Will Obama Be the Last Liberal to Lie for Defeat?

Scrapiron says: 1

Hillary had her ‘I’m a woman’ and the men are picking on me moment.

Hussein had his ‘I’m black’ and Whitey is picking on me moment.

Hussein told the women of the democrat party to get over their PMS moment and get to work for him. That should result iin a painful death.

From what I’ve seen and heard of him he won’t reconize progress in Iraq until someone tells him to. I still say he’s like ‘Howdy Doody’ in looks and brains. Sitting on someone’s knee and they’re pulling the strings.

Does the man make it through a day without telling several major lies?

Hussein O should be burnt toast now, only the goodbye’s left.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

June 22, 2008 at 11:07 pm

BarbaraS says: 2

I find it hard to understand how with all his radical associates, his flip flopping and downright lies he is still a viable candidate. Is this country losing its will? Or have they just lost their minds? In 2004 I was appalled that 55 millon people voted for Kerry. How could there be so many people with no survival instinct in this country? To think that that many people voted for a proven liar and traitor in time of war. A man who falsely trashed his fellow servicemen for political gain. I trruly believe that a great many of the democrats and replublicans also vote for the party and know nothing about the candidate or the platform they represent. They know nothing about the direction their party has taken. Just a bunch of yellow dog followers. Hell, you can go to Fox’s blog and most of the news is about celebrities or other odd people on this planet who have done the oddest things. They and the rest of the media don’t report actual news. They have all become gossip columnists.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

June 23, 2008 at 11:50 am

doug says: 3

Government (GAO) Study Criticizes Bush Administration’s Measures of Progress in Iraq

(NYT) Beyond the declines in overall violence in Iraq, several crucial measures the Bush administration uses to demonstrate economic, political and security progress are either incorrect or far more mixed than the administration has acknowledged, according to a report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office.

Over all, the report says, the American plan for a stable Iraq lacks a strategic framework that meshes with the administration’s goals, is falling out of touch with the realities on the ground and contains serious flaws in its operational guidelines.
…

It appears the ‘New Way Forward’ is limited in scope and focus and ultimately is not capable of delivering on Bush’s stated goals . I’m not done reading the whole thing,
http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/2008/06/GAOSecuring.pdf

but it’s certainly going to be THE conversation piece this week for Iraq wonks.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

June 24, 2008 at 6:36 am

Mike's America says: 4

You mean Iraq defeat wonks Doug! I really do feel sorry for you. You have to work SOOOO much harder these days to find bad news about Iraq that matches your sour defeatist viewpoint.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

June 24, 2008 at 7:40 am

Aye Chihuahua says: 5

Something for the Defeatists among us.

This op-ed was so good it was difficult to not quote the entire thing.

More from the NY Times:

The Bush Paradox
– David Brooks

Let’s go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush.

~~~

Republicans on Capitol Hill were quietly contemptuous of the president while Democrats were loudly so.

Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008.

The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.

When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them. During that period in 2006 and 2007, Bush stiffed the brass and sided with a band of dissidents: military officers like David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and outside strategists like Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Jack Keane, a retired general.

Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.

The additional fact is that Bush, who made such bad calls early in the war, made a courageous and astute decision in 2006. More than a year on, the surge has produced large, if tenuous, gains. Violence is down sharply. Daily life has improved. Iraqi security forces have been given time to become a more effective fighting force. The Iraqi government is showing signs of strength and even glimmers of impartiality. Iraq has moved from being a failed state to, as Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations has put it, merely a fragile one.

The whole episode is a reminder that history is a complicated thing. The traits that lead to disaster in certain circumstances are the very ones that come in handy in others. The people who seem so smart at some moments seem incredibly foolish in others.

The cocksure war supporters learned this humbling lesson during the dark days of 2006. And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility. They have already gone through the stages of intellectual denial. First, they simply disbelieved that the surge and the Petraeus strategy was doing any good. Then they accused people who noticed progress in Iraq of duplicity and derangement. Then they acknowledged military, but not political, progress. Lately they have skipped over to the argument that Iraq is progressing so well that the U.S. forces can quickly come home.

But before long, the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right. Some brave souls might even concede that if the U.S. had withdrawn in the depths of the chaos, the world would be in worse shape today.

Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact.