden with Obama as President in 2002:
Here is what Obama said in 2002 before the war about Iraq:
" After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration''s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don''t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
...
You want a fight, President Bush? Let''s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. "
The one who was right in 2002 should be President in 2008.
God bless you, and God Bless the United States of America!

[samthetvcat]

You would expect Barack to get a bump in the polls from all the media coverage which McCain is not getting during this time, wouldn''t you?

It''ll be interesting to see if he DOESN''T get a bump.

You would expect Barack to get a bump in the polls from all the media coverage which McCain is not getting during this time, wouldn''''t you?

It''''ll be interesting to see if he DOESN''''T get a bump.

Posted by SamTheTVCat
-----------------
The only "bump" that counts is the one in November, the rest is just chaff..

[samthetvcat]

---"Let''s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."---
Posted by grahampoor

Well if the goal were to hunt down Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, then what''s the deal with the nation-building in Afghanistan?

And even if we just focus on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden who are now on the border region, and troops start moving to the border region, then won''t the whole caravan just pick up and cross the border into Pakistan. Where does everybody stand on initiating strikes on a country without their permission when that country has nukes?!?

How long, and at what cost? It may be one of those paradoxes like how everybody just assumed taking out Saddam clearly meant we were going to be safer, but 3 years later the NIE showed the invasion had inflamed the passions of the entire region such that recruitment was skyrocketing and we were LESS safe than if we had just left paper-tiger Saddam in place.

Bin Laden''s holed up in a cave somewhere in no-man''s land. Why don''t we just keep a base there for preventative measure and just pack up the whole futile nation-building adventure and bring the troops home?

[samthetvcat]

---"The only "bump" that counts is the one in November, the rest is just chaff.."---
Posted by hadenough43

Yeah, that''s true - you''re right . . .

[samthetvcat]

Also, didn''t Bin Laden say his goal with 9/11 was to ruin our financial markets and make oil go up to $140 or whatever? There''s that aspect where we don''t want to exaggerate his importance such that we run ourselves into the ground thereby winning the battle while losing the war.

I don''t know . . . it just seems like the traditional ''left'' position seems to have disappeared in this election and now we''ve got rightie (McCain) and rightie-wannabe (Barack). Barack''s so far right, I''m probably going to vote GOP to satisfy my leftist tendencies . . .

Bin Laden''''s holed up in a cave somewhere in no-man''''s land. Why don''''t we just keep a base there for preventative measure and just pack up the whole futile nation-building adventure and bring the troops home?

Posted by SamTheTVCat
---------------------

I don''t know if Osama is dead or alive, and I really don''t care.
However, I strongly suspect that if we leave a vacuum in Afghanistan - the taliban will move right back in, set up shop, and go right back into the business of supporting terrorism. With the assistance of certain "factions" in Pakistan.

[samthetvcat]

hadenough43 - well those are two different concepts. The taliban weren''t the terrorists; Weren''t the terrorists Saudis and Egyptians. The taliban are religious extremists who have oppressive and inhumane customs who happened to give sanctuary to Bin Laden.

Do we need to take on the taliban to avoid the terrorists having sanctuary, or is it just part of the grander scheme to try and democratize the middle-east? If we keep a base and write off the nation-building, don''t we achieve that same goal?

[feeelfree4u]

Fenner, pay no mind to my imposter who abuses and soils ny good name. Keep up the good fight. Israel is a great country that will live long,LONG after Islam and Jihad is wiped off the face of this earth, just like other viruses and plagues.
www.jihadwatch.org

[smirk5]

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki%u2019s words had been "misunderstood and mistranslated," but it failed to cite specifics.

"Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate," Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. "I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation."

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki%u2019s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki%u2019s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama%u2019s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki%u2019s comments by The Times: "Obama%u2019s remarks that %u2014 if he takes office %u2014 in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

hadenough43 - well those are two different concepts. The taliban weren''''t the terrorists; Weren''''t the terrorists Saudis and Egyptians. The taliban are religious extremists who have oppressive and inhumane customs who happened to give sanctuary to Bin Laden.

Do we need to take on the taliban to avoid the terrorists having sanctuary, or is it just part of the grander scheme to try and democratize the middle-east? If we keep a base and write off the nation-building, don''''t we achieve that same goal?

Posted by SamTheTVCat
------------------
Well, I could be wrong, but I''m not sure what the difference is between supporting terrorism and giving sanctuary to terrorists.

[samthetvcat]

---"Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."---
Posted by Smirk5

Just wait until he finds out Barack''s lying to everybody about his 16 month timeline to get votes! Just another politician . . .

When Congress passes the $several-hundred-billion budget for the slower drawdown in Iraq and the quicker buildup of Iran, I think anybody who''s not calling Barack out on his campaign pledges waives the right to complain that the economics in the tank. jmo

[samthetvcat]

---"Well, I could be wrong, but I''m not sure what the difference is between supporting terrorism and giving sanctuary to terrorists."---
Posted by hadenough43

Please elaborate . . .

[smirk5]

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki%u2019s comments by The Times: %u201CObama%u2019s remarks that %u2014 if he takes office %u2014 in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.%u201D

He continued: %u201CWho wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.%u201D

[ciitzenusa]

Sorry, but some of you people still, 15 years after Jihadists bombed the WTC, and 7 years after they destroyed it(and killed 3000 innocents) just don''t get it. For all practical purposes, Al Qaeda and Taliban and Hezbollah and Hamas and Fatah and Iranians and a hundred other Islamic-based groups are all the SAME enemy, the same people. They all have the same goals, the same objectives, and the same means---violence--to achieve them. How many dead people, how many bombs, how many suicide bombs will it really take for you to all get it through your thick skulls? We are fighting a massive movement here. 1.3 BILLION people are Muslims, a solid 10% of them are in violent conflict with the West, while the other 90% cower in terror and are afraid to speak or act. Want a precedent? Its called Germany in the 1930''s, as the Nazis came to power. Please, for the love of God, stop trying to over-complicate this issue by trying so hard to %u201Cunderstand%u201D them or segment them group by group. It%u2019s a waste of time and emotion. These people are radical Muslims, they are in every country on Earth, and they all have one thing in common: they want to kill YOU and your family. And unless you act, unless you speak up, unless you fight, they WILL.

[smirk5]

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki%u2019s comments by The Times: %u201CObama%u2019s remarks that %u2014 if he takes office %u2014 in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.%u201D

He continued: %u201CWHO wants to EXIT in a QUICKER WAY has a BETTER ASSESSMENT of the situation in Iraq.%u201D

[samthetvcat]

---"These people are radical Muslims, they are in every country on Earth, and they all have one thing in common: they want to kill YOU and your family. And unless you act, unless you speak up, unless you fight, they WILL."---
Posted by CiitzenUSA

That sounds like you''re advocating genocide - based on your assumption of how they interpret their faith, you''re saying they must die (?) Isn''t that for God to decide?

---"Well, I could be wrong, but I''''m not sure what the difference is between supporting terrorism and giving sanctuary to terrorists."---
Posted by hadenough43

Please elaborate . . .

Posted by SamTheTVCat
If we leave a vacuum in Afghanistan, the Taliban move back in, as I suspect they will with support from Pakistani allies, set up shop, and go back into the business of supporting terrorism by providing them with sanctuary and real estate to train and equip terrorsists from all over the Muslim world, after they have been cycled through those Pakistani Madrassas. Then it seems to me that we''re right back where we were before 9/11. I''m not sure that''s where we want to be. Especially, unlike Iraq, the Afghans want us there.

[samthetvcat]

hadenough43 - are you saying leaving bases there will equate to a vacuum? That''s where you lose me . . .

hadenough43 - are you saying leaving bases there will equate to a vacuum? That''''s where you lose me . . .

Posted by SamTheTVCat
-------------------
It seems to me that "bases" alone won''t cut it unless those "bases" are tasked with the mission of fighting and killing taliban. If the taliban return to power in afghanistan, the "bases" won''t last long.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "Especially, unlike Iraq, the Afghans want us there."

Posted by hadenough43

Maybe the puppets like former Unocal executive, and Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzia, do, along with the warlords and druglords that we have empowered there, but there is no indication, at all, that the people of Afghanistan welcome the continued U.S. invasion, destruction, and attempted plunder of their country.

It seems far more certain that the people of Afghanistan, and pretty much everywhere else, have had about as much U.S. "liberation" as they can withstand.

If we remain in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, it will seal our demise as a nation, and it will have been well deserved.

Re: "Especially, unlike Iraq, the Afghans want us there."

Posted by hadenough43

Maybe the puppets like former Unocal executive, and Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzia, do, along with the warlords and druglords that we have empowered there, but there is no indication, at all, that the people of Afghanistan welcome the continued U.S. invasion, destruction, and attempted plunder of their country.

It seems far more certain that the people of Afghanistan, and pretty much everywhere else, have had about as much U.S. "liberation" as they can withstand.

If we remain in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, it will seal our demise as a nation, and it will have been well deserved.

Posted by FeelFree4U
--------------------
I ain''t gonna argue that Karzai ain''t a druglord. But it seems to me that if the druglords and warlords are eventually given a choice between the poppy fields or the benefits of taliban rule, they may come around... but I could be wrong...

[samthetvcat]

---"If the taliban return to power in afghanistan, the "bases" won''''t last long."---
Posted by hadenough43

We''re going in circles - Okay I guess you''re saying that you''re including in the group ''terrorists'' not just the actual terrorists but also the entire group who let them set up shop. The problem I have with that is that aren''t there like 10 to 40 million people who fall under that category? You''re basically expressing the overarching rationale that those who advocated the invasion of Iraq were expressing, and you''re also touching on the one expressed by CiitzenUSA, is that right?

That still ignores the money factor - also, are you for or against staying longer in Iraq?

---"If the taliban return to power in afghanistan, the "bases" won''''''''t last long."---
Posted by hadenough43

We''''re going in circles - Okay I guess you''''re saying that you''''re including in the group ''''terrorists'''' not just the actual terrorists but also the entire group who let them set up shop. The problem I have with that is that aren''''t there like 10 to 40 million people who fall under that category? You''''re basically expressing the overarching rationale that those who advocated the invasion of Iraq were expressing, and you''''re also touching on the one expressed by CiitzenUSA, is that right?

That still ignores the money factor - also, are you for or against staying longer in Iraq?

Posted by SamTheTVCat
------------------
To the best of my knowledge, there were no Al-Quaida training bases in Iraq - There weren''t even any terrorist there until the Idiot-Son invaded.
I''m agains''t staying in Iraq even one more day. Those sunnis and shias have been at each others throats for 2000 or so years (Persian/Arab hatred) - I say let ''em have at it. Let the jihadists go after each other, not us.
What I''m trying to say is - lets focus on those who attacked us and those who support them with training and equipment and money. Which does not include Iraq or Iran! But does include the taliban!

Iranians don''''t want war. They have a prez, who does not have power over their military, that says stupid things to look tough for his people -to look tough for the world.

Posted by KenHussein
------------------------
Besides that, they have way, way too much to lose - and they know it.

[samthetvcat]

---"What I''m trying to say is - lets focus on those who attacked us and those who support them with training and equipment and money. Which does not include Iraq or Iran! But does include the taliban!"---
Posted by hadenough43

Well, a couple of other wrinkles to consider are the politics on the ground.

From USAToday (Karzai acknowledges meeting with Taliban): "Afghan Taliban are always welcome, they belong to this country ... they are the sons of this soil,"

From Wikipedia (Afghanistan): "Afghanistan is currently led by President Hamid Karzai, who was elected in October 2004. The current parliament was elected in 2005. Among the elected officials were former mujahadeen, Taliban members, communists, reformists, and Islamic fundamentalists."

* * * * *

A lot of people thought the Sunnis were the bad guys but Iraqis seem to look out for their own first and foremost. How do we set up a new regime and then try to go over their head and kill their countrymen against their wishes without discrediting the government?

[whiskyrocker]

Iraq is a police state folks. We need to get the hell out of there asap. To many good Americans have lost there lives already.

[samthetvcat]

---"Those sunnis and shias have been at each others throats for 2000 or so years (Persian/Arab hatred) - I say let ''em have at it. Let the jihadists go after each other, not us."---
Posted by hadenough43

Also from Wikipedia: "Politics in Afghanistan has historically consisted of power struggles, bloody coups and unstable transfers of power. With the exception of a military junta, the country has been governed by nearly every system of government over the past century, including a monarchy, republic, theocracy and communist state."

* * * * *

I mean like if you''re just supporting the escalation in Afghanistan because you want to win the election, just say so. But how exactly Afghanistan is any less of a quagmire than Iraq I don''t see. Like I said before, everybody looks back at Saddam now as just being a paper tiger. Four years from now when our dollar has turned into the peso, I don''t want to be hearing people say that Bin Laden was just a guy in a cave.

[samthetvcat]

whiskyrocker, you have any thoughts one way or the other on what to do with Afghanistan? Everybody Whiskey served 3 tours in Iraq.

[whiskyrocker]

SamTheCat
---------
Afganistan is where we should have been this whole time with every available troop on the ground and in the sky. Now we are behind the 8 ball--so to speak.

[samthetvcat]

---"Afganistan is where we should have been this whole time with every available troop on the ground and in the sky. Now we are behind the 8 ball--so to speak."---
Posted by whiskyrocker

Yeah, if only . . . what we might have been able to accomplish the last 5 years! :(

I''m just so worried everybody''s jumping headlong into another quagmire because they don''t want to ask the tough questions because they don''t want to lose the election. I don''t see it that way because the politicians are so busy running their campaigns, maybe they haven''t really though these issues through except at the level of how it helps their careers. If we ask the tough questions, they''ll be forced to adapt accordingly. And given that they both have the same platform, neither wins or loses if they both have to adapt . . .

Also from Wikipedia: "Politics in Afghanistan has historically consisted of power struggles, bloody coups and unstable transfers of power. With the exception of a military junta, the country has been governed by nearly every system of government over the past century, including a monarchy, republic, theocracy and communist state."

* * * * *

I mean like if you''''re just supporting the escalation in Afghanistan because you want to win the election, just say so. But how exactly Afghanistan is any less of a quagmire than Iraq I don''''t see. Like I said before, everybody looks back at Saddam now as just being a paper tiger. Four years from now when our dollar has turned into the peso, I don''''t want to be hearing people say that Bin Laden was just a guy in a cave.

Posted by SamTheTVCat
-------------------------
Tough for me to swallow the comparison of fuedal Afghanistan with the Persian/Arab conflict. Several orders of magnitude difference, it seems to me.
And Saddam was not involved with taking down the Twin Towers - the guy in the cave was, along with his cohort.

And another thing - I don''t know of any candidate that is advocating the withdrawel from BOTH countries.

[samthetvcat]

-----"Tough for me to swallow the comparison of fuedal Afghanistan with the Persian/Arab conflict. Several orders of magnitude difference, it seems to me.
And Saddam was not involved with taking down the Twin Towers the guy in the cave was, along with his cohort."-----
Posted by hadenough43

I''m sorry, but those just sound like rationalizations from somebody who just wants to see Barack win. Because about 5 posts ago you stated that "I don''t know if Osama is dead or alive, and I really don''t care."

Sorry I''m starting to get impatient, cranky and snippy which usually means it time to turn in . . . I sometimes get insomnia, so I might be tempted to return LOL but probably time for me to turn in anyway.

Have a good evening everybody!

[whiskyrocker]

You want to talk about a quagmire. Try fighting in the Tora Bora Mountains. I have friends that have been there and some that are still there and it is a quagmire from hell.

[samthetvcat]

---"And another thing - I don''''t know of any candidate that is advocating the withdrawel from BOTH countries."---
Posted by hadenough43

It''s so frustrating because neither party was advocating staying out of Iraq either and look what we got. I''ve spent the last 5 years looking back and wondering whether I should have done more or said something different that might have resonated with people because so many peoples'' lives were affected. I mean like Scott McClellan even pointed out that he couldn''t believe how little the Bush administration got questioned in the run-up to the war because everybody was so scared. I thought people have learned from that . . .

[samthetvcat]

---"You want to talk about a quagmire. Try fighting in the Tora Bora Mountains. I have friends that have been there and some that are still there and it is a quagmire from hell."---
Posted by whiskyrocker

There was a troop that was quoted on ABC the other day saying the same thing that really shook me out of my stupor - hopefully Barack and the press were hearing that kind of feedback on his trip. After 5 years of fighting that really ought to be a factor of the equation!

Night everybody :)

[feelfree4u]

---"And another thing - I don''t know of any candidate that is advocating the withdrawel from BOTH countries."---
Posted by hadenough43

I think that both Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney would advocate for a withdrawal from both countries.

You want to talk about a quagmire. Try fighting in the Tora Bora Mountains. I have friends that have been there and some that are still there and it is a quagmire from hell.

Posted by whiskyrocker
-------------------------
Whats the alternative - Somebody attacks the USA and we say "They get a pass" Destroying them would be too tough a job?

[whiskyrocker]

hadenough4
----------
I never said anything about no fighting I just said it''s a ****ing quagmire.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "Whats the alternative - Somebody attacks the USA and we say "They get a pass" Destroying them would be too tough a job?"

Posted by hadenough43


We could have bombed Albania or Tonga instead. It would have made about as much sense.

[feelfree4u]

Or, we could just lash out wildly in all directions, until we run out of ammo.

That''d show em''.

Re: "Whats the alternative - Somebody attacks the USA and we say "They get a pass" Destroying them would be too tough a job?"

Posted by hadenough43


We could have bombed Albania or Tonga instead. It would have made about as much sense.

Posted by FeelFree4U
---------------------
It is gonna take a very long time to repair the damage the idiot son has done to this country....

[soshljustic]

obama agenda "favors leaving behind a residual force to protect U.S. personnel, train Iraqi security forces and counter attacks by al Qaeda", and act as sitting ducks all so he can meet his glorified timetable, regardless of the reality and "young people like this who are doing such excellent work, with so much dedication." They evidently dont really matter as much as obamas glorified ego-because they dont get a break, they must be redeployed if they live? To bad obama was never really as "dedicated" and fond of "doing such excellent work" as our soldiers. Believe it, he would leave them as sitting ducks in a heartbeat, if it made him look good before voting day.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "obama agenda "favors leaving behind a residual force to protect U.S. personnel, train Iraqi security forces and counter attacks by al Qaeda", and act as sitting ducks..."

Posted by soshljustic


Good point. Best to apologize and withdraw immediately, and to focus on bringing the regime and their accomplices before a war crimes tribunal.