:lol: The hatred among liberals for a decent man (and fellow liberal) like Joe Lieberman never ceases to amaze me. Lieberman disagrees with the left wing fringe on national security and he gets crucified by Soros and his minions. It would serve the Democratic Party right if Lieberman does switch to the Republican Party next week and announces the immediate release of his life story, including the smears and attacks from the left.

 

I am not a liberal, and I have no hatred for Joe Lieberman. Obama selecting Lieberman to be his running mate makes about as much sense as McCain selecting Chuck Hagel to be his.

 

 

 

News flash: The surge has worked. Polls through "the end of 2007" have no relevancy to the situation in Iraq today. Had Biden's partition plan been implemented, it have caused a deep rift between Turkey and the US and may very well have sparked a large scale Turkish invasion of the Kurdish region. Biden's plan arrogantly disregarded Iraqi wishes and poorly conceived. We are lucky that President Bush adopted McCain's stategy instead of the strategies put forth by Harry "the war is lost" Reid, Jack "redeploy troops to Okinawa" Murtha, or Joe "let's split Iraq" Biden.

 

 

The surge has worked? That's great! That must mean the Iraqis are self sufficient, have resolved their centuries-old political differences, and agree on how to split the oil revenues. Our troops are no longer needed there! Bush and McCain are geniuses! What's that? The Iraqis haven't resolved their political problems? They haven't come to an oil revenue sharing agreement? Our troops can't come home? The surge "worked", so that means our troops can keep staying in Iraq. Smells like success to me.

 

Meanwhile, over in Afghanistan, the legitimate military response to 9/11 continues to be neglected by this incompetent administration...

You want to talk about a horrible candidate, look no further than Gore....

 

He did not a great campain at all in 2000 but one of his biggest mistakes was making Leiberman VP...

He did not a great campain at all in 2000 but one of his biggest mistakes was making Leiberman VP...

Gore/Lieberman carried Joe's home state. How did things go down in the Volunteer State?:lol:

am not a liberal, and I have no hatred for Joe Lieberman. Obama selecting Lieberman to be his running mate makes about as much sense as McCain selecting Chuck Hagel to be his.

You either misread my post or have chosen to mischaracterize it. I said that Lieberman would have made an excellent VP candidate had Soros, MoveOn and the other fringe elements of the Democratic Party not elected to demonize him and forced him to run as an independent. So much for a big tent. Soros is running the Democratic Party with an iron fist. I am sorry to have implied that you are a liberal. I sometimes forget that just because some self-described moderates advocate extremely liberal positions, that they still consider themselves moderates. I am sorry.

 

The surge has worked? That's great! That must mean the Iraqis are self sufficient, have resolved their centuries-old political differences, and agree on how to split the oil revenues. Our troops are no longer needed there! Bush and McCain are geniuses! What's that? The Iraqis haven't resolved their political problems? They haven't come to an oil revenue sharing agreement? Our troops can't come home? The surge "worked", so that means our troops can keep staying in Iraq. Smells like success to me.

 

Meanwhile, over in Afghanistan, the legitimate military response to 9/11 continues to be neglected by this incompetent administration...

Bin Laden disagrees with you - or at least he did before our troops and their Iraqi allies eliminated Al Qaeda-in-Iraq as a serious threat.

 

If you do not want to admit that Harry Reid and John Murtha were wrong to declare defeat in Iraq or that Biden's idea of partitioning Iraq was wrong, then that's fine with me. You are among a shrinking minority of Americans who do not believe that the surge that John McCain advocated is working, so please continue to ridicule a winning strategy. :lol:

Gore/Lieberman carried Joe's home state. How did things go down in the Volunteer State?:lol:

 

Ouch...!

Gore/Lieberman carried Joe's home state. How did things go down in the Volunteer State?:lol:

:lol: Take that with ya...

Bin Laden disagrees with you - or at least he did before our troops and their Iraqi allies eliminated Al Qaeda-in-Iraq as a serious threat.

 

Yeah, great strategy we have--let some fool on a grainy videotape provoke us into wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq fighting an enemy that wasn't even there before we invaded. I'm surprised backers of the inaccurately-named War on Terror still have the gall to mention Bin Laden's name. It only serves to underscore the humiliating failure of Bush/McCain 'leadership'.

 

 

 

If you do not want to admit that Harry Reid and John Murtha were wrong to declare defeat in Iraq or that Biden's idea of partitioning Iraq was wrong, then that's fine with me. You are among a shrinking minority of Americans who do not believe that the surge that John McCain advocated is working, so please continue to ridicule a winning strategy. :lol:

 

 

Have we won? Can we leave? Are the Iraqis ready to stand on their own two feet? If the answers are no, not yet, or we need more time, the surge was just a repackaged version of the same old, misguided playbook from the Bush White House: apply military force to address fundamental political problems. It's a little like trying to use a hammer to install a screw--wrong tool, poor results (duh!). On this issue at least, McCain appears to be cast from the same defective mold. If a Democratic president had misused the military as egregiously as this administration has, the howls of protest from the right would be deafening.

Yeah, great strategy we have--let some fool on a grainy videotape provoke us into wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq fighting an enemy that wasn't even there before we invaded. I'm surprised backers of the inaccurately-named War on Terror still have the gall to mention Bin Laden's name. It only serves to underscore the humiliating failure of Bush/McCain 'leadership'.

 

Have we won? Can we leave? Are the Iraqis ready to stand on their own two feet? If the answers are no, not yet, or we need more time, the surge was just a repackaged version of the same old, misguided playbook from the Bush White House: apply military force to address fundamental political problems. It's a little like trying to use a hammer to install a screw--wrong tool, poor results (duh!). On this issue at least, McCain appears to be cast from the same defective mold. If a Democratic president had misused the military as egregiously as this administration has, the howls of protest from the right would be deafening.

As I have said, if you do not want to acknowledge the gains made during the surge, including the sharp decline in violence, that is your business. I am guessing moderates such as yourself may be singing a different tune if Obama wins the White House. No president wants to go down in history as the man who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with so much at stake.

It only serves to underscore the humiliating failure of Bush/McCain 'leadership'.

I love it when the Democratic operatives try the old "tie 'em together" trick. :lol: Unfortunately, this election has to be the least credible situation to attempt such desperate tactics.

 

 

Have we won? Can we leave? Are the Iraqis ready to stand on their own two feet? If the answers are no, not yet, or we need more time, the surge was just a repackaged version of the same old, misguided playbook from the Bush White House...

Had we won World War II after our overwhelming victory at the Battle of Midway? Had we won the Civil War after Gettysburg? Had we won The War of 1812 after the smoke cleared at Fort McHenry? Had we won after the British crumbled at The Battle of Saratoga? Could the Continental Army leave and go back to their farms? Were the colonies ready to stand on their own two feet?

 

The answer is "no" in every case. And the reason is the same...because the job was not yet finished.

As I have said, if you do not want to acknowledge the gains made during the surge, including the sharp decline in violence, that is your business. I am guessing moderates such as yourself may be singing a different tune if Obama wins the White House. No president wants to go down in history as the man who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with so much at stake.

 

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to credit the surge with the decline in violence. The so-called Anbar awakening began several months before the surge was even announced. Don't worry, McCain got this little timing detail wrong, too. But the real evidence of distortion in the surge's effectiveness comes from none other than the Iraqi people themselves. According to a September 2007 ABC/BBC poll of Iraqis, 70% of Iraqis believe the surge strategy has made Iraq's security situation worse. This was the opinion of the people living in Iraq smack dab in the middle of the surge! In another ABCNews/BBC poll taken in February 2008 61% of Iraqis said that the presence of US forces makes security worse in Iraq. Only 27% said they improve it. The Iraqi government (supposedly the voice of the people you claimed to revere earlier) want our forces out as soon as possible. That doesn't exactly sound like a vote of confidence for the surge, does it?

 

Who are you going to believe? A Republican party eager to spin its dismal policy failures into some sort of positive in an election year or the people who live there? Never mind, I already know the answer to that one. :lol:

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to credit the surge with the decline in violence. The so-called Anbar awakening began several months before the surge was even announced. Don't worry, McCain got this little timing detail wrong, too. But the real evidence of distortion in the surge's effectiveness comes from none other than the Iraqi people themselves. According to a September 2007 ABC/BBC poll of Iraqis, 70% of Iraqis believe the surge strategy has made Iraq's security situation worse. This was the opinion of the people living in Iraq smack dab in the middle of the surge! In another ABCNews/BBC poll taken in February 2008 61% of Iraqis said that the presence of US forces makes security worse in Iraq. Only 27% said they improve it. The Iraqi government (supposedly the voice of the people you claimed to revere earlier) want our forces out as soon as possible. That doesn't exactly sound like a vote of confidence for the surge, does it?

 

Who are you going to believe? A Republican party eager to spin its dismal policy failures into some sort of positive in an election year or the people who live there? Never mind, I already know the answer to that one. :lol:

This sounds a lot like Obama's statement that nobody could say for sure that things would not have gotten better in Iraq with or without the surge. It sounded ridiculous when Obama made the claim and it sounds no less ridiculous when his supporters repeat the theory.

 

Polls show that Americans believe McCain would be a better Commander-in-Chief by a very wide margin, and that is unlikely to change. Biden is no foreign policy genius himself and even if he was, Obama has zero foreign policy background. Even if Biden had not been wrong on Iraq, Obama was wrong about the surge and he is the man running for president.

 

Speaking of polls, you seem conflicted on Iraqi polls. Iraqis' democratically elected government strongly opposed the Biden plan to partition the country and yet you defend Biden's proposal to infringe upon Iraqi sovereignty. Now, Iraqi opinions suddenly matter to you. Of course, things are much better in Iraq now than they were when the old poll numbers that you cite were compiled.

 

Obama and his supporters would be better off addressing the Iraq War issue the same way that Obama addressed McCain's challenge to 10 town hall debates. Duck! Run! Change the subject! :lol:

This sounds a lot like Obama's statement that nobody could say for sure that things would not have gotten better in Iraq with or without the surge. It sounded ridiculous when Obama made the claim and it sounds no less ridiculous when his supporters repeat the theory.

 

Polls show that Americans believe McCain would be a better Commander-in-Chief by a very wide margin, and that is unlikely to change. Biden is no foreign policy genius himself and even if he was, Obama has zero foreign policy background. Even if Biden had not been wrong on Iraq, Obama was wrong about the surge and he is the man running for president.

 

Speaking of polls, you seem conflicted on Iraqi polls. Iraqis' democratically elected government strongly opposed the Biden plan to partition the country and yet you defend Biden's proposal to infringe upon Iraqi sovereignty. Now, Iraqi opinions suddenly matter to you. Of course, things are much better in Iraq now than they were when the old poll numbers that you cite were compiled.

 

Obama and his supporters would be better off addressing the Iraq War issue the same way that Obama addressed McCain's challenge to 10 town hall debates. Duck! Run! Change the subject! :lol:

 

 

You didn't address the fact that the people who live in Iraq apparently don't think the surge worked as advertised. What's up with that?

I'm a Democrat and actually thought that Obama had a chance to win until he picked Biden. Why pick someone who has had two unsuccessful runs for President? If he really wanted to get in the White House, he should have picked Hillary. I question his intelligence by picking Biden. He probably won't win the election (popularity has been declining in recent polls) and this will assure Hillary the nomination in four years. Maybe her and Caroline Kennedy will run as a team.

You didn't address the fact that the people who live in Iraq apparently don't think the surge worked as advertised. What's up with that?

You cherry picked some 7-month old poll results to make your case. What's up with that?

 

If ABC, et al. is not afraid of hurting Obama's chances of winning the election, perhaps they will release new poll results this month. You might have noticed that the liberal mainstream media has been reluctant to report good news from Iraq to avoid unfairly influencing voters who might be more inclined to vote for Senator McCain.

 

However, the February poll does not paint nearly as bleak a picture of the surge as you and Senator Obama do.

 

A new poll of 2,200 Iraqis conducted by ABC News, the BBC, ARD German TV and the Japanese broadcaster NHK shows much improved attitudes across virtually every aspect of life in Iraq - though perhaps especially on the security front.

 

Here's just one snapshot of how things compared to the last survey in August:

 

 

I thought that it was interesting that an overwhelming number of Iraqis see a continuing role for the US military.

 

Moreover, despite their antipathy, big majorities see a continued role for the United States. From two-thirds to 80 percent of Iraqis support future U.S. efforts conducting security operations against al Qaeda or foreign jihadis in Iraq; providing military training, weapons and reconstruction aid; and assisting in security vis-à-vis Iran and Turkey. The most popular of these is a U.S. role confronting al Qaeda.

 

Future role for U.S	% support
Security vs. al Qaeda in Iraq	80%
Training/weapons for Iraqi army	76
Reconstruction aid	73
Security vs. Iran	68
Security vs. Turkey	66

 

Americans long have been conflicted about the war: Broadly unhappy with its costs in human and material terms alike, yet torn on how and when best to leave Iraq in a tenable condition. Iraqis, it turns out, are equally conflicted on these issues.

 

THE SURGE – On a national level, as noted, 36 percent of Iraqis say security has improved in the last six months; that’s jumped from just 11 percent in August. Of them, 82 percent express at least some confidence improved security will continue, although fewer, about a third, are “very” confident of it.

 

Like Obama and other leftist Democrats, most Iraqis credit the Iraq's government for the improving conditions instead of US troops. In the case of the Iraqis, I attribute their opinion to national pride. As for Obama and other Americans who are reluctant to give credit to their own troops for the progress in Iraq, I find it quite disturbing. It suggests a win at any cost mentality that was underscored by Harry Reid's announcement that the war was lost more than a year ago.

 

McCain is right, Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election.

You cherry picked some 7-month old poll results to make your case. What's up with that?

 

 

Very simple answer to your question. No cherry picking. I referenced two polls conducted solidly in the middle of the surge to test your premise. If the surge was indeed the root cause of the drop in violence, as claimed by McCain, you would expect the people living in Iraq would recognize it and polls would show agreement. The first poll was taken in September 2007 eight months into the surge, the second was taken in February 2008, one full year into the surge. If the surge was indeed having the effect you claim, the polling data would support. There's nothing wrong with the polling data or the timing. What doesn't fit is your premise. I realize that being confronted with data that directly contradicts a hallowed tenet might be embarrassing for you.

 

As for the graph you reference, please show me the poll data in which the Iraqi citizens directly attribute the improvements in quality of life and security to the surge. If you can't, the graph is irrelevant to your argument.

 

As to the other data regarding the desired role of U.S. troops to hunt down Al Qaeda, that is perfectly aligned with Obama's plan for Iraq:

 

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

 

Try as you might to portray otherwise, there's no story there.

 

 

 

Like Obama and other leftist Democrats, most Iraqis credit the Iraq's government for the improving conditions instead of US troops. In the case of the Iraqis, I attribute their opinion to national pride. As for Obama and other Americans who are reluctant to give credit to their own troops for the progress in Iraq, I find it quite disturbing. It suggests a win at any cost mentality that was underscored by Harry Reid's announcement that the war was lost more than a year ago.

 

More attacks on patriotism that do not warrant a response. What I find disturbing is the willingness, indeed eagerness, to embrace a destabilizing, economically burdensome, and ultimately completely ineffective war of choice.

 

 

 

McCain is right, Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election.

 

Obama is not going to lose any war. The war in Iraq is over. What we are engaged in now is perpetual nation-building and international policing--roles the military was not built for. The real War Against Terror is and always has been in Afghanistan, the red haired step child of GOP foreign policy.