Iraq

Biden on Iraq: In His OWN WORDS

Gary Gore — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:29:51 -0400

There's no doubt - Joe Biden is going to be the "gift that keeps on giving" to the Republicans this election.

Here's a nice nugget from Meet the Press which aired April 29th, 2007.

Seems, these comments about the need to remove Saddam Hussien from power were about the only parts he got right about Iraq during this visit to Tim Russert's Meet the Press.

For laughs, we can see see just how incredibly wrong the man turned out to be with the perspective we have been given through the history of just one single year by looking at the related Youtube clips of his 9-9-2007 appearance on Meet the Press (Part One and Part Two). He turned out to be be totally wrong on how the Iraq war, the troop surge, and the development and stability of that nation's government was to eventually turn out.

Just in Time for The Democratic Convention

Gary Gore — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:33:18 -0400

As was rumored to happen several weeks ago, it is now becoming a certainty that one of the biggest issues the Democrats were hoping to run on over the next 2 1/2 months is now a moot point.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced today that the United States and Iraq have now reached agreements on "time horizons" in which U.S. troops will begin staggered exits from Iraq. While the final deal is not totally complete, the withdrawal plan and strategic framework pact is close to final completion.

This from Fox News:

"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement," Rice told reporters after meeting with Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"This agreement determines the principle provisions, requirements, to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission of the U.S. forces," Zebari said.

A draft agreement announced Wednesday would have American troops leave Iraqi cities as early as June 30. Rice flew into Baghdad on an unannounced trip on Thursday to hammer out unresolved issues.

Zebari said the pact has to go before Iraq's Executive Council for Review, but, "really, we are very, very close to closing this agreement."

Besides spelling out that U.S. troops would move out of Iraqi cities by next summer, the Iraqi government has pushed for a specific date, most likely the end of 2011, by which all U.S. forces would leave the country. In the meantime, the U.S. troops would be positioned on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while positioned to help Iraqi forces as needed.

This news could not have come sooner, though ideally maybe it should have come a few days later. It would have been great fun to watch Obama in Denver have to quickly rework his acceptance speech, especially on the fly, if this news would have come out during the Democratic Convention's final evening. Talk about losing the wind in their sails!

I guess, however, that would have been politicizing the Iraqi strategy a bit much. And while tossing about that sort of rationale may be fine for the pundits, it's clear this administration would never behave in that manner. But, alas, I am not a part of the administration, am I?

This news is very good politically for the GOP on several fronts but mostly due to the fact that it plays up to John McCain's insistence on certainly leaving Iraq, but doing so with the qualifier that it does, indeed, occur on the heals of victory! Also, it takes one of the Democrats' very top issues away from them that they intended to use against the Republicans... and that is never a bad thing to happen!

Isn't it so interesting how that, more often than not, what is a good thing for America, is a bad thing for the DNC?!?

Obama Reverses Statement on Iraq Policy...

Gary Gore — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:24:00 -0400

... after he reversed his position on Iraq policy, that is. Could this be Election '08's version of 'I reversed my position on Iraq before I was for reversing that position on Iraq'?

In what is turning out to be an almost daily event, Barack Obama announced today that he may have an upcoming policy revision on another major national issue.

Early on Thursday, Obama made statements that left the door open for major alterations in his plans for Iraq in the unfortunate event he happens to become president.

This from Politico.com based on statements from earlier in the day:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could “refine” his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month.

Earlier, a top Obama adviser had said that the senator is not “wedded” to a specific timeline.

Obama told reporters in Fargo, N.D., that he is “going to do a thorough assessment."

"When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies," he said, according to CBS News. “I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”

Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.

It was in that 'second news conference' of the day that Obama had to try to wiggle out of the pickle he was creating for himself with his inconsistencies. One of the more telling moments of the later news conference came in this exchange between the Democratic nominee and reporters:

Obama: ... I would be a poor Commander-in-Chief if I did not take facts on the ground into account. Alright?

Reporter: You just said that when you use the phrase "refine policy" that it did not refer to the 16-month timetable. Does that mean you can tell us today that you will not change the 16-month timetable?

Obama: (Laughs, Scratches his head, thinks a few seconds) - Here's what I will tell you. I will bring our troops out at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades per month. And at that pace, we will have our combat troops out in 16 months.

So, how does Obama and his supporters reconcile a 16-month timetable being a "done deal" with his self-admission that he is working blind, having no idea of what is currently going on in Iraq until he is able to meet the military leadership over there on the ground - once he actually gets around to making the trip?

By sticking to his latest news conference position of saying "we will have our combat troops out in 16 months", is he not admitting to being a potential "poor Commander-in-Chief" from his words just two sentences previously stated, admonishing any decision-making before taking "facts on the ground into account"?

As more and more time passes and Obama has more and more position changes, I'm almost feeling sorry for his supporters having to figure out what the talking-point is for the current hour. Karl Rove puts it well when he simply says that Obama is a candidate that is "unanchored and untethered". Some "leadership", huh?

Sometimes War Is the Answer

Steve McCullough — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:52:30 -0400

Have you seen the bumper sticker that reads, "War Is Not the Answer?". I saw one the other day and thought to myself, "That's a nice sentiment but it is a simplistic, ill-informed slogan". In truth, war sometimes is the answer. There are many anti-war protest groups, many of them formed on American university campuses, which continue to believe that war never changes anything and should never be considered, regardless of the consequences of not waging war. There are few people who are pro-war but, when used as a last resort, war can often be the answer. To believe that if we laid down our arms, all of our enemies would reciprocate, is naïve and explains why most anti-war groups come from the Left of the political spectrum. Most of those who hold these beliefs are idealists who continue to advance the theory that man is intrinsically good by nature despite historical evidence to the contrary. Would pacifism have defeated the evil of Nazi Germany or imperialist Japan? Would the communist "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union have collapsed without the threat of missiles deployed on the European continent and the buildup of the American nuclear arsenal? Would Hitler, Tojo or Stalin have abandoned their militaristic actions if the rest of the world had simply laid down their arms? Of course not. Our enemies, you see, understand that war can change things. This is the reason that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have declared war on America and the Western world. They realize that war is the answer for them to achieve their goals of conquest. They will not capitulate to pacifism and bumper stickers.

Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama has stated that he would meet unconditionally with representatives of all the world's regimes, including Cuba's Castro, Iran's Ahmadinejad, and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il. He believes that all problems can be resolved through dialogue and negotiations. Once again, this is a naïve point of view. Former US president Jimmy Carter recently traveled to the Middle East to meet with the leaders of the terrorist group Hamas in order to engage in "negotiations". The only thing he accomplished, as Hamas readily proclaimed, was to give credibility to an organization which has the stated goal to eliminate the state of Israel. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1930's, believed that he could negotiate with Hitler and keep his country out of war with Germany. Joseph Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler believing that he could spare Russia from the militaristic ambitions of Nazi Germany. Both men came to realize, almost to the point of the ruin of their respective countries, that negotiation was not the answer it appeared to be. Those who hold ambitions of conquest, whether they be Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, or Osama bin Laden, have no interest in a negotiated settlement. In most cases, negotiations solve nothing until a military victory has been achieved.

Another characteristic of the anti-war Left is that they tend to believe that the aggressor is the victim. Many believe that America's foreign policies brought on the attacks of 9/11 and that the problems in the Middle East are all the fault of America or their ally, Israel. Islamic extremists also want the world to believe this lie. The decline of the Islamic civilization in the Middle East has been advancing for many years and the region's only economic development was due to the birth of the oil industry thanks to the investment by American and other Western companies. Without this economic intervention, the region would be nothing but a poor, undeveloped, uneducated Third-World ghetto. Al-Qaeda has taken advantage of this state of affairs to wage a war of terrorism against the democratic non-Islamic governments of the world. Unfortunately, the "War is not the Answer" crowd has bought into the myth of American repression of the Middle East. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most of the Democrat party leadership have all declared that America should withdraw from Iraq and then the Iraqis will solve all their problems created by our invasion on their own. Never mind that history has shown that precipitous retreat from a battle usually results in catastrophic consequences. Those who want to compare the war in Iraq to the war in Vietnam refuse to recognize the horrendous results from the American military withdrawal in the previous war which resulted in the slaughter of millions in South Vietnam and its neighbor Cambodia.

America and her allies cannot simply unconditionally withdraw from Iraq, return all of the troops home, and hope to peacefully negotiate a settlement with Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. America's military has suffered more than 4,000 deaths during the war in Iraq and, as terrible as that may be, a greater tragedy would be for us to lose the war. We must do whatever it takes to win. Bumper stickers and slogans will never lead to peace. Sometimes war is the answer. War is the answer when it results in defeating an enemy which murders innocents with suicide bombings, beheadings, and other acts of terrorism. War is the answer when people can freely elect their representatives, live in peace, and strive to achieve their dreams of happiness.

The Democrats' Bad Investment?

Drew McKissick — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:00:00 -0500

The Democrats have invested in defeat in Iraq. Their political fortunes are tied to it more and more each day. Each day seems to bring a new barrage of speeches or press releases from Democrats, particularly of the leadership and/or “running for President” variety and, with the lone notable exception of Joe Lieberman, they revolve around an end to our involvement in Iraq. They use phrases like “immediate withdrawal”, “timetable for withdrawal”. They claim that the country was duped into going to war in Iraq. That intelligence was misused to promote the war (this being the same intelligence that they had access to).

It is now a matter of record that these are essentially the same Democrats who were entirely in favor of employing the use of force in Iraq. The same Democrats who filled the airwaves with speeches and press releases affirming the danger that Saddam’s regime posed and the importance of preventing him from being able to employ (or make available to terrorist) weapons of mass destruction. The same Democrats who voted overwhelmingly in favor of congressional authorization of the use of force. What changed?

In short, politics. The fact of the matter is that no such operation in such a large, ethnically and religiously complex country could be expected to proceed without a hitch. Or that a country with no history of democratic self-rule could be expected to quickly employ the same while under fire from terrorists. Just as no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, this operation faces a real enemy which must be overwhelmed, not by US military might alone, but by a free Iraqi people. And this is something that will not happen overnight.

While patience is surely a virtue, it’s not a quality that’s always in the greatest supply in our drive-thru consumer culture and twenty-four hour news cycles. Our attention spans are limited and tolerance for a drum beat of the “same old, same old” in the news every day is not well suited dealing with the problems associated with incubating a democracy in the middle of a region of the world more known for terrorism.

This reality has inevitably begun to be reflected in public opinion polls, which has in turn lead to its being reflected in the public position of Democrats looking for political advantage in advance of the 2006 elections. Bad news is the fuel for the opinion, which leads to the polls, which lead to the Democrats’ current position. In other words, they are invested continuing bad news and a defeatist mindset.

They have made a bad investment. If there’s one thing that Americans like less than bad news, it is losing. We have an innate desire to win and we’re an optimistic “can do” people. A fact that has been proven again and again – most recently in the aftermath of September 11^th, 2001.

While the mainstream media has refused to recognize it, much less promote it, we (and the Iraqis) have enjoyed far more successes than setbacks since Saddam’s fall. Most of the country is secure. Commerce is underway. Two free and fair elections have been held. A constitution has been written and adopted and another election for a permanent government will be held next month. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been trained to secure their own country, with thousands more being added to their ranks each month. All of this in the space of less than two years. Hardly a failure.

Further, we’ve seen communications intercepted from terrorist leadership complaining of their lack of success at destabilizing the country and intimidating its citizens from participating in their new democracy. Further, we’ve seen increasing numbers of Iraqi, Jordanian and Muslim opinion in general turn against those who have used violence. It is their country that’s being destroyed, their relatives murdered and their tired of it. More and more they have begun to come forward and share intelligence on where and how the terrorists are operating. They want their country back.

This is key because just as most democracies have had to undergo various types of struggles, political or military, to secure self-government, the Iraqis are facing their struggle. They’re paying the price for their independence and when they’ve succeeded it will be far more valuable to them. They are investing in their future.

In the meantime, Democrats here at home are investing their political fortunes in failure.